"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."
- Court order FEDERAL COURT 19 March 2004 Part 2
Congrats - you found it. Did you find the part about how the ATF has the right to make it a non PAD if they NPRM? How about the fact that they intend to do an NPRM on PADs soon?
The judgment we got, does not authorize jerry to violate federal law and deliberately mislabel and ship rocket motors as "model aircraft parts".
Don't you think the DOT has the phone number of the BATFE?
Who's fault is it that YOU labeled a shipment of rocket motors as, "model aircraft parts"?
I'll take that as a "NO".
Fred
The allegation was where I "blamed someone else".
Try to keep up. I know it is hard for you.
Mindreader?
I have never seen such a thing.
your cite doesn't mention anything about legally shipping motors as "model aircraft parts", please post the cite.
The point is that the shipment of propellant actuated devices is outside the jurisdiction of the BATF, as are matters dealing with the safety of such materials in shipment. (Both by explicit, codified exemption.) Any violations would have been of DOT regs, not BATF ones.
(Besides, I don't think DOT likes BATF very much.)
-dave w
Point!
Do you have new insinuations to share with us Fred?
-dave w
:) Key word, "insinuations".
I'm not the one who can't answer the question. You do understand the question don't you?
Try this one.
Why did jerry irvine label and ship over two hundred pounds of rocket motors as, "model aircraft parts"?
NPRM isn't a slam-dunk... even the "easy" ones can take years... the one extending the regulations on refrigerant recovery to the new "ozone safe" refrigerants just recently (this year) went into effect - the original Notice went out in 1998, and I don't think there was actually much opposition: if enough folks put in comments to establish a useful scope of topics for a potential court challenge (for example, to argue that the rule is inconsistent with the intent of the enabling legislation), things could really be stretched out a bit: a window of opportunity to establish a robust body of field practice under the presently-affirmed exemption. (In this hypothetical court challenge to the postulated future regulation, we would want to be sure that the BATF didn't have any room to claim that the issue was moot because "everyone is already signing up for permits anyway", now would we?)
The fact that the judge called for a follow-up hearing on this issue suggests that he might be willing to entertain such challenges even before the initial "notice/comment/publication" process has run its course.
(This isn't about Jerry and DOT, it's about the judge, BATF, and the rest of us...)
-dave w
This should be in the FAQ.
Because they are.
I don't do insinuations; just speculation based on good intel. Back under your bridge..
Fred
Fred
What's those words Paul Harvey uses? Something like, "stand by for news". :)
You've blamed Fred for your DOT bust. You blame TRA/NAR for your own refusal to meet the same cert standards as every other manufacturer. You blame some mythical TRA anti-Jerry conspiracy for having your certs pulled after you were caught backdating new motors. You blamed Chuck Rogers and others for your inaccurate waiver claims.
The list goes on and on.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.