LUNAR Legislative Alert 4/25/2003

Responding to the ATF NPRM 968

LETTER FROM THE NAR PRESIDENT
By Mark "Bunny" Bundick

I'm drafting the NAR's response to Notice 968, the ATF's NPRM.  I'm offering the 
bullet points below to further stimulate your thinking around responding.  Many 
of you offered very helpful comments to me about this NPRM, and I've tried to 
incorporate them into the NAR's response.
 
Also, be aware that I've forwarded my complete draft, now at 8 pages, and about 
65% complete, I think, to our counsel for review.  I'll keep plugging away on 
this, but since we're 3 weeks away from the deadline, I wanted to be sure that 
you had some of this in hand.
 
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE REMIND YOUR SECTION MEMBERS TO SUBMIT COMMENTS!
 
Even if it's only a letter saying "I support the positions of the NAR", the 
absolute numbers will help, both with respect to the NPRM, and to the 
ongoing congressional fight.
 
MAIL THOSE LETTERS ASAP, FOLKS!
 
Cheers, Bunny
 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
 
NAR opposes the imposition of the proposed regulations for the following reasons:

· ATFE lacks statutory authority to regulate, in any way, propellant under 
  Title 18 of the United States Code.
· ATFE lacks statutory authority to regulate, in any way, rocket motors under 
  Title 18 of the United States Code.
· ATFE has produced no scientific evidence that rocket propellant meets the 
  statutory definition of explosives.
· Rockets are "propellant actuated devices", and thus, on a statutory basis, 
  are wholly exempt from ATFE's explosives regulations.
· The proposed regulations should be defined as a "significant regulatory 
  action" per Executive Order 12866.
· The proposed weight limit for rocket motors and propellant is offered without 
  legal or scientific basis as to its establishment.
· The proposed limit violates title 18 USC 841, which requires publication of an 
  annual list of explosive materials subject to ATFE regulation.
· The entire set of proposed magazine changes are offer without supporting 
  rationale as to why additional requirements should be imposed, either to 
  protect public safety or to secure regulated materials subject to magazine 
  storage.
· Physical inventory requirements are excessive, and unsupported by field 
  experience.
· Removal of DOT citations is unsupported and unnecessary.
· The definition of "toy propellant devices" is incomplete.
· The proposed rule would impose undue economic harm on sport rocket hobbyists 
  due to the excessive cost of padlock requirements.
· The proposed definition of a manufacturer is unclear with respect to its 
  applicability regarding rocket motors.
· Changes to the definition of "highway" are unsupported and leave permit 
  holders with no guidance regarding the definition of a highway.
· Removal of the word "public" from the definition of highway is unreasonable 
  and does not add to public safety.
· Permit renewals requiring new determinations for approved variance represent 
  an unnecessary administrative for ATFE , impose undue burdens on permit 
  holders and is completely arbitrary in its application..
· Exemption language for selected materials has been arbitrarily changed in a 
  manner that may require compliance with storage provisions.
· The proposed regulations have failed to comply with federal requirements 
  for rulemaking, since they fail to properly recognize the economic impacts 
  as required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
· The proposed regulations have failed to comply with federal requirements 
  for rulemaking, since they grossly understate the estimated number of 
  respondents and the time requirements for record keeping under the Paperwork 
  Reduction Act.

All content is the responsibility of LUNAR. If you have comments or suggestions regarding these web pages, please contact the