To me, the quote states that there WILL be an additional commentary
period programmed. What is NOT so clear is how much weight will be
given to the comments the USDA has already received and will receive
then. Obviousy, we must wait and see. The balls in their court, and a
number of major issues have not yet been resolved.
Karen Mundy wrote:
> Hi SANnetters,
> As I read the Washington Post article, and in particular the paragraph
> copied below, I can't help but be pleased, but cautious. The last sentence
> says ". . . after allowing for additional comments." Some in an earlier
> post seemed to interpret this statement to mean we would not get the
> opportunity to comment again. Do we need to write our legislators and make
> sure that another comment period is included in the process? I don't
> beleive that an additional comment period is required by law, but I am
> really not at all sure. My question, I guess, is "Now what?"
> Glickman said he could not comment
> specifically on how the department would
> respond to what he called the "extraordinary"
> wave of public opinion generated by the
> proposed rule, but he did promise "significant
> modifications" in a final rule that he hoped
> would be approved by the end of this year
> after allowing for additional comments.
> Karen Mundy
> Rural Economics Analysis Program
> Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics (0401)
> Virginia Tech
> Blacksburg, VA 24061
> (540) 231-9443
> To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command