B. Field Tests Approved by NIH. 
C. NIH's Role in the Approval or Disapproval of Proposals for the 
Release into the Environment of Organisms Containing Recombinant 
DNA. 
D. NIH's Future Role in the Review and Approval of Proposals for 
the Deliberate Release Into the Environmental of Organisms Containing 
Recombinant DNA. 
Mr. Rogers does not cite any additional facts that he believes should have 
been included in the notice. 
It should also be noted that there was no requirement that the NIH solicit 
public comment on the issue of whether or not a programmatic EIS is 
required. That the NIH solicited public comment through a Federal Register 
notice was an act on the NIH's part that went beyond any requirements 
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or the CEQ Regulations 
Implementing NEPA, or the HHS General Administration Manual, or the 
decision of the Court of Appeals. Thus, contrary to Mr. Rogers' assertion, 
I believe the notice indicated NIH's intention to give the issue serious 
consideration. I do not see any reason "to vacate the notice," 
and issue a new one, and recommend that you not accept this suggestion. 
IV. Summary of Recommendations 
This section of the memorandum recapitulates the recommendations which 
were made earlier in the memorandum, and provides a place for you to 
indicate whether or not you concur or do not concur with each recommendation. 
IV-A. In Section III -A-3-a- ( 2) of this memorandum, I consider six comments 
on the January 21, 1985, EA-FONSI, submitted by Dr. Anne K. Vidaver. 
I recommend accepting five changes in EA-FONSI, and that no change be 
made in response to the sixth comment. 
IV-B. In Section III-A-3-b-(2) of this memorandum, I consider comments 
on the EA-FONSI submitted by Dr. David Pimentel. In response to his 
comments, I recommend changes in the EA-FONSI. 
Do hot Concur 
7/ z - f <>' 
Date 
26 
[190] 
