<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Processing Time Exception Announced by DDTC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/1017/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/1017</link>
	<description>Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:06:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Name Changed To...</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/1017/comment-page-1#comment-92127</link>
		<dc:creator>Name Changed To...</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=1017#comment-92127</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m aware of a license that was denied with the reason given (paraphrasing)that the DDTC doesn&#039;t license military items for use on commercial applications.  They went on to advise the submitter to send in a CJ. 

At a conference, a DDTC official was asked about this semmingly reversal of previous policy.  That official explained that some of the licensing officers were denying licenses based on that &quot;policy&quot;.  No apologies were given.

As long as the individucal licensing officers can make it up as they go along I remain skeptical about any real reform.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m aware of a license that was denied with the reason given (paraphrasing)that the DDTC doesn&#8217;t license military items for use on commercial applications.  They went on to advise the submitter to send in a CJ. </p>
<p>At a conference, a DDTC official was asked about this semmingly reversal of previous policy.  That official explained that some of the licensing officers were denying licenses based on that &#8220;policy&#8221;.  No apologies were given.</p>
<p>As long as the individucal licensing officers can make it up as they go along I remain skeptical about any real reform.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JOHN LIEBMAN</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/1017/comment-page-1#comment-92117</link>
		<dc:creator>JOHN LIEBMAN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=1017#comment-92117</guid>
		<description>My favorite anecdote about DTC time limits arose several years ago in a CJ context. When reminded by me of the 45-day time limit, the reviewer said, &quot;If I have to give you an answer now, you may not like it, but if you give me 10 more days, you may be happier.&quot;
I did, and was.  

These time limits are annoying since invariably they are exceptions that swallow the rules.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My favorite anecdote about DTC time limits arose several years ago in a CJ context. When reminded by me of the 45-day time limit, the reviewer said, &#8220;If I have to give you an answer now, you may not like it, but if you give me 10 more days, you may be happier.&#8221;<br />
I did, and was.  </p>
<p>These time limits are annoying since invariably they are exceptions that swallow the rules.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

