Jump to main content.

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: January 26, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 7905]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26ja01-27]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY


Notice of Availability and Request for Comments

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2000 the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) were directed to
conduct an interagency assessment of Federal environmental regulations
pertaining to agricultural biotechnology. CEQ and OSTP announce the
availability of the case studies and invite comment.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Direct written comments to Chair, Council on Environmental
Quality and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy;
Executive Office of the President, 17th and G Streets, NW., Washington,
DC 20500. Attention: CEQ/OSTP Biotechnology Assessment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for copies of the report may
be directed to CEQ and OSTP at the above address or may be requested by
calling CEQ at (202) 395-5750 or OSTP at (202) 456-6130. The report
also appears on CEQ's website at www.whitehouse.gov/ceq and on OSTP's
website at www.ostp.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

    On May 3, 2000, the President directed the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to
``conduct a six month interagency assessment of Federal environmental
regulations pertaining to agricultural biotechnology and, if
appropriate, make recommendations to improve them''. The assessment was
undertaken as part of a larger set of policy measures intended to build
consumer confidence and ensure that U.S. regulations keep pace with the
latest scientific and product developments.
    The President directed this assessment to further long-standing
goals of public access to information and maintenance of strong,
science-based regulation. The assessment was intended to focus on
environmental regulations through the use of a set of case studies to
describe in detail how specific products are being regulated or how
they may potentially be regulated. The focus on environmental
regulations was based on the premise that this aspect of biotechnology
regulation is not well understood by the public and is the subject of
considerable interest. The analysis was not intended to be
comprehensive in scope, but rather to be based on a set of case studies
that could illuminate current agency practices, identify strengths and
potential areas for improvement.
    In the intervening months, the assessment produced a set of working
documents that provide rich detail and information on specific case
studies for the public and for policymakers. However, due to time
limitations, the interagency working group that was assembled to
conduct the assessment was not able to conduct the analysis necessary
to develop conclusions or recommendations. The selection of these
particular case studies in no way indicates specific concerns with
previous regulatory findings. In fact, no significant negative
environmental impacts have been associated with the use of any
previously approved biotechnology product.

II. Request for Comments

    In order to further the assessment process, CEQ and OSTP believe it
would be beneficial to have public input on federal regulation of
environmental aspects of biotechnology informed by the case studies.
Specifically, based on the initial review of the case studies, public
comment is requested in the following broad areas of overall federal
regulation of environmental aspects of biotechnology: (a)
Comprehensiveness and rigor of environmental assessment; (b)
comprehensiveness and strength of statutory authority; (c) transparency
of the environmental assessment and the decisionmaking process; (d)
public involvement; (e) interagency coordination; (f) confidential
business information.
    Public comments are requested by May 1.

    Dated: January 19, 2001.
Dinah Bear,
General Counsel, Council on Environmental Quality.

Clifford Gabriel,
Deputy to the Associate Director, Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-2325 Filed 1-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3125-01-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.