NPRM 968 Comments needed

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by Mark B. Bundic » Fri, 30 May 2003 11:26:27



On Wed, 28 May 2003 08:12:28 -0500, Eric Growden

Quote:

>I find it significant that the number of responses to some rule change
>where the ATFE controls the official 'count' would be considered by our
>Senators as more significant than direct feedback to their offices.


        "Significant opposition to the proposed rulemaking is critical
         and supports  BOTH our legislative and legal actions.  "

I don't profess how this stuff works in Washington.  But I do know
that John Kyte, who make his living doing this, is telling me this is
the way it works.  

If a group doesn't support the NPRM process with the same vigor and
energy as it does the legislative process, then we look bad, and open
the doors for our opponents to claim we don't care.  We have to fight
a multiple front war, and if we lose on one front, we stand to weaken
the case on other fronts, so please write the letters.

Quote:

>I'm a bit confused over this.  The ISEE is suggesting to their members
>that they copy and paste the form letter available on the ISEE site.  If
>multiple copies of a 'form' letter count only as one, why would ISEE be
>suggesting that route and how did they come up with 600+ responses?

I can't comment on the ISEE strategy.  I do know from previous
experience that the typical agency response to their approach is
something along these lines:

"A total of 342 respondants comments that xyz proposal was invalid
because of abc reasons, a position outlined by the 123 Business
Association."

This is how agencies can legally respond to absolute volume, but
equivalent substance,  in handling the NPRM.  They, the Congress and
the courts all recognize a mass mailing approach to the NPRM, and it's
simply not as effective as everyone writing their own letter.

I've also seen the "write your own letter" approach taken on social
justice issues at my church; it's demonstrated that its a far more
effective technique than mass mailing the same letter over and over.

As for the absolute number of ISEE generate responses, I don't know
how they got there, but my guess is the employees of their members
have written in oppositiion to the NPRM.

Quote:

>Are you saying that the ATF may have 50 responses of a form letter from 50
>individual US citizens and then will try and count them as one response?

See above.  

When they say exactly the same thing, the agency can indeed respond to
those 50 responses with one comment.  I've seen it done in financial
industry NPRM's from the SEC and Federal Reserve in my professional
life, so don't assume it's some stunt ATFE is pulling on us. Think of
it as standard operating procedure instead.

Quote:

>>  I suspect that the BATFE is classifying many of the replies as
>> "not-comments" because of subject lines or some other obstructive criteria.
>> That Agency will do anything it thinks it has to, including lie to Congress,
>> to achieve the smallest of its goals.

We have no direct evidence that this is the case.  

In my opinion, given the rulings we've gotten thus far in court, the
ATFE would have to be suicidial to take this approach.  It would
completely doom their legal positions in front of the Federal bench.

On Wed, 28 May 2003 08:39:43 -0700, David Weinshenker

Quote:

>Would _not_ fighting it spoil someone's inter-office ass-kissing
>game?

My original message in this thread said"

        "Our lack of opposition is actually helping ATF.  Your choice
         is simple.  If you want to help preserve our hobby, write a
         letter today.  If you want to help ATF, do nothing."

NOT writing helps the ATF.

Writing helps the hobby.

How can I make this clearer to readers of this newsgroup?



Quote:
>I am willing to compile a list of people who have responded to the
>BATF, as well as post copies of the letters, if people are willing to
>send me the information.

I already have the list of follks whose letter are in the docket as of
Tuesday morning.  This is really a nice gesture, but is a lot of work
for an incomplete result.  I can always have my local NAR resources
check the docket again when it closes and in fact, our counsel intends
to review the docket to make sure the ATFE's response is complete and
substantive.

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

 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by David Weinshenke » Fri, 30 May 2003 11:42:05


Quote:

> On Wed, 28 May 2003 08:39:43 -0700, David Weinshenker

> >Would _not_ fighting it spoil someone's inter-office ass-kissing
> >game?

> My original message in this thread said"

>         "Our lack of opposition is actually helping ATF.  Your choice
>          is simple.  If you want to help preserve our hobby, write a
>          letter today.  If you want to help ATF, do nothing."

> NOT writing helps the ATF.

> Writing helps the hobby.

> How can I make this clearer to readers of this newsgroup?

Hello, Mark -
I think you took this comment question out of its intended
context. I agree with the value of _our_ making as many
individual responses as possible; I'm composing one to send
in myself.

What I was asking here was in regard to BATFE's _internal_
motives - i.e., why don't they simply let the legislative
effort proceed unopposed, for example? This is what I meant
by "not fighting it" - i.e., the (hypothetical) prospect of
the BATFE _not_ attempting to resist Enzi's bill. What would
the perceived internal cost of such acquiescence be, _within_
the bureau?

-dave w

 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by Jonathan Rain » Fri, 30 May 2003 12:03:08


<<snip>>



Quote:
>> As for the absolute number of ISEE generate responses, I don't know
> how they got there, but my guess is the employees of their members
> have written in oppositiion to the NPRM.

When your rapid fire scanning 500+ letters that all look the same it's not
possible to say that 75% came from Standard Industrial Classification code
1629 Blasting, except building demolition-contractors. I can tell you that
based on the letterheads that the majority of the response were from firms
in the blasting business. Then again there was the response from Boeing that
pointed out the new hasp requirements for magazines wouldn't enhance
security for their magazines as they are located in ultra secure areas
behind a barbed wire fences.

Jonathan Rains
NAR 13911
TRA 4068

 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by Joshua Cowge » Fri, 30 May 2003 12:24:27



a lot of stuff.

Thank you for the explanation.

--
Josh Cowger -- NAR #81069 SR L1 -- Remove the Cookie to reply.
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA!
http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html -- http://www.nar.org
http://www.tripoli.org -- http://www.space-rockets.com/arsa.html

 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by Greg » Fri, 30 May 2003 13:22:31



Quote:

>> Folks I just received a message from Mark Bundick that the BATFE
>> claims to have only collected 102 comments from the rocketry community
>> voicing their concerns over the provisions of NPRM 968. This level of
>> comment isn't going persuade anyone and time is running out. Your
>> comments don't have to be extensive, as simple and to the point will
>> be effective. Please draft your letters and e-mail, FAX ,or snail mail
>> them to the BATFE.

>> Best Regards,

>> John Lyngdal

>Add another to the list. Just sent mine in today.

>Also measured the distance to my neighbor's house, I have 90' of clearance.

>Tony Haga

Yeah, but you didn't use the arbitrary ATF measuring stick.

-------------------------------------
Greg Woods

To reply via email, remove anti-spam tag

 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by Jerry Irvin » Fri, 30 May 2003 14:14:47




Quote:
> I would have to disagree with Jerry. The responses from the ISEE do look
> like a broken record. It didn't take me much time to 'read' the 650+ letters
> that were nothing more than 'copy and paste' into a letter or e-mail. I'm
> probably going to see the words 'public highway' underlined in the second
> paragraph of a letter in my sleep for the next month of so. Every one of our
> responses was individually drafted and raise varying points that the ATF
> should respond to.

But not substantively.
And not DO anything about it.

Quote:

> So how does our efforts for Notice 968 compare to previous letter writing
> campaigns? Check this out...

>     ATF received 426 written comments in response to Notice No. 841.
> Comments were submitted by several major model rocketry industry groups
> such as the National Association of Rocketry (NAR) and Tripoli Rocketry
> Association (Tripoli), and their members. Comments were also submitted
> by fireworks hobbyists, small display fireworks operators, major
> explosives industry safety associations and professional organizations
> such as the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), the American
> Pyrotechnic Association (APA), the National Fire Protection Association
> (NFPA), and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF).
> Comments were also received from concerned citizens.

> I followed the docket in 1997 as well. All the letter except maybe 10 were
> from NAR and TRA. Notice 841 was about raising LEUP fees. I can't believe
> that 968 hasn't generated more letters!

> In summary, stop debating the hows and whys, just write.  Numbers count.
> Originality counts. Personal experience counts!

> Jonathan Rains
> NAR 13911
> TRA 4068






> > > > Letters should be brief and original, and specifically oppose the
> > > > proposed regulations and the 62.5-gram limit. Some people are simply
> > > > "cutting and pasting" versions of a letter sent by ISEE - that will
> > > > not work.  All such letters will be treated as a "form letter" by
> > > > BATFE and lumped together as one letter.

> > > I'm a bit confused over this.  The ISEE is suggesting to their members
> > > that they copy and paste the form letter available on the ISEE site.  If
> > > multiple copies of a 'form' letter count only as one, why would ISEE be
> > > suggesting that route and how did they come up with 600+ responses?

> > > Dave

> > The NAR statement is wrong.  They are so new at this they occasionally
> > do it badly.

> > Jerry

> > --
> > Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

> > Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
> > Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com
 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by Jerry Irvin » Fri, 30 May 2003 14:30:37




Quote:
> I don't profess how this stuff works in Washington.

Thank god for small favors.

Quote:
> If a group doesn't support the NPRM process with the same vigor and
> energy as it does the legislative process, then we look bad, and open
> the doors for our opponents to claim we don't care.  

In what specific way does this present itself and in what specific way
does it have traction?

Quote:
> We have to fight
> a multiple front war, and if we lose on one front, we stand to weaken
> the case on other fronts, so please write the letters.

Then why have you surrendered the legislative front by refusing to
support it early and agressively even refusing a postcard campaign under
any rules compatible with NAR policy?

Why did you invite ATF to the regulatory process in the first place
including suggesting their inclusion in the NFPA process where rocketry
is exempt according to your own lawsuit?

Why does NAR S&T require BATF permits illegally from model rocket motor
manufacturers?

Why does NAR ask its members to get LEUP for storage, sale and usage of
any rocket motors whatsoever?  

I would like a substantive answer to these questions for a change.

On what specific basis will NAR NOT accept model rocket motor
submissions from ANY firm that has CA and EX numbers for said motors,
and refuses to provide ATF not because it does not have it, but because
it is illegal for EXEMPT devices to require it?

Jerry Irvine

Communication to NAR President the only way I have unftteerered access.

Quote:
> I've also seen the "write your own letter" approach taken on social
> justice issues at my church; it's demonstrated that its a far more
> effective technique than mass mailing the same letter over and over.

Then why did you ask NAR members to hold off and deadline it with
NPRM968 responses?

Quote:

> >>  I suspect that the BATFE is classifying many of the replies as
> >> "not-comments" because of subject lines or some other obstructive
> >> criteria.
> >> That Agency will do anything it thinks it has to, including lie to
> >> Congress,
> >> to achieve the smallest of its goals.

> We have no direct evidence that this is the case.  

We also have no evidence many of your claims and horribilizations are
true, but you repeat them anyway ad nauseum (in ingles, to the point of
up-chuck)

Quote:
>    "Our lack of opposition is actually helping ATF.  Your choice
>     is simple.  If you want to help preserve our hobby, write a
>     letter today.  If you want to help ATF, do nothing."

And before that for months you asked members to NOT write till the
deadline.  Then the deadline was changed.  I wonder how many otherwise
motivated people simply lost interest and faded away?  I would claim a
majority.  it is simple human nature and despite your wish as President
of a whopping 4500 rocketeers worldwide on this planet of 6 billion
people, but not all rocketry interested people are zealots.  4500 of
them are.  That's all.

Jerry Irvine

Quote:

> NOT writing helps the ATF.

> Writing helps the hobby.

> How can I make this clearer to readers of this newsgroup?

By heading the words you spew.

55.141-a-8.  Accept "my" motors for cert.  RIGHT NOW.  Period.

Quote:



> >I am willing to compile a list of people who have responded to the
> >BATF, as well as post copies of the letters, if people are willing to
> >send me the information.

> I already have the list of follks whose letter are in the docket as of
> Tuesday morning.  This is really a nice gesture, but is a lot of work
> for an incomplete result.  I can always have my local NAR resources
> check the docket again when it closes and in fact, our counsel intends
> to review the docket to make sure the ATFE's response is complete and
> substantive.

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

It's a complete waste of time by peole fixated on minutia as bigger
issues slip right through their fingers.  Repeatedly and with external
warning stimulus.

Starting with 55.141-a-8.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com

 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by john » Sat, 31 May 2003 00:36:43


At this stage I think it would be helpful if people just wrote and
mailed the frigging letters, and postponed pushing their personal
agendas until after the external threat to the hobby has been dealt
with.
 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by Kurt Kesle » Sat, 31 May 2003 00:43:49



Quote:
> At this stage I think it would be helpful if people just wrote and
> mailed the frigging letters, and postponed pushing their personal
> agendas until after the external threat to the hobby has been dealt
> with.

What, Jerry miss an opportunity?  I thought you had been around RMR
longer than that.

--
Kurt Kesler

 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by Jerry Irvin » Sat, 31 May 2003 03:31:22




Quote:

> > At this stage I think it would be helpful if people just wrote and
> > mailed the frigging letters, and postponed pushing their personal
> > agendas until after the external threat to the hobby has been dealt
> > with.

> What, Jerry miss an opportunity?  I thought you had been around RMR
> longer than that.

Pardon me.  I am the one who said just send the friggin etters.  It was
not till several machinations by NAR President of bunnies that NAR also
came around to that.  I am just repeating myself.  Pardon me!!

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com

 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by Jonathan Rain » Sat, 31 May 2003 08:08:52


I guess I shouldn't bother to vote because my vote doesn't count.

What a hoot!

 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by Jerry Irvin » Sat, 31 May 2003 12:18:50




Quote:
> I guess I shouldn't bother to vote because my vote doesn't count.

> What a hoot!

You should comment (not vote) because even though it is a forgone
conclusion the comments will be replied to inconclusively and with no
actual content, the process of raising issues they then intentionally
bypass gives us as citizens a cause of action to sue common sense out of
them.  And it will only take 5 short years and cost a third of a million
dollars.

Isn't citizenship in a government controlled police state fun?

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com

 
 
 

NPRM 968 Comments needed

Post by bert harles » Sun, 01 Jun 2003 20:12:45


Maybe I got it wrong but I emailed my response to

Part of the reason I procrastinated was printing,stuffing an envelope,
getting stamps etc.
When I found out about the email I sent it right off.
Bert

--
As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both
instances,there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly
unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of
change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims
of the darkness.
William O. Douglas
remove the nospam from my address to reply