UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
FERDINAND J. MACK, JR., 
) 
Plaintiff, 
v 
) Civil Action No. 77-916 
) 
JOSEPH A. CALIFANO, JR. et al., 
MLED 
DEC 1 3 1977^ 
JAM ES F. DAVEY, Clerk 
Defendants 
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE FILED 
DECEMBER 7, 19 77 
On December 7, 1977 plaintiff responded to defendants' Notice 
of tiling, to which an environmental impact statement is appended. 
Our notice of filing suggests that, since an environmental impact 
statement has now been finalized and submitted to the Court, it is 
now appropriate for the Court to lift the stay of proceedings 
approved July 18, 1977. 
Plaintiff opposes a lifting of the stay on the ground that the 
environmental impact statement submitted with out notice of filing 
is not in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 
42 U.S.C. §§4320 et seq . This simply makes no sense. The sufficiency 
of our environmental impact statement is the central issue in this 
case, and is to be resolved on the merits. However, in order to 
rule on the merits it is quite necessary for the Court to lift the 
stay of proceedings. 
Plaintiffs primary objection to the environmental impact state- 
ment seems to be that the statement addresses the environmental 
impacts of recombinant DNA research performed in accordance with 
the NIH Guidelines, but does not specifically address the particular 
individual experiment which is the subject of plaintiff's action. 
However, the law is clear that, in appropriate circumstances, agencies 
may issue broad program statements in lieu of statements with 
respect to each individual action encompassed by a program. 
National Resources Defense Council v. TVA (Coal Purchases) , 367 
F.Supp. 122, 127 (E.D. Tenn. 1973), aff 'd, 502 F.2d 852 (6th Cir. , 
1974); Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. Butz, 498 F.2d 
1314, 1323, n.29 (8th Cir. 1974); Fund for the Animals v. Frizzell , 
402 F.Supp. 35 (D.D.C. 1975), aff 'd. , 530 F.2d 982, 988, n. 15 (D.C. 
[Appendix C — 103] 
