SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.
  




From: TSS (216-119-143-91.ipset23.wt.net)
Subject: BUSH ADMINISTRATION GESTAPO TYPE TACTICS TEMPORARILY SHOT DOWN (on paper) [Docket No. 2004N-0214]
Date: January 18, 2005 at 2:10 pm PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: BUSH ADMINISTRATION GESTAPO TYPE TACTICS TEMPORARILY SHOT DOWN (on paper)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:33:13 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@LISTSERV.KALIV.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE


##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ATTEMPT TO DEMOLISH FOIA TEMPORARILY SHOT DOWN (on paper)

[Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 11)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2799]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18ja05-1]


========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

[[Page 2799]]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 20

[Docket No. 2004N-0214]


Public Information Regulations; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published in the
Federal Register of September 2, 2004, a direct final rule to
incorporate exemptions one, two, and three of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) into FDA's public information regulations. The
purpose was to implement more comprehensively the exemptions contained
in FOIA. The comment period closed November 16, 2004. FDA is
withdrawing the direct final rule because the agency received
significant adverse comment.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 69 FR 53615 (September 2,
2004), is withdrawn as of January 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betty B. Dorsey, Division of Freedom
of Information (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-6567.

Authority: Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs, the direct final rule published on September 2, 2004 (69 FR
53615), is withdrawn.

Dated: January 11, 2005.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-955 Filed 1-13-05; 9:55 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-955.htm

[Federal Register: September 2, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 170)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53662-53664]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02se04-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 20

[Docket No. 2004N-0214]


Public Information Regulations; Companion Document to Direct
Final Rule

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend
its public information regulations to implement more comprehensively
the exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This
action incorporates exemptions one, two, and three of FOIA into FDA's
public information regulations. Exemption one applies to information
that is classified in the interest of national defense or foreign
policy. Exemption two applies to records that are related solely to an
agency's internal personnel rules and practices. Exemption three
incorporates the various nondisclosure provisions that are contained in
other Federal statutes. This proposed rule is a companion to the direct
final final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments by November 16, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [Docket No. 2004N-
0214], by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the

instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments . Follow the

instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site.
E-mail: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov . Include [Docket No. 2004N-0214] in
the subject line of your e-mail message.
FAX: 301-827-6870.
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions]: Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and

[[Page 53663]]

Docket No. 2004N-0214 for this rulemaking. All comments received will
be posted without change to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments ,

including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking
process, see the ``Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments and/or

the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betty B. Dorsey, Division of Freedom
of Information (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-6567.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

This proposed rule is a companion to the direct final rule
published in the final rules section of this issue of the Federal
Register. The companion proposed rule and the direct final rule are
substantively identical. This companion proposed rule will provide the
procedural framework to finalize the rule in the event the direct final
rule receives significant adverse comment and is withdrawn. The comment
period for the companion proposed rule runs concurrently with the
comment period of the direct final rule. Any comments received under
the companion proposed rule will be treated as comments regarding the
direct final rule. FDA is publishing the direct final rule because the
rule contains noncontroversial changes, and the agency anticipates that
it will receive no significant adverse comments. A detailed discussion
of this rule is set forth in the preamble of the direct final rule. If
no significant adverse comment is received in response to the direct
final rule, no further action will be taken related to this proposed
rule. Instead, FDA will publish a confirmation document before the date
of the direct final rule, to confirm the effetive date of the direct
final rule. If FDA receives significant adverse comments, the agency
will withdraw the direct final rule. FDA will proceed to consider all
of the comments received using the usual notice-and-comment procedures.
FDA is proposing to amend its public information regulations to
incorporate exemptions one, two, and three of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552). FOIA
provides that all Federal agency records shall be made available to the
public upon request, except to the extent those records are protected
from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions (5 U.S.C. 552(b)) or
one of three special law enforcement record exclusions (5 U.S.C.
552(c)). FDA originally issued its public information regulations
implementing FOIA in 1974. As noted at the time, FDA's 1974 regulations
explicitly addressed four of the nine FOIA exemptions that were then
perceived to be of particular importance to the agency, those relating
to trade secrets, internal memoranda, personal privacy, and
investigatory files (39 FR 44602, December 24, 1974) . FDA now finds it
necessary to address exemption one (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1)), given the
President's designation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to classify information under Executive Order 12958 (66 FR 64347,
December 12, 2001). Because exemption two (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2)) applies
to, among other types of records, internal matters whose disclosure
would risk circumvention of a legal requirement, this exemption is of
fundamental importance to homeland security in light of recent
terrorism events and heightened security awareness. In addition, FDA
now finds that exemption three (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)), which incorporates
the various nondisclosure provisions that are contained in other
Federal statutes, is becoming increasingly important to the agency. As
such, FDA is proposing to amend subpart D of its public information
regulations in 21 CFR part 20 to incorporate these three exemptions.

III. Environmental Impact

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) and (i) that this
action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.

IV. Federalism

FDA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that
the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency has concluded
that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism
implications as defined in the Executive Order and, consequently, a
federalism summary impact statement is not required.

V. Analysis of Impacts

FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive
Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that
this proposed rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and
principles identified in the Executive order. In addition, the proposed
rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive
order and so is not subject to review under the Executive order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because this proposed rule simply incorporates three
existing FOIA exemptions, the agency certifies that it will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further analysis is
required.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any
rule that may result in expenditure in any one year by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million, adjusted annually for inflation. As noted previously, we find
that this proposed rule would not have an effect of this magnitude on
the economy.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The proposed rule contains no collections of information.
Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

VII. Comments

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
written comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the

[[Page 53664]]

docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document and may
be accompanied by a supporting memorandum or brief. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 20

Confidential business information, Courts, Freedom of information,
Government employees.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is
proposed that 21 CFR part 20 be amended as follows:

PART 20--PUBLIC INFORMATION

1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 18 U.S.C. 1905; 19 U.S.C. 2531-2582; 21
U.S.C. 321-393, 1401-1403; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242, 242a, 242l, 242n,
243, 262, 263, 263b-263n, 264, 265, 300u-300u-5, 300aa-1.
2. Section 20.65 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 20.65 National defense and foreign policy.

(a) Records or information may be withheld from public disclosure
if they are:
(1) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an
Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense
or foreign policy; and
(2) In fact properly classified under such Executive order.
(b) [Reserved]
3. Section 20.66 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 20.66 Internal personnel rules and practices.

Records or information may be withheld from public disclosure if
they are related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices
of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Under this exemption, FDA
may withhold records or information about routine internal agency
practices and procedures. Under this exemption, the agency may also
withhold internal records whose release would help some persons
circumvent the law.
4. Section 20.67 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 20.67 Records exempted by other statutes.

Records or information may be withheld from public disclosure if a
statute specifically allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
withhold them. FDA may use another statute to justify withholding
records and information only if it absolutely prohibits disclosure,
sets forth criteria to guide our decision on releasing material, or
identifies particular types of matters to be withheld.

Dated: August 24, 2004.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-19995 Filed 9-1-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/04-19995.htm


>FDA is proposing to amend its public information regulations to
>incorporate exemptions one, two, and three of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552). FOIA
>provides that all Federal agency records shall be made available to the
>public upon request, except to the extent those records are protected
>from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions (5 U.S.C. 552(b)) or
>one of three special law enforcement record exclusions (5 U.S.C.
>552(c)).


MAKES no differenct what rule is ammended, IF they still
refuse to grant your request under the FOIA...

FDA attempting broad, vague change in FOIA language


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has a hand in environmental
issues such as mad cow disease and chemical contaminants in food, is
trying to modify its FOIA exemption criteria.


In a proposed rule published Sept. 2, 2004, in the Federal Register
(Docket No. 2004N-0214,
http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-19995.htm), the agency said it
wants to ?implement more comprehensively the exemptions contained in the
Freedom of Information Act.? The proposed rule addresses three exemption
categories that already exist under US law (national defense or foreign
policy; personnel rules and practices; and exemptions included in other
statutes).


Its first look into the proposal has the National Security Archive at
George Washington University concerned, says general counsel Meredith
Fuchs (202-994-7059, mfuchs@gwu.edu ). One of the
major issues may be how vaguely, and broadly, FDA is attempting to
expand exemptions related to internal personnel rules and practices
(which the agency has rarely used to date). No other federal agencies
outside those dealing with national security, law enforcement, and the
Dept. of Defense have adopted similar language, Fuchs says. And when
they have, such language has been more precise and supported by more
extensive explanatory statements. Fuchs say her organization should
complete its initial review of the proposal by about the first of
October 2004.


At the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which frequently deals
with FDA, a first glance at the proposed rule didn?t alarm staff. But
CSPI will continue to look at the rule, particularly aspects that would
allow the agency to exempt information that could help someone
circumvent US law (framed by FDA as a necessary change to deal with
terrorism). CSPI, Jeff Cronin, 202-777-8370.


Another angle of the proposed rule, of uncertain importance so far, is
that it is piggybacked on an almost identical final rule whose public
comment period also ends Nov. 16, 2004. FDA says that if the final rule
receives many adverse comments, it will be withdrawn, and the proposed
rule will ?provide the procedural framework to finalize the rule.?


A third angle that may be of interest is included in the discussion of
exemptions included in other statutes, which FDA says are ?becoming
increasingly important to the agency.?


-- FDA media, Karen Mahoney, 301-827-1676


5:20:00 PM

http://radio.weblogs.com/0131722/
http://notes.sej.org/sej/tipsheet.nsf/0/333B1D4A7D82506786256F18005754B0?OpenDocument

>FDA is
>withdrawing the direct final rule because the agency received
>significant adverse comment.
>

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/04n0214/04N-0214-EC-1-Attach-1.pdf

2004N-0214: PUBLIC INFORMATION REGULATIONS

Page last updated March 16, 2004 kk

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/04n0214/04n0214.htm

WONDER where all the

>significant adverse comments
>

are located at ???

> April 3, 2003
> Food and Drug Administration
> Rockville MD 20857
>
> Terry Singletary, Sr.
> PO Box 42
> Bacliff TX 77518
> In Reply Refer To:
> 03-146
>
> Dear Mr. Singletary:
>
> This is in response to your request (copy enclosed) for a waiver of fees
> for records requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
> The FOIA provides that documents shall be furnished without any charge
> or at a reduced charge if disclosure of the information is in the public
> interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public
> understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is
> not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
>
> Your request did not contain sufficient information to enable the Food
> and Drug Administration to make a determination on your request for fee
> waiver. In order to evaluate whether the statutory standard authorizing
> a fee waiver or reduction has been met, we will need additional
> information upon which to base our determination. Your response should
> include the following information:
>
> 1. A clear statement of your interest in the requested documents
> and the proposed use of the documents, and whether you will
> derive income or other benefit from such use
>
> 2. A statement of how the general public will benefit from such
> use and from the release of the requested documents
>
> 3. A statement indicating how you plan to disseminate the documents
> or information to the general public
>
> 4. If specialized use of the documents or information is contemplated,
> a statement of your qualifications that are relevant to the
> specialized use
>
> 5. Any additional information relevant for consideration of your request
> for waiver of fees.
>
> Additionally, in order to aid FDA's search for documents that would be
> responsive to your request, please clarify more specifically the pertine
> documents you are seeking.
> Please submit this information to Ms. Barbara Schulman, Division of
> Freedom of Information
> (HFI-35), 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
> Telephone number 301-827-6567.
>
> If we have not heard from you by April 24, 2003 we will issue a
> determination based upon the information provided in your request
> letter Copies of the Department of Justice's Fee Waiver Policy Guidance
> and the Food and Drug Administration's fee waiver regulations, 21 CFR
> 20.43, are enclosed for your information.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Betty B. Dorsey, Director
> Division of Freedom of Information
> ===================================
>
> Greetings again Betty B. Dorsey,
>
> with all do respect;
>
> "you've got to be kidding me"!
>
> i guess the FOIA works differently from Administration to
> Administration. i remember requesting all the data that
> was submitted to the EU on the USA GBR assessment and other
> data pertaining to TSE in the USA and recieved _fairly_ easily,
> free of charge after telling them why i wanted them, through
> the FOIA during the last Administration;
>
> Subject: Re: B.S.E./F.O.I.A. request for fee waiver...TSS
> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:02:40 -0500
> From: Linda Detwiler
> To: flounder@wt.net
>
> Mr. Singletary,
>
> I double checked with the FOIA staff and you received the entire
> submission of information requested by the EU. I am not sure what else
> you were expecting...
>
> =====================
>
> Greetings again Betty and FDA,
>
> i have never made a damn dime on any of this over the last
> 5 or so years and FDA knows this. they know what i want and
> why i want it. someone is responsible for the many sporadic CJD
> deaths here in the USA, and the FDA and the cattle industry
> (which the FDA seems so anxious to protect), continues to
> conveniently ignore that;
>
> SNIP...
>
> Greetings again Betty B. Dorsey and FDA,
>
> once again, i kindly request the full submission of all USA
> ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations (if any) from
> Jan. 2001 to 2003 (should not take but a few pages).
> and since every USA citizen has up to 100 pages _free_,
> i must also ask for all correspondence relative to BSE/GBR
> risk assessment between USDA and EU Commission _after_
> January 2002. all countries wanting to be re-assessed for
> 'geographical BSE-risk'(GBR) by EU's SSC had to send an
> application at the latest 1/31/2002. if i am not mistaken,
> the USDA sent their application to EU on 12/27/2001
> (probably has same rhetoric the Harvard study had).
> Seems the EU has asked additional questions, and this
> is now what i also seek (all info submitted to EU's
> SSC pertaining to re-assessment for GBR, in addition
> to all the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters
> from 2001 to April 2003. in my opinion, the USA would be
> fools to ask to be reassessed on GBR risk assessment.
> they were already given everything but the 'gold' card
> i.e. 'BSE FREE' status (even though the USA sometimes
> falesly claims this) with a GBR risk assessment of
> GBR II. in my opinion, the USA GBR should be changed
> to GBR III ASAP for all reasons i have stated, and the
> complete GBR risk assessment should be changed to include
> _all_ TSEs. please don't omit anything, and _please_,
> none of those NSCS on mamalian import/export. that
> infamous NON SPECIES CODING SYSTEM has got to go;-)
> i know difficult questions were asked of Countries
> on the second GBR re-assessment, i would like copy
> of letter from the EU commission sent to USDA probably
> sometimes after January 2002 (probably some months later),
> and reply-letter from USDA (all documents pertaining to
> 2nd re-assessment of USA BSE GBR), and all ruminant-to-ruminant
> from 2001 to April 2003 (and if it takes another 4 months
> for you to reply, please send any ruminant-to-ruminant feed
> ban violations during that time period also).
>
> I also _again_ kindly request that all fees be wavered due
> to the fact this is public information, public health is at risk,
> and this will be distributed 'freely' to the public, as has been
> the case in the past. i hope i have supplied enough information
> to show this. also, about my request for fee waiver, the 1st 100
> pages are free if i am not mistaken, and i also read most of the
> time the FDA does not charge for FOIA;
>
> VII. Fees
>
> There is no initial fee to file a FOIA request and, in the majority
> of requests made to the Justice Department, no fees are ever charged. By
> law, however, an agency is entitled to charge certain fees, which depend
> on the category of requester you fall into.
>
> For the purposes of fees only, the FOIA divides requesters into three
> categories. Commercial requesters may be charged fees for searching for
> records, processing the records, and photocopying them. On the other
> hand, educational or noncommercial scientific institutions and
> representatives of the news media are charged only for photocopying
> expenses, after the first one hundred pages of copies. Requesters who do
> not fall into either of these two categories are not charged for
> processing; they are charged only for record searches and photocopying
> -- and there is no charge for the first two hours of search time or for
> the first one hundred pages of photocopies. The Justice Department
> currently charges ten cents per page for photocopying. In all cases, if
> the total fee does not exceed a minimum amount, currently $14.00, the
> Justice Department will not charge any fee at all...
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/referenceguidemay99.htm#intro
>
> before i forget, FYI, i posted __FREELY__, for the public,
> past ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations at this url;
>
> http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/9912336.html
>
> seems if the public is going to consume this product,
> that public should have the right to know about these
> ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations. i make _NO_
> money off _NONE_ of these sites or anything else that
> has been published from me pertaining to human/animal
> TSEs or anything else, just ask my wife, she will kindly
> tell you about this, well, that might not be so kindly;-)
>
> thank you,
> kindest regards,
>
> i am sincerely,
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> P.O. Box 42
> Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
>
> i also sent certified reciept US POSTAL today 4/14/03...
>
> END
>
> Food and Drug Administration
> Office of Information Resources Management
> Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35)
> 5600 Fishers Lane
> Rockville, MD 20857
>
> Or requests may be sent via fax to: (301) 443-1726. If there are
> problems sending a fax, call (301) 443-2414.
>
> 1/6/03
>
> Request to FDA via FOIA of ALL USA Ruminant-to-Ruminant Feed Ban
> Violations Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2003
>
> Greetings FDA and To Whom it may concern,
>
> i wish to request all ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations from Jan.
> 2001 to Jan. 2003. it seems none has been posted since May 2001 on the
> FDA site. I also kindly request that all fees be wavered due to the fact
> this is public information, public health is at risk, and this will be
> distributed 'freely' to the public...
>
> thank you,
> kind regards,
>
> I am sincerely,
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> P.O. Box 42
> Bacliff, Texas USA 77518


http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/454.html


TSS

######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: