<?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: Radar That Wasn&#8217;t on the Radar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/76/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/76</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: Mike Deal</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/76/comment-page-1#comment-240</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Deal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/76#comment-240</guid>
		<description>It be kind of nice if BIS would issue the addition to the CCL in proposed form with opportunity for comment, as required by Section 13 of the EAA as well as the Administrative Procedures Act, so that industry could have some input for a change, instead of just issuing a fiat in final form.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It be kind of nice if BIS would issue the addition to the CCL in proposed form with opportunity for comment, as required by Section 13 of the EAA as well as the Administrative Procedures Act, so that industry could have some input for a change, instead of just issuing a fiat in final form.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

