Reply to Fred on USR/DOT thread

BadBob wrote:

because you are provoking the insecurities of bureaucrats that live a philosophy of CYA

I have first hand experience that cost me years of struggle and ultimately intercession by the White House before I had a rather straightforward situation resolved, precisely because of perceived irregularities

anything suggested to be not in the usual case is subjected to delays while it is passed around for someone else to take responsibility for the decision, or worse, just rejected altogether

- iz

RayDunak> Jerry Irv> at the same time often complains about people turning "informant" on him. If he

And this would be different from what John Cato did, how?

Bob

So, what were the results of the major investigation?

Phil Ste>>

Phil Stein

How does it not?

You seem to be about to get your wish. NAR predident Bundick is the next in line to do so. About the 20th person.

And his motivation?

My reply to him that NAR internally ruling that ACS motors are DOT 1.1 and not accessable for certification is in error.

My reply included another copy of the paper submitted to NAR before, showing 1.3C. So instead of reversing the libelous and commercially harmful NAR BOT 1.1 vote, as requested (which he did NOT do), he contacts the DOT to see if the 1.3 paperwork is valid.

This is a paper that is valid on its face and lodges with the vendor NOT with the DOT at least in 1986 when it was issued with no expiration date.

Jerry

From what I can gather, listening to Jerry, nothing....

Fred

Phil Ste> So, what were the results of the major investigation?

The DOT told you they were not valid.

You are going to provide proof of this, aren't you!!!!

Bob

Ask the DOT and they will tell you. Would that be proof enough?

How would you feel if your neighbors kept calling the cops about you, such that they considered themselves to be "procedurally obligated to come investigate the complaint", even if you weren't actually doing anything criminal?

-dave w

No, you levied the accusation, so obviously, you were there or have some documentation in your hand to backup your claim. I wouldn't call the DOT at this point for anything. Let them concentrate on other things and ignore us.

Bob

If there were any truth to this he would cheerfully reply to me privately in email to the requests I have made.

BUT

Let's assume for a moment it is 100% true!

1. The test report never expires for the material tested. It could be reissued.

1. The many other EX numbers still exist (they were not revoked) and I could simply whip out any one of them.

My problem is NOT with DOT or ATF or FAA or CPSC or any other alphabet government agency.

My problen is with NAR and TRA who ignore the existing rules of those agencies and their own rules when refusing to certify motors.

This is an INTERNAL industry problem from my perspective.

1. 1.3C is the DEFAULT hazard class for the material.

Jerry claims he has like 50 EX numbers, so i guess he will have to prove it.

And of course I posted the exact method (special master) I would agree to do so that would not disclose things some OEM's do not want disclosed.

Jerry

You mean things YOU do not want disclosed.

Certainly NOT to ananonymous troll on USENET!

Cato wouldn't accept verification from any source, including a state fire marshal and the insurance company issuing the policy. (just to name two examples). He set himself up as sole AHJ.

Did the DOT say it was valid? If not, your problem is with them, not NAR.

If this is true the DOT would say so. Did they?

Ray,

If this is your claim of how government offices work, you've obviously never had to deal with any...

My wife is an immigrant. We went through pure hell with INS trying to get her naturalization, etc. (BTW, it was through a work visa originally, before we got married, but was taking so long that we switched over to the 'married' visa variety). If I put INS instead of the DOT, then my answer is that there is no way on God's green earth that you would get the kind of 'statement' that you're looking for. As Jerry says, this type of document is useful on its face, and unless you can find something published in a legal journal (such as the federal register) or some such, it REMAINS legal. You're asking Jerry to prove a negative, which isn't possible. If you believe that it has been reversed/removed, please CITE (specifically) in what legal journal it was published, and when. If not, you are simply creating trouble and pushing the hobby BACKWARDS.

David Erbas-White