Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The undated request for 14 separate items presented to the Agricultural Research Service when Mr. Easley and Mr. Nevas reported to the Office of the Inspector General on July 2, 1969, and which was the subject of Mr. Mangham's letter of July 23, 1969, has been reviewed. Also, your letter of appeal dated August 15, 1969, has been carefully considered. The appeal relates to the following items from your original request :

"1. Files and data on the pesticide sampling program: where samples were taken, who collected each sample, what pesticides from each manufacturer were sampled. Also, what tests were run on each sample, who performed the test, and what action if any was taken on the test report.

*2. Files and data on the pesticide registration program: copies of all proposed labeling and directions for use. Where such files contain proprietary information (specific formulas), provision should be made for either-

(a) access to the entire file with the understanding that no proprietary information will be copied or divulged, or

(b) access to the requested file after such proprietary information has been removed. The mere presence of an item of proprietary information in a

particular file does not exempt that entire file from public disclosure. "3. Files and data on the pesticide accident reporting mechanism: who reported each accident, how PRD evaluated the information, what action if any was taken on the basis of such information. Also, what efforts PRD has made to coordinate with other governmental and private organizations in order to facilitate accident reporting

"4. Files and data on seizures made under FIFRA, including multiple seizures. "5. Files and data on violations recommended for prosecution under FIFRA.

*6. Files and data on the process of citation for violations of FIFRA: files supporting citations, the letters of citation themselves, all responses by each manufacturer to such citations, follow-up action by PRD.

7. Files and data on the recall process: general procedures for recall and the file in each case where recall was employed. Each recall file should include all actions by the manufacturer, all supervision by PRD, quantity and location of the product recalled, and memoranda which indicate the effectiveness or completeness of the recall action.

“11. Files and data our any intra- or inter-departmental committees or study groups which may have made recommendations concerning pesticide regulation.

"12. Files and data on the Interdepartmental Committee on Pesticides and its working group, together with minutes of all meetings and all recommendations made at such meetings.

"14. Please give us a list of specific reports which cannot be made available under the Freedom of Information Act."

As you know, requests for information must contain a reasonably specific description of the particular record sought as provided by 5 U.S.C. 552(a). "The burden of identification is with the member of the public who requests a record." Attorney General's Memorandum on the Public Information Section of the Administrative Procedure Act, p. 24. In a number of discussions that ARS staff members had with Messrs. Easley and Nevas, and on one occasion when you were present, repeated efforts were made to have your request contain a more specific description of what you desired to review rather than a broad and indefinite type of request. ARS was not successful in getting your staff to modify or to be specific in their request. It is also noted that the requests are not limited to information applicable to any particular period of time. Even if there were no proprietary information in these files, the effort that would be required on the part of the Pesticides Regulation Division to assemble and provide this type of information would be extremely burdensome and would materially interfere with the performance of other agency functions. This would require us to take personnel off programs which are vital to the public interest and where there is already a sizeable backlog of work due to the limited number of personnel.

Specifically responding to your appeal, items of request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 are denied on the basis that the requests do not contain a reasonably specific description of the particular record sought as provided by 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). Also, the items of request as identified below are denied for the additional reasons stated :

(1) Item No. 1, relating to the pesticide sampling program, is denied on the basis of 7 CFR 370.13(e) (4) and (g) of 5 U.S.C. 552 (b) (5) and (7).

ice when you and Mr. Nevans reported to the office of Mr. Nathaniel E. Kossack, Inspector General, on July 2, 1969.

Also on that day, in a meeting with you and Mr. Nevans and Dr. Hays, Director, Pesticides Regulations Division, we reviewed your request and found that many items were broad in scope, with general coverage to the extent that we could not definitely determine what was desired. We proposed that you meet with Dr. Hays and his two Assistants, Mr. Miller and Mr. Alford, and identify areas that would be desirable for review in line with your objectives. It was felt that this approach would more adequately provide information that would be useful to you.

We have been attempting to obtain clarification on many of your requests but due to their broad coverage specific responses have not been possible. We have, as you recall, specifically covered your request for review of File No. 201–36, the Shell Vapona “No-Pest Strip.” Also, specific written response has been made to your request for unlimited freedom in interviewing any employee in the Pesticides Regulations Division, without any type clearance.

I understand that you would like to have immediate written response to your total initial requests presented on July 2. Our response refers to the items by number in sequence of the request.

Items 1 through 7. These items all contain information that is restricted and are not available for public review. Certain of these files do contain information“ that is not proprietary and would be available for review if separated from the basic file. However, our staff and work schedule is such that this cannot be done on a cash basis. Therefore, it is necessary that the entire file be restricted. Item 8. Generally the files included in this area are available for your review.

Item 9. The Economic Research Service and the National Agricultural Library each have bulletins containing this type information. We suggest you contact these agencies for information desired.

Item 10. USDA responses to the recommendations of the General Accounting Office Reports of February 20 and September 10, 1968, are available for your review. USDA has not to date made a response to the National Research Council on the May 1969 report.

Items 11 and 12. This information is restricted and cannot be made available for your review.

Item 13. A description of this system will be provided.

Item 14. You request a list of specific reports that cannot be made available under the Freedom of Information Act. We believe the restricted subjects are adequately covered under Title 7, Chapter III, Subpart B, of the Combined Federal Regulations. Therefore, we have not attempted to prepare such list.

The Agricultural Research Service wishes to cooperate with you and Mr. Nevans in providing information that can be useful in completing the objectives of your project. At the same time we know you recognize that certain records cannot be disclosed without impairing the rights of privacy or important operations of the Government. These must be protected from disclosure.

We are continuing a careful review of your total request and if we are able to make additional information available to you we will do so promptly when it is cleared.

Dr. Hayes and I will be available to discuss with you any phases of your request and our response, if desired. Sincerely,

F. R. MANGHAM, Deputy Administrator.

EXHIBIT 5

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE,

Washington, D.C., November 17, 1969. Mr. HARRISON WELLFORD, Coordinator, Student Study Group on USDA, Center for Study of Responsire

Law, Washington, D.O. DEAR MR . WELLFORD: This has reference to your letter dated August 15, 1969, appealing the decision dated July 23, 1969, by Deputy Administrator F. R. Mangham, which denied your request for access to certain files and documents located in the Pesticides Regulation Division of this Service. Your appeal is made under provisions provided for by 7 CFR 370.15.

[ocr errors]

The undated request for 14 separate items presented to the Agricultural Research Service when Mr. Easley and Mr. Nevas reported to the Office of the Inspector General on July 2, 1969, and which was the subject of Mr. Mangham's letter of July 23, 1969, has been reviewed. Also, your letter of appeal dated August 15, 1969, has been carefully considered. The appeal relates to the following items from your original request :

"1. Files and data on the pesticide sampling program: where samples were taken, who collected each sample, what pesticides from each manufacturer were sampled. Also, what tests were run on each sample, who performed the test, and what action if any was taken on the test report.

*2. Files and data on the pesticide registration program: copies of all proposed labeling and directions for use. Where such files contain proprietary information (specific formulas), provision should be made for either

(a) access to the entire file with the understanding that no proprietary information will be copied or divulged, or

(6) access to the requested file after such proprietary information has been removed. The mere presence of an item of proprietary information in a

particular file does not exempt that entire file from public disclosure. "3. Files and data on the pesticide accident reporting mechanism: who reported each accident, how PRD evaluated the information, nat action if any was taken on the basis of such information. Also, what efforts PRD has made to coordinate with other governmental and private organizations in order to facilitate accident reporting

“4. Files and data on seizures made under FIFRA, including multiple seizures. “5. Files and data on violations recommended for prosecution under FIFRA.

“6. Files and data on the process of citation for violations of FIFRA: files supporting citations, the letters of citation themselves, all responses by each manufacturer to such citations, follow-up action by PRD.

“7. Files and data on the recall process: general procedures for recall and the file in each case where recall was employed. Each recall file should include all actions by the manufacturer, all supervision by PRD, quantity and location of the product recalled, and memoranda which indicate the effectiveness or completeness of the recall action.

“11. Files and data our any intra- or inter-departmental committees or study groups which may have made recommendations concerning pesticide regulation.

12. Files and data on the Interdepartmental Committee on Pesticides and its working group, together with minutes of all meetings and all recommendations made at such meetings.

"14. Please give us a list of specific reports which cannot be made available under the Freedom of Information Act.”'

As you know, requests for information must contain a reasonably specific description of the particular record sought as provided by 5 U.S.C. 552(a). “The burden of identification is with the member of the public who requests a record.” Attorney General's Memorandum on the Public Information Section of the Administrative Procedure Act, p. 24. In a number of discussions that ARS staff members had with Messrs. Easley and Nevas, and on one occasion when you were present, repeated efforts were made to have your request contain a more specific description of what you desired to review rather than a broad and indefinite type of request. ARS was not successful in getting your staff to modify or to be specific in their request. It is also noted that the requests are not limited to information applicable to any particular period of time. Even if there were no proprietary information in these files, the effort that would be required on the part of the Pesticides Regulation Division to assemble and provide this type of information would be extremely burdensome and would materially interfere with the performance of other agency functions. This would require us to take personnel off programs which are vital to the public interest and where there is already a sizeable backlog of work due to the limited number of personnel.

Specifically responding to your appeal, items of request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 are denied on the basis that the requests do not contain a reasonably specific description of the particular record sought as provided by 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Also, the items of request as identified below are denied for the additional reasons stated :

(1) Item No. 1, relating to the pesticide sampling program, is denied on the basis of 7 CFR 370.13(e) (4) and (g) of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (5) and (7).

ice when you and Mr. Nevans reported to the office of Mr. Nathaniel E. Kossack, Inspector General, on July 2, 1969.

Also on that day, in a meeting with you and Mr. Nevans and Dr. Hays, Director, Pesticides Regulations Division, we reviewed your request and found that many items were broad in scope, with general coverage to the extent that we could not definitely determine what was desired. We proposed that you meet with Dr. Hays and his two Assistants, Mr. Miller and Mr. Alford, and identify areas that would be desirable for review in line with your objectives. It was felt that this approach would more adequately provide information that would be useful to you.

We have been attempting to obtain clarification on many of your requests but due to their broad coverage specific responses have not been possible. We have, as you recall, specifically covered your request for review of File No. 201–36, the Shell Vapona “No-Pest Strip." Also, specific written response has been made to your request for unlimited freedom in interviewing any employee in the Pesticides Regulations Division, without any type clearance.

I understand that you would like to have immediate written response to your total initial requests presented on July 2. Our response refers to the items by number in sequence of the request.

Items 1 through 7. These items all contain information that is restricted and are not available for public review. Certain of these files do contain information that is not proprietary and would be available for review if separated from the basic file. However, our staff and work schedule is such that this cannot be done on a cash basis. Therefore, it is necessary that the entire file be restricted.

Item 8. Generally the files included in this area are available for your review.

Item 9. The Economic Research Service and the National Agricultural Library each have bulletins containing this type information. We suggest you contact these agencies for information desired.

Item 10. USDA responses to the recommendations of the General Accounting Office Reports of February 20 and September 10, 1968, are available for your review. USDA has not to date made a response to the National Research Council on the May 1969 report.

Items 11 and 12. This information is restricted and cannot be made available for your review.

Item 13. A description of this system will be provided.

Item 14. You request a list of specific reports that cannot be made available under the Freedom of Information Act. We believe the restricted subjects are adequately covered under Title 7, Chapter III, Subpart B, of the Combined Federal Regulations. Therefore, we have not attempted to prepare such list.

The Agricultural Research Service wishes to cooperate with you and Mr. Nevans in providing information that can be useful in completing the objectives of your project. At the same time we know you recognize that certain records cannot be disclosed without impairing the rights of privacy or important operations of the Government. These must be protected from disclosure.

We are continuing a careful review of your total request and if we are able to make additional information available to you we will do so promptly when it is cleared.

Dr. Hayes and I will be available to discuss with you any phases of your request and our response, if desired. Sincerely,

F. R. MANGHAM, Deputy Administrator.

EXHIBIT 5

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE,

Washington, D.C., November 17, 1969. Mr. HARRISON WELLFORD, Coordinator, Student Study Group on USDA, Center for Study of Responsire

Law, Washington, D.O. DEAR MR. WELLFORD: This has reference to your letter dated August 15, 1969, appealing the decision dated July 23, 1969, by Deputy Administrator F. R. Mangham, which denied your request for access to certain files and documents located in the Pesticides Regulation Division of this Service. Your appeal is made under provisions provided for by 7 CFR 370.15.

The undated request for 14 separate items presented to the Agricultural Research Service when Mr. Easley and Mr. Nevas reported to the Office of the Inspector General on July 2, 1969, and which was the subject of Mr. Mangham's letter of July 23, 1969, has been reviewed. Also, your letter of appeal dated August 15, 1969, has been carefully considered. The appeal relates to the following items from your original request :

**1. Files and data on the pesticide sampling program: where samples were taken, who collected each sample, what pesticides from each manufacturer were sampled. Also, what tests were run on each sample, who performed the test, and what action if any was taken on the test report.

*2. Files and data on the pesticide registration program: copies of all proposed labeling and directions for use. Where such files contain proprietary information (specific formulas), provision should be made for either

(a) access to the entire file with the understanding that no proprietary information will be copied or divulged, or

(6) access to the requested file after such proprietary information has been removed. The mere presence of an item of proprietary information in a particular file does not exempt that entire file from public disclosure. "3. Files and data on the pesticide accident reporting mechanism: who reported each accident, how PRD evaluated the information, what action if any was taken on the basis of such information. Also, what efforts PRD has made to coordinate with other governmental and private organizations in order to facilitate accident reporting.

*4. Files and data on seizures made under FIFRA, including multiple seizures. “5. Files and data on violations recommended for prosecution under FIFRA.

“6. Files and data on the process of citation for violations of FIFRA: files supporting citations, the letters of citation themselves, all responses by each manufacturer to such citations, follow-up action by PRD.

"7. Files and data on the recall process: general procedures for recall and the file in each case where recall was employed. Each recall file should include all actions by the manufacturer, all supervision by PRD, quantity and location of the product recalled, and memoranda which indicate the effectiveness or completeness of the recall action.

“11. Files and data our any intra- or inter-departmental committees or study groups which may have made recommendations concerning pesticide regulation.

"12. Files and data on the Interdepartmental Committee on Pesticides and its working group, together with minutes of all meetings and all recommendations made at such meetings.

"14. Please give us a list of specific reports which cannot be made available under the Freedom of Information Act.”

As you know, requests for information must contain a reasonably specific description of the particular record sought as provided by 5 U.S.C. 552(a). "The burden of identification is with the member of the public who requests a record." Attorney General's Memorandum on the Public Information Section of the Administrative Procedure Act, p. 24. In a number of discussions that ARS staff members had with Messrs. Easley and Nevas, and on one occasion when you were present, repeated efforts were made to have your request contain a more specific description of what you desired to review rather than a broad and indefinite type of request. ARS was not successful in getting your staff to modify or to be specific in their request. It is also noted that the requests are not limited to information applicable to any particular period of time. Even if there were no proprietary information in these files, the effort that would be required on the part of the Pesticides Regulation Division to assemble and provide this type of information would be extremely burdensome and would materially interfere with the performance of other agency functions. This would require us to take personnel off programs which are vital to the public interest and where there is already a sizeable backlog of work due to the limited number of personnel.

Specifically responding to your appeal, items of request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 are denied on the basis that the requests do not contain a reasonably specific description of the particular record sought as provided by 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). Also, the items of request as identified below are denied for the additional reasons stated :

(1) Item No. 1, relating to the pesticide sampling program, is denied on the basis of 7 CFR 370.13(e) (4) and (g) of 5 U.S.C. 552 (b) (5) and (7).

« AnteriorContinuar »