Originally posted by bldn10@Jan 25 2006, 09:50 AM
"That's not the way I understand it Bill. The 13.9 is essentially a CoA ruling on rule. If you are protested, and the SOM hears the protest, and in spite of your 13.9, finds you non-compliant, winning the appeal will be a slam dunk. In addition, I would think the SOM would be admonished for disregarding an official rule interpretation.

On further examination it looks like I overlooked the words "penalties:" "Penalties or penalty points will not be assessed in the event of a negative ruling" So, the local SOM can uphold a protest; they just can't take any action against you. However, the 13.9 would not have the same effect for, say, you buddy who made the same changes you did based on your 13.9. He is screwed because any previous Rule interpretation by a COA is NOT binding on any subsequent one. This is the reason, once again, I advocate making COA opinions precedential. They should be archived and searchable. What is legal for one should be legal for all. And vice versa.
[snapback]72102[/snapback]
Bill, I agree about precedence except I have actually seen where the COA got it wrong in my opinion. The got it wrong on well crafted language and having no one to argue against that information. The 13.9 protest does not have both side of the issue properly represented. I believe that the 13.9 rule needs to be changed to have a committee formed that would argue the other side of the issue. Then I could see a precedence set from the ruling.