Comments on: Draft Rules For U.S.-U.K. Export Treaty Released http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/377 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:43:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Clif Burns http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/377/comment-page-1#comment-20041 Clif Burns Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:22:12 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=377#comment-20041 Sorry about the comment issue, which is my mistake. The DTAG meeting was on June 19 and apparently the deadline for comments was COB the next day. So I should have said comments were being solicited. Given the pace at which this has been moving along, comments sent to that address might still be considered, although you should probably contact Terry Otis first before spending too much time on elaborate comments on the draft proposed regulations Sorry about the comment issue, which is my mistake. The DTAG meeting was on June 19 and apparently the deadline for comments was COB the next day. So I should have said comments were being solicited. Given the pace at which this has been moving along, comments sent to that address might still be considered, although you should probably contact Terry Otis first before spending too much time on elaborate comments on the draft proposed regulations

]]> By: mous, anony http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/377/comment-page-1#comment-20036 mous, anony Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:01:27 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=377#comment-20036 If comments "are" being solicited, how can they be sent before June 20, 2008? If comments “are” being solicited, how can they be sent before June 20, 2008?

]]> By: Clif Burns http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/377/comment-page-1#comment-20023 Clif Burns Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:55:22 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=377#comment-20023 That's June 20, 2008. I thought that was clear from the context but given the speed that some matters get handled at DDTC -- Part 129 amendments, for example, I can see how that might also have been meant to refer to 2009 or 20010 even. :-) That’s June 20, 2008. I thought that was clear from the context but given the speed that some matters get handled at DDTC — Part 129 amendments, for example, I can see how that might also have been meant to refer to 2009 or 20010 even. :-)

]]> By: Linda http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/377/comment-page-1#comment-20022 Linda Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:41:23 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=377#comment-20022 Hi Clif: Would you please clarify the June 20th date in the last paragraph. Hi Clif:

Would you please clarify the June 20th date in the last paragraph.

]]>