Tripoli Prefect Q2 and Q3 2006 report.

LDRS 2006:

The launch was held in Amarillo, TX by the POTROC’s prefecture. They did a fantastic job organizing, and executing the launch, social meeting, dinner and other events associated with an LDRS event. There is a launch report in Wil Trigg’s August newsletter: http://www.sssrocketry.org/gallery/august_2006/aug06newsletter.htm  The next LDRS will be held in Las Vegas, If you only attend one out of town launch next year, I recommend you make it LDRS.

Tripoli BOD election results:

If you didn’t vote you probable don’t care who won.

If you did vote you probable all ready know who won.

Legal Battle:

As you can see with the success of the GHS 2006 launch very little has changed as far as our ability to conduct launches and fly rockets. Even with all the controversy surrounding the legal battle our vendors have stayed committed to providing their services to our hobby. As long as we continue as a group to show our support of the vendors, they will continue to enable us to enjoy our hobby under the current rules.

If you have ever been evolved in a litigation you understand that we have a long road ahead. We need to stay committed as a group and avoid any negative speculation during this time.

I am attaching the following joint statement on the legal battle from the leadership of the NAR and Tripoli organizations. As you can see the final decision will not be handed down any time soon.

Bob Heninger

Prefect Tripoli Phoenix #47

Advanced copy of the TRA/NAR joint statement being issued today:

Ken Good

Joint Statement on BATFE Issues, October 30, 2006

This message will report on the October 17, 2006 court hearing and next

steps in our litigation against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms

and Explosives (BATFE).

Remaining Events Schedule and Supporting Comments

This hearing established a fixed schedule for remaining actions on Count 1

of the lawsuit regarding the classification of APCP as a regulated

explosive.

By October 31, 2006, BATFE must file with the court any and all additional

material to the administrative record on its determination of APCP as an

explosive.  Both counsel and members will have opportunity to review this

material.

Contrary to some reports, we did NOT receive the administrative record

prior to the October 17 hearing.

By December 18, 2006, we will file an amendment to our complaint to

reflect the new material in the administrative record.  This filing is a

legal technicality, and ATF has no objection to it, given they have

amended the administrative record with their test data.

Both we and BATF will then file cross motions for summary judgment by

January 31, 2007.

Motions in response and opposition to those summary judgment motions are

due to the court by February 28, and responses in reply to objections are

due March 23, 2007.

(Long term members will recall that this process is exactly the same as

was done with the original complaint filed in 2000, but since we won the

original adjudication on appeal, we have to begin this process again.).

After these three filings, the court will be in a position to rule on

Count 1.

If the court needs to be briefed on any material in these three filings,

we believe that oral briefing would occur as part of a July 27, 2007

status conference.

Assuming Judge Walton does not need to be briefed, a Count 1 ruling could

be issued any time after the March 23, 2007 filings.  However, Judge

Walton's docket is extremely crowded, with over 150 motions pending in his

court.  Members may also be aware that his courtroom has been assigned the

trial of former Chief of Staff to the Vice President, Lewis "Scooter"

Libby, a high visibility prosecution.

We have received questions from members about the length of this process.

There is a real backlog in the Federal courts, and our case is not

fundamentally different in timing than any others pending in the DC

Circuit.  We are simply part of the backlog, and there is little counsel

or the courts can do about it.

Additional Comments on Counts 4 and 5. 

Counts 4 and 5 deal with our assertion that BATFE illegally attempted to

regulate sport rocket motors by setting a propellant weight limit and a

determination on the definition of propellant actuated devices without

notice and comment rulemaking.  These counts are still pending before

Judge Walton's court, even with the BATFE's issuance of a final rule on

the 62.5 gram limit.  Should we prevail on Count 1, these two items will

become moot, as APCP would be removed from the BATFE's list of regulated

explosives. Until Count 1 is adjudicated, we do not expect the court to

set a briefing or hearing schedule on these two counts.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

COUNSEL HAS REPEATEDLY ADVISED THAT RESPONDING TO THE AUGUST 11 NPRM ON

PROPELLANT ACTUATED DEVICES IS CRITICAL TO OUR POSITION, AND URGES, IN THE

STRONGEST LANGUAGE POSSIBLE, MEMBERS TO RESPOND IN OPPOSITION TO THIS

NPRM.

If accepted as a final rule after public notice and comment, HPR rocket

motors would be subject to all applicable licensing and controls under

Federal explosives law, the legally promulgated regulations, and ATF

policy rulings.  Complete information on this NPRM, including suggested

responses and filing instructions can be found here:

http://www.tripoli.org/documents/batfe/20061017JointStatement.shtml

Any rule adopted as a result of this NPRM would be nullified if we prevail

on Count 1.  However, we must be prepared to address all outcomes, and a

forceful member response to this NPRM is needed.

Case Duration and Financial Support

We understand the frustration and anxiety experienced by members given the

duration of this litigation.

Both of us have expended unprecedented amounts of time, energy and money

in our volunteer work on this litigation and frankly are as impatient and

frustrated as our members with the extended timeframe outlined here.

However, we remain committed to the process because it represents the

best, and currently the only, way to fight for an unregulated sport rocket

hobby.  Our case is still very strong, and we are now in a position to

bring our strongest arguments, our science, to bear on the case.  With an

end in sight to the most critical point in the litigation, we continue to

urge members to donate to the Legal Defense Fund.

The year is ending, and now is a particularly good time to consider

charitable donations as part of your year end tax planning.  And continue

to know that we appreciate the excellent, steady support provided by

members thus far.  Every dollar you can donate puts us a bit closer to our

goal of freeing the hobby from over burdensome, unnecessary and illegal

regulation.

When we have further developments, we'll continue to report them here and

in our publications.

Ken Good, President

Tripoli Rocketry Association

Mark Bundick, President

National Association of Rocketry