10 
any time order a prohibition, higher containment, or the revocation of an 
exemption or exception to a prohibition upon a finding that there are po- 
tential risks which were not previously recognized. The Director may is- 
sue such an order with or without the recommendation of the RAC. Any per- 
son may petition the Director for a new prohibition, higher containment 
for an individual experiment or category of experiments, or the revocation 
of an exemption or exception to a prohibition. Within 15 days of receiv- 
ing such petition the Director shall determine either that the request is 
or is not reasonable and issue an appropriate order, or refer the petition 
to the RAC for a recommendation at its next scheduled meeting. 
The current language in the second paragraph of Part III permits the 
lowering of containment levels without requiring risk assessment, public 
participation and NEPA compliance. While these requirements should be 
mandatory for any relaxation of the guidelines, they should only be dis- 
cretionary with respect to tightening of the guidelines. This is because 
new evidence of risks may necessitate urgent action in certain situations, 
but this would not be the case in lowering containment. 
3. NEPA compliance . The regulations should specify NEPA compliance 
for all exceptions to prohibitions, exemptions, certification of all host- 
vector systems, and all situations in which containment requirements are 
to be set on a case by case basis, such as in Section III-B-1. 
4. Exceptions to prohibitions . The provisions allowing exceptions 
should be split into two categories: one for risk assessment experiments, 
and one for other experiments. The documents accompanying the proposed 
revisions indicate that there is a need to permit exceptions for the pur- 
pose of risk assessment but fail to state or discuss the fact that as 
drafted, exceptions can be permitted for other purposes. The criteria for 
permitting an exception in the "other" category should be that there is 
"no significant risk and a clear social benefit to be realized". The lan- 
guage now in Section I-D-6 only says that weight shall be given to poten- 
tial risks. This contrasts unfavorably with exemption I-E-4, which re- 
quires a finding of no significant risk, and is clearly inadequate. Of 
[A-241] 
