Wouldn't this be a good time for negotiations with the BATFE?

alan; excellent analysis....

The BATFE has been hell bent on creating a 62.5 g limitation and they are about to succeed with NPRM 968....As soon as NPRM 968 goes into effect, the Judge will rule on our last 2 counts as being MOOT..... The BATFE said APCP was an explosive and it will require a LEUP and they won....The BATFE now wants a 62.5g limitation to the PAD exemption.....they will also succeed here....

Does anybody see a pattern developing here? BATFE 4 NAR/TRA 1

Folks we need a serious reality check here......

I don't think that any negotiation at this time would be fruitful. The BATFE has us back on our heels and they will just keep pushing until we fall over the cliff..... Why would they even consider a negotiated settlement of any sorts at this time?

I don't agree that HPR will die though... It will just require a person to have a LEUP as the cost of membership..... and alot if not most NAR/TRA members have already moved or are moving in that direction now and for those for whatever reasons decide not to get a LEUP, there is always the helper or sponsor route.... We just need to take advanatge of what the regulations allow us to do and get on with building and flying HPR...

shockie B)

This is what the BATFE said (in the Federal Register) on 24 August 1998:

"As an alternative to the fee increase, this group proposed that ATF designate a special type of hobby permit for exclusive use by high power model rocket hobbyists which would have a lower fee than that proposed by Notice No. 841. In response to these and other similar comments, ATF will propose in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking to create a separate definition and a lower permit fee for all ``hobbyists'' who receive, transport or ship low explosive materials in the pursuit of recreational or sporting activities."

Have you seen he BATFE propose a special permit for the rocket hobby since then?

They claimed that they were go > If we propose an alternative that keeps the BATFE in the loop even to a > MINOR degree, they may be willing to listen. The point is to start a > DIALOGUE, and then to keep it going for as long as it takes. No battle > was ever won by the side that quit the field. >

and he SCORES!!!!!!!!!!!

excellent point David...

shockie B)

The NPRM is flawed and will be blocked by legal challenges if the JBGTs attempt to illegally implement it. They've been sitting on it for almost a year now since the comment period ended. We burried them real good.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

bob: what makes the NPRM "flawed" in your estimation?

shockie B)

Never.

After your "Master" proposal for AT was laughed out of court, the judge could hardly contain the cout room, so I hear..

Fred

You hear wrongly.

David Schultz wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net:

You know, I DID see this proposal. You know what I didn't see: a response from the NAR/TRA. I went and looked back through all the magazines and newsletters and e-mails I have and couldn't find anything. The reason the BATFE didn't do anything is probably because they didn't hear from US. They just made a proposal. If we didn't show any interest, why would they continue?

Just another case of NAR/TRA missing out on an opportunity to do something positive. From the looks of it, the proposed permit would have been much better than the current situation. Not ideal, but better.

We ought to see if they would still be willing to do it.

Really, I heard the hehe snickers were audible, throughout the court room. BTW how is the feds treating you jerry????

Fred

That was not a proposal. It was a final rule on changing permit fees. This particular paragraph was in response to the hundreds of comments from the rocket community.

The ATF said that they would create a seperate permit class for hobbiests. Not that they would think about it, consider it, or any other variation of weasel words.

They lied. It appears to be in this notice just so that the ATF can say that they considered the comments.

Until the ATF publishes a notice of proposed rule making on a new permit class, we cannot comment on it. We could petition for them to establish a new permit class. But what good would that do? They have already said that they were going to do it. Would it make you happy to hear them say that again? Would you believe them?

What penalties are there for printing something like this in the Federal Register and then not following up on it? I suspect that there are none. At worst a slap on the wrist if some congress critter notices. And cares.

I would write Senator Cornyn about this but the last time I did that the letter I received in response talked about judical appointments. Which was not the topic of my letter. I wrote to ask what penalties there were to the ATF for failing to follow the law with respect to publishing the list of explosives. No evidence of even a slap on the wrist to the ATF. Although they did finally publish the list.

Jeff Richards> You know, I DID see this proposal. You know what I didn't see: a response

You're jumping to conclusions.

Makes you sit and wonder what TRAs response regarding retention of certifications and business as usual after the AT transfer of ownership would have been if Jerry HAD bought the company at the bankrupcy. Any one think it would have been handled the same way?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Of course. But the problem is, it would sure put Jerry in a bind. On the one hand, if Jerry bought the company he'd tried to do that same old shell game, claiming he's not the real owner but just a "consultant" for some unidentified mystery owner. Then AT would be in the same boat as USR, certification-wise.

On the other hand, if he admitted ownership of it, he'd no longer be able to hide those assets from his creditors.

High five's all around Ray.

Fred

With his track record, I'm sure there would of been some discretionary decisions made..(:-) What else could you expect??

Fred

You mean from this?

I didn't see a proposed rule published in the Federal Register. Until such a rule is proposed, the NAR can't comment on it. Despite repeated attempts, no one from the BATFE has contacted any NAR officer or Board member to discuss possible proposals of any sort.

Federal law actually requires agencies who propose rules to follow particular protocol and procedure per the legal requirements in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Until they comply with the law, the public and interested parties, like the NAR, can't respond.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org

"A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but high above the quiet streets on the twelfth floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye."