The following message came across the NAR Section User's Group on Fri., Feb 14, 2003:
******************************
JOINT STATEMENT ON BATFE LITIGATION AND ACTIONS
FEBRUARY 14, 2003
On February 8, 2003, the NAR and TRA Boards met with counsel in Arlington, VA. After that discussion with counsel, the two Boards then caucused informally to discuss BATFE and other regulatory issues. This joint statement will summarize the results of that meeting and outline tentative action and follow-up plans.
Our thanks to NAR Vice President Trip Barber for his work in arranging our local hotel and meeting facilities, and to Joe Egan, John Lawrence and John Kyte for spending time with our Boards.
Legislative Action
We were aware, prior to our joint meeting, of the efforts of the ARSA and John Wickman to secure legislative relief on sport rocket issues. We applaud this initiative, and wish ARSA and John success in their effort. Our initial attempts to work with ARSA have been rebuffed, but we continue to be open to cooperation with other parties as we collectively work towards an unregulated sport rocket hobby.
We believe our Associations:
(a) have a significant interest in the outcome of any legislation affecting sport rocketry;
(b) have positive ideas and resources to contribute which would strengthen, not weaken the strategy as best we understand it today, and
(c ) are prepared to commit the full resources of both TRA and NAR to push towards successful legislative outcome.
We continue to be open to cooperation with other parties as we collectively work towards an unregulated sport rocket hobby. Again, members are invited to contact us and offer suggestions how we can more effectively make that cooperative effort happen. We welcome all input, whether that is to do something, do nothing or something else in between.
In the meantime, members should respond to requests for support in whatever manner they feel is appropriate. We do not have the detailed background on proposed solutions, parties involved, or the precise nature of administrative or legislative strategies being proposed by these groups. We wish those working in other ways to secure an unregulated sport rocket hobby the best of luck and success.
We believe the BATFE's NPRM issuance is not an isolated event, but represents their attempt, regardless of the outcome of our litigation or other legislative effort, to continue the illegal and unnecessary regulation of the sport rocket hobby.
Counsel advised us in Washington, that while the ARSA effort might be a good start, significantly more effort would be required to have success on Capitol Hill, based on their 15+ years of experience developing legislative campaigns. Counsel has direct, personal contacts with the appropriate chairs of committees in both the House and Senate, and with the White House. We have begun negotiations with John Kyte's firm to provide consulting
and support for a long-term legislative solution to our issues, and will have additional information for member action on our legislative efforts later in the spring.
Litigation Status and Summary
We are waiting for a scheduled date for a requested hearing on summary judgment motions. BATFE did not oppose our request for this hearing; however, the federal DC court system is extremely busy right now with many cases, both civil and criminal, backlogged. Counsel advised that we have no way to accelerate the scheduling process and must wait on and be patient with the court. Reviewing our case details with counsel, we continue to believe we have a strong case.
What are the possible outcomes of this pending hearing?
We could win all counts, lose all counts, or receive some mixture of wins and losses. Any outcome would be carefully reviewed with counsel, and only then would we determine next steps. For those counts lost, we would have the option to appeal; BATFE would have an equal right to appeal on any lost counts on their part. Either party must indicate their desire to appeal within
60 days of the date of the ruling. Any BATFE appeal would have to be supported by the Solicitor General's office, and cannot be brought based on a BATFE desire or recommendation alone. If neither party's request for summary judgment were granted, the case would proceed to the trial phase.
We are fully aware that members are anxious about the status of the case, and we appreciate that waiting without any apparent progress is difficult for you. As we have done in the past, we can only advise you to be patient with the pace of an overburdened court system. As soon as we have news on a hearing schedule or
a ruling from the court, we'll report it to our members.
Notice of Proposed Rule Making
On January 29, 2003, BATFE issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). After filing the NPRM, BATFE amended the filing on February 13, 2003. You can find the complete text of the NPRM and the amendment by visiting:
https://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
and searching for both the January 29, 2003 and February 13, 2003 listing using the term "explosive"
The NPRM proposes changes to 27 CFR Section 55.141 (a) 7, Exemptions, which will affect sport rocket motors. Boards and counsel are analyzing the NPRM for an appropriate response. While we already have an extensive list of substantive objections to the NPRM, we need your help in finishing our analysis.
For the next few weeks, we recommend you simply read the entire NPRM and think about possible responses. We would welcome inputs directly from members on suggested ways to respond to the NPRM. Please email us directly
([email protected] and [email protected]) with your comments so we may forward them to counsel for inclusion in our analysis. We welcome input on the NPRM with your observations and suggested responses.
It's important to keep these concepts in mind when thinking about responses:
1. Any unforeseen or adverse effects of the proposed regulation should be outlined for review by the proposing agency; these unforeseen consequences are critical to any change in the final rule.
2. Personal experience is acceptable as input when explaining those potential pathological effects.
3. Point out where existing regulation covers the same situations or circumstances as the proposed rules.
4. The proposing agency must, by law, address all substantive comments regarding proposed rules. Therefore, provide input in a clear, polite manner. Expressing opinions about the agency, the manner in which it operates or how its staff may
be acting in the field is not considered legally relevant input on the NPRM. Only comments directly related to the
proposed rules will count toward changing or stopping the regulation, and the agency must respond to all such comments received or face possible legal consequences.
After our analysis and review with counsel is done, we'll outline suggested items for response by you, the membership of TRA and NAR, along with all the administrative details for members to make a legal and effective response. We expect to have this outline of suggested ideas ready not later than March 1,
2003. This will leave members roughly 7 weeks to write, and
respond to the NPRM.
Since the responses you submit are subject to public inspection, we recommend waiting to send any response until shortly before the deadline. Remember that the deadline is a "receipt" deadline, not a postmarked deadline. For you to be certain that your comments count, they must arrive at BATFE before April 29, 2003.
Formal responses will be filed on behalf of both Associations.
Closing Summary
Our judicial and legislative efforts are extensive, ongoing, and not
inexpensive. We estimate the total cost of litigation and legislative expenses for both associations to be approximately $100,000 for 2003. Your contributions are absolutely essential for our effort to succeed. You can do so easily by making donations online to the legal fund by visiting:
https://secure.consumersinterest.com/nar/NARfrompres9911.html#donorform
You can also contribute by mail by making out your checks to either the "NAR Legal Fund" or the "TRA Legal Fund" and mailing them to:
NAR Legal Fund
National Association of Rocketry
PO Box 172
Altoona, WI 54720
Tripoli Legal Fund
Tripoli Rocketry Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 970010
Orem, UT 84097-0010
An anonymous donor has established a challenge donation program. For every donation made to the NAR legal fund between now and May 31, 2003, this generous NAR member will match, dollar for dollar, your donations, up to a maximum of $3,000. We urge you to make a donation to either Legal Fund today, in whatever amount you possibly can contribute. Your support and
generosity will be recognized and acknowledged, and you'll be able to say, "I supported the fight for an unregulated sport rocket hobby."
As we have further developments, we'll report them here and in our publications as soon as possible. Thanks again for your continued support and patience.
Mark Bundick, President
National Association of Rocketry
Dick Embry, President
Tripoli Rocketry Association
******************************
JOINT STATEMENT ON BATFE LITIGATION AND ACTIONS
FEBRUARY 14, 2003
On February 8, 2003, the NAR and TRA Boards met with counsel in Arlington, VA. After that discussion with counsel, the two Boards then caucused informally to discuss BATFE and other regulatory issues. This joint statement will summarize the results of that meeting and outline tentative action and follow-up plans.
Our thanks to NAR Vice President Trip Barber for his work in arranging our local hotel and meeting facilities, and to Joe Egan, John Lawrence and John Kyte for spending time with our Boards.
Legislative Action
We were aware, prior to our joint meeting, of the efforts of the ARSA and John Wickman to secure legislative relief on sport rocket issues. We applaud this initiative, and wish ARSA and John success in their effort. Our initial attempts to work with ARSA have been rebuffed, but we continue to be open to cooperation with other parties as we collectively work towards an unregulated sport rocket hobby.
We believe our Associations:
(a) have a significant interest in the outcome of any legislation affecting sport rocketry;
(b) have positive ideas and resources to contribute which would strengthen, not weaken the strategy as best we understand it today, and
(c ) are prepared to commit the full resources of both TRA and NAR to push towards successful legislative outcome.
We continue to be open to cooperation with other parties as we collectively work towards an unregulated sport rocket hobby. Again, members are invited to contact us and offer suggestions how we can more effectively make that cooperative effort happen. We welcome all input, whether that is to do something, do nothing or something else in between.
In the meantime, members should respond to requests for support in whatever manner they feel is appropriate. We do not have the detailed background on proposed solutions, parties involved, or the precise nature of administrative or legislative strategies being proposed by these groups. We wish those working in other ways to secure an unregulated sport rocket hobby the best of luck and success.
We believe the BATFE's NPRM issuance is not an isolated event, but represents their attempt, regardless of the outcome of our litigation or other legislative effort, to continue the illegal and unnecessary regulation of the sport rocket hobby.
Counsel advised us in Washington, that while the ARSA effort might be a good start, significantly more effort would be required to have success on Capitol Hill, based on their 15+ years of experience developing legislative campaigns. Counsel has direct, personal contacts with the appropriate chairs of committees in both the House and Senate, and with the White House. We have begun negotiations with John Kyte's firm to provide consulting
and support for a long-term legislative solution to our issues, and will have additional information for member action on our legislative efforts later in the spring.
Litigation Status and Summary
We are waiting for a scheduled date for a requested hearing on summary judgment motions. BATFE did not oppose our request for this hearing; however, the federal DC court system is extremely busy right now with many cases, both civil and criminal, backlogged. Counsel advised that we have no way to accelerate the scheduling process and must wait on and be patient with the court. Reviewing our case details with counsel, we continue to believe we have a strong case.
What are the possible outcomes of this pending hearing?
We could win all counts, lose all counts, or receive some mixture of wins and losses. Any outcome would be carefully reviewed with counsel, and only then would we determine next steps. For those counts lost, we would have the option to appeal; BATFE would have an equal right to appeal on any lost counts on their part. Either party must indicate their desire to appeal within
60 days of the date of the ruling. Any BATFE appeal would have to be supported by the Solicitor General's office, and cannot be brought based on a BATFE desire or recommendation alone. If neither party's request for summary judgment were granted, the case would proceed to the trial phase.
We are fully aware that members are anxious about the status of the case, and we appreciate that waiting without any apparent progress is difficult for you. As we have done in the past, we can only advise you to be patient with the pace of an overburdened court system. As soon as we have news on a hearing schedule or
a ruling from the court, we'll report it to our members.
Notice of Proposed Rule Making
On January 29, 2003, BATFE issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). After filing the NPRM, BATFE amended the filing on February 13, 2003. You can find the complete text of the NPRM and the amendment by visiting:
https://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
and searching for both the January 29, 2003 and February 13, 2003 listing using the term "explosive"
The NPRM proposes changes to 27 CFR Section 55.141 (a) 7, Exemptions, which will affect sport rocket motors. Boards and counsel are analyzing the NPRM for an appropriate response. While we already have an extensive list of substantive objections to the NPRM, we need your help in finishing our analysis.
For the next few weeks, we recommend you simply read the entire NPRM and think about possible responses. We would welcome inputs directly from members on suggested ways to respond to the NPRM. Please email us directly
([email protected] and [email protected]) with your comments so we may forward them to counsel for inclusion in our analysis. We welcome input on the NPRM with your observations and suggested responses.
It's important to keep these concepts in mind when thinking about responses:
1. Any unforeseen or adverse effects of the proposed regulation should be outlined for review by the proposing agency; these unforeseen consequences are critical to any change in the final rule.
2. Personal experience is acceptable as input when explaining those potential pathological effects.
3. Point out where existing regulation covers the same situations or circumstances as the proposed rules.
4. The proposing agency must, by law, address all substantive comments regarding proposed rules. Therefore, provide input in a clear, polite manner. Expressing opinions about the agency, the manner in which it operates or how its staff may
be acting in the field is not considered legally relevant input on the NPRM. Only comments directly related to the
proposed rules will count toward changing or stopping the regulation, and the agency must respond to all such comments received or face possible legal consequences.
After our analysis and review with counsel is done, we'll outline suggested items for response by you, the membership of TRA and NAR, along with all the administrative details for members to make a legal and effective response. We expect to have this outline of suggested ideas ready not later than March 1,
2003. This will leave members roughly 7 weeks to write, and
respond to the NPRM.
Since the responses you submit are subject to public inspection, we recommend waiting to send any response until shortly before the deadline. Remember that the deadline is a "receipt" deadline, not a postmarked deadline. For you to be certain that your comments count, they must arrive at BATFE before April 29, 2003.
Formal responses will be filed on behalf of both Associations.
Closing Summary
Our judicial and legislative efforts are extensive, ongoing, and not
inexpensive. We estimate the total cost of litigation and legislative expenses for both associations to be approximately $100,000 for 2003. Your contributions are absolutely essential for our effort to succeed. You can do so easily by making donations online to the legal fund by visiting:
https://secure.consumersinterest.com/nar/NARfrompres9911.html#donorform
You can also contribute by mail by making out your checks to either the "NAR Legal Fund" or the "TRA Legal Fund" and mailing them to:
NAR Legal Fund
National Association of Rocketry
PO Box 172
Altoona, WI 54720
Tripoli Legal Fund
Tripoli Rocketry Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 970010
Orem, UT 84097-0010
An anonymous donor has established a challenge donation program. For every donation made to the NAR legal fund between now and May 31, 2003, this generous NAR member will match, dollar for dollar, your donations, up to a maximum of $3,000. We urge you to make a donation to either Legal Fund today, in whatever amount you possibly can contribute. Your support and
generosity will be recognized and acknowledged, and you'll be able to say, "I supported the fight for an unregulated sport rocket hobby."
As we have further developments, we'll report them here and in our publications as soon as possible. Thanks again for your continued support and patience.
Mark Bundick, President
National Association of Rocketry
Dick Embry, President
Tripoli Rocketry Association
