DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of Selected in Vitro Assays for Assessing the Toxicity of Chemicals and Their Mixtures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

COMPARISON OF SELECTED IN VITRO ASSAYS FOR ASSESSING THE TOXICITY OF CHEMICALS AND THEIR MIXTURES Rola Azzi A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Chemical Safety and Applied Toxicology Laboratories School of Safety Science Faculty of Science The University of New South Wales June 2006 Certificate of Originality Certificate of Originality I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any degree at UNSW or any other education institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the thesis. Any contributions made to the research by others, which whom I have worked, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged. Rola Azzi June 2006 i Acknowledgments Acknowledgments I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Dr Amanda Hayes for her assistance, constant encouragement and expertise. Without her support and guidance this project would not have been possible. I am also grateful to Associate Professor Chris Winder, for his constant support, advice, and scientific expertise throughout my work on this project. I would also like to express my sincerest gratitude and appreciation to my uncle, Associate Professor Rachad Saliba, who was a constant support during the writing of this thesis, and was devoted to helping me grasp the science of statistics, and its ability to transform numbers into a story. To my colleagues at the School of Safety Science: Dr Christian Khalil, Mrs Fatma Lestari, Mrs Shahnaz Bakand and Mrs Aparna Manglik. I thank you for your friendship and support. To the special friends who shared this journey with me, you have always been there for me, even from across the seas. Thank you for the constant support and friendship, it made life much more meaningful. Special thanks go to my family who have always been there to support and encourage me in all my endeavours. A special thank you to my grandparents for believing in me so much. Last and most importantly to my parents and sister: you are my backbone in life. Thank you for the considerable sacrifices and supporting me in following my path in life even when it meant living in another country. I could not have made it through this thesis without your unconditional love and unlimited support in every possible way. This research is dedicated to my brother Tony. You are and will always be my inner strength, and my hope. I miss you. ii ‘Indulge your passion for science but let your science be human, and such as may have a direct reference to action and society’ (David Hume 1711-1776) (Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: Introduction, 9) iii Abstract Abstract From a regulatory point of view, the main objective of acute toxicity testing is to classify chemicals according to their intrinsic toxicity. This is conventionally conducted on the basis of the animal LD50 methods however, this test has been widely criticised. Moreover, conventional toxicity testing focuses on single chemicals and often human exposures are to more than one chemical. This research study had two main objectives. The first was to investigate the accuracy of selected in vitro tests for predicting the acute toxic action of chemicals in rodents and humans, and in predicting the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) categories. The second was to explore the relevance of in vitro tests in determining the nature of toxicological interactions (i.e. additive, antagonistic and synergistic) among binary and ternary chemical mixtures. A battery of cytotoxicity tests (MTS, NRU, LDH and ATP) assays were used to determine the toxicity of 21 chemicals spread across the GHS categories where mercuric chloride (GHS category 1) was the most toxic chemical and glycerol (GHS unclassified) the least toxic. Significant differences for the majority of test chemicals were found among all assays, highlighting the need for a battery of in vitro tests measuring different endpoints. The NRU assay was found to be a more sensitive measure of toxicity for most chemicals and predicted all of the GHS categories. In general, in vitro IC50 values correlated well with in vivo rodent (LD50); human acute toxicity (LDL0 and LC) data and published in vitro data. In addition, in vitro NOEC values correlated well with published TLV. Selected assays (MTS, NRU) were applied to binary (15) and ternary (5) chemical mixtures. Mixtures were prepared at mixture ratios proportional to the potency of individual components. Experimental data was used to assess the predictive capabilities of two approaches (mathematical model and concentration addition) commonly used by regulatory agencies which assume additive effect. However, all three interactions (antagonism, synergism and additivity) where observed in this study. These results suggest that these interactions cannot be excluded from toxicological risk assessments. The methods developed and information obtained from this study provide a comprehensive comparison between selected in vitro assays for assessing the toxicity of chemicals and their mixtures. iv Table of Contents Table of Contents Certificate0H of Originality………………………………………………………………..i286H Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………1H ii287H Table2H of Contents……………………………………………………………………… v28H List3H of Tables …………………………………………………………………………..ix289H Listof4H Figures…………………………………………………………………………..xi290H Listof5H Abbreviations………………………………………………………………….xiii291H Publicationsand6H Awards…………………………………………………………….xvii29H Chapter7H 1. Introduction.............................................................................................1293H Chapter8H 2. Literature Review....................................................................................7294H 2.19H Toxicological Risk Assessment.................................................................................7295H 2.1.110H Hazard identification..........................................................................................10296H 2.1.21H Dose-response assessment .................................................................................11297H 2.1.2.112H Hormesis .....................................................................................................13298H 2.1.313H Exposure assessment..........................................................................................1529H 2.1.414H Risk characterisation ..........................................................................................1730H 2.215H Methods of Toxicity Testing...................................................................................18301H 2.2.116H Animal test methods...........................................................................................19302H 2.2.1.117H Criticism for the use of animal methods .....................................................2330H 2.2.218H Non-animal test methods ...................................................................................29304H 2.2.2.119H The Alternative movement..........................................................................29305H 2.2.2.220H In vitro toxicity endpoints ...........................................................................32306H 2.2.2.321H Mechanism of cellular toxicity....................................................................34307H 2.2.2.3.12H Basal cytotoxicity.......................................................................................................... 35308H 2.323H Validating In Vitro Tests and Regulatory Acceptance .......................................37309H 2.3.124H The MEIC/EDIT approach.................................................................................41310H 2.3.225H The ZEBET approach ........................................................................................43H 26H2.3.3 ICCVAM............................................................................................................44312H 2.3.427H ECVAM .............................................................................................................4431H 2.428H Using InVitro Cytotoxicity Tests in Risk Assessments.........................................45314H 2.529H Selected in vitro cytotoxicity assays .......................................................................49315H 2.5.130H The MTS cytotoxicity assay ..............................................................................49316H 2.5.231H The NRU cytotoxicity assay ..............................................................................51317H 2.5.332H The LDH cytotoxicity assay...............................................................................52318H v Table of Contents 2.5.43H The ATP cytotoxicity assay ...............................................................................53319H 2.634H Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures ................................................................54320H 2.6.135H Basic concepts of chemical mixture toxicology.................................................55321H 2.6.1.136H Simple similar action (Concentration Addition).........................................5532H 2.6.1.237H Simple dissimilar action (Response
Recommended publications
  • Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology an Interactive Guide Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology PK Gupta

    Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology an Interactive Guide Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology PK Gupta

    PK Gupta Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology An Interactive Guide Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology PK Gupta Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology An Interactive Guide PK Gupta Toxicology Consulting Group Academy of Sciences for Animal Welfare Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India ISBN 978-3-030-22249-9 ISBN 978-3-030-22250-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22250-5 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Preface The book entitled Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology: An Interactive Guide covers a broad spectrum of topics for the students specializing in veterinary toxicology and veterinary medical practitioners.
  • Record of Decision (ROD)

    Record of Decision (ROD)

    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA REGION 1 – NEW ENGLAND RECORD OF DECISION NYANZA CHEMICAL WASTE DUMP SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 02 ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS JULY 2020 PART 1: THE DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION A. SITE NAME AND LOCATION B. STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE C. ASSESSMENT OF SITE D. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY E. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS F. SPECIAL FINDINGS G. DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST H. AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY A. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION B. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1. History of Site Activities 2. History of Federal and State Investigations and Removal and Remedial Actions 3. History of CERCLA Enforcement Activities C. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION D. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION E. SITE CHARACTERISTICS F. CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE USES G. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 1. Human Health Risk Assessment 2. Supplemental Human Health Risk Assessment 3. Supplemental Evaluation Following Risk Assessment 4. Ecological Risk Assessment 5. Basis for Remedial Action H. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES I. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES J. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES K. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES L. THE SELECTED REMEDY M. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS N. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES O. STATE ROLE Record of Decision Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump Superfund Site: OU2 July 2020 Ashland, Massachusetts Page 2 of 73 PART 3: THE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY APPENDICES Appendix A: MassDEP Letter of Concurrence Appendix B: Tables Appendix C: Figures Appendix D: ARARs Tables Appendix E: References Appendix F: Acronyms and Abbreviations Appendix G: Administrative Record Index and Guidance Documents Record of Decision Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump Superfund Site: OU2 July 2020 Ashland, Massachusetts Page 3 of 73 PART 1: THE DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION A.
  • Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards

    Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards

    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ( 1) Purpose. The establishment of water quality standards. (2) W ate r Quality Enhancement: (a) The purposes and intent of the State in establishing Water Quality Standards are to provide enhancement of water quality and prevention of pollution; to protect the public health or welfare in accordance with the public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation of fish, wildlife and other beneficial aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other reasonable and necessary uses and to maintain and improve the biological integrity of the waters of the State. ( b) The following paragraphs describe the three tiers of the State's waters. (i) Tier 1 - Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. (ii) Tier 2 - Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the division finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the division's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.
  • ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection

    ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection

    ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Technical Report No. 138 EUROPEAN CENTRE OFOR EC TOXICOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF CHEMICALS ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Technical Report No. 138 Brussels, March 2021 ISSN-2079-1526-138 (online) ECETOC TR No. 138 1 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection 224504 ECETOC Technical Report No. 138 © Copyright – ECETOC AISBL European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Rue Belliard 40, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Applications to reproduce, store, copy or translate should be made to the Secretary General. ECETOC welcomes such applications. Reference to the document, its title and summary may be copied or abstracted in data retrieval systems without subsequent reference. The content of this document has been prepared and reviewed by experts on behalf of ECETOC with all possible care and from the available scientific information. It is provided for information only. ECETOC cannot accept any responsibility or liability and does not provide a warranty for any use or interpretation of the material contained in the publication. ECETOC TR No. 138 2 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Table of Contents 1. SUMMARY 6 2. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PRINCIPLES 9 2.1. Background and Principles 9 2.2. Current Regulatory Framework and Guidance 10 2.2.1. Historical perspectives and the evolution of test guidelines 10 2.2.2.
  • Interaction Profile

    Interaction Profile

    INTERACTION PROFILE FOR: PERSISTENT CHEMICALS FOUND IN FISH (CHLORINATED DIBENZO-p-DIOXINS, HEXACHLOROBENZENE, p,p’-DDE, METHYLMERCURY, and POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry May 2004 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) wishes to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its support in the production of this Interaction Profile. v PREFACE The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) shall assess whether adequate information on health effects is available for the priority hazardous substances. Where such information is not available or under development, ATSDR shall, in cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, initiate a program of research to determine these health effects. The Act further directs that where feasible, ATSDR shall develop methods to determine the health effects of substances in combination with other substances with which they are commonly found. To carry out the legislative mandate, ATSDR’s Division of Toxicology (DT) has developed and coordinated a mixtures program that includes trend analysis to identify the mixtures most often found in environmental media, in vivo and in vitro toxicological testing of mixtures, quantitative modeling of joint action, and methodological development for assessment of joint toxicity. These efforts are interrelated. For example, the trend analysis suggests mixtures of concern for which assessments need to be conducted. If data are not available, further research is recommended. The data thus generated often contribute to the design, calibration or validation of the methodology.
  • Toxicological Profile for Zinc

    Toxicological Profile for Zinc

    TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR ZINC U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry August 2005 ZINC ii DISCLAIMER The use of company or product name(s) is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ZINC iii UPDATE STATEMENT A Toxicological Profile for Zinc, Draft for Public Comment was released in September 2003. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary. For information regarding the update status of previously released profiles, contact ATSDR at: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology/Toxicology Information Branch 1600 Clifton Road NE Mailstop F-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30333 ZINC vi *Legislative Background The toxicological profiles are developed in response to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (Public law 99-499) which amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). This public law directed ATSDR to prepare toxicological profiles for hazardous substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List and that pose the most significant potential threat to human health, as determined by ATSDR and the EPA. The availability of the revised priority list of 275 hazardous substances was announced in the Federal Register on November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61332). For prior versions of the list of substances, see Federal Register notices dated April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18744); April 17, 1987 (52 FR 12866); October 20, 1988 (53 FR 41280); October 26, 1989 (54 FR 43619); October 17, 1990 (55 FR 42067); October 17, 1991 (56 FR 52166); October 28, 1992 (57 FR 48801); and February 28, 1994 (59 FR 9486).
  • Toxicological Profile for Copper

    Toxicological Profile for Copper

    TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR COPPER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry September 2004 COPPER ii DISCLAIMER The use of company or product name(s) is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. COPPER iii UPDATE STATEMENT A Toxicological Profile for Copper, Draft for Public Comment was released in September 2002. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary. For information regarding the update status of previously released profiles, contact ATSDR at: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology/Toxicology Information Branch 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30333 COPPER vii QUICK REFERENCE FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS Toxicological Profiles are a unique compilation of toxicological information on a given hazardous substance. Each profile reflects a comprehensive and extensive evaluation, summary, and interpretation of available toxicologic and epidemiologic information on a substance. Health care providers treating patients potentially exposed to hazardous substances will find the following information helpful for fast answers to often-asked questions. Primary Chapters/Sections of Interest Chapter 1: Public Health Statement: The Public Health Statement can be a useful tool for educating patients about possible exposure to a hazardous substance. It explains a substance’s relevant toxicologic properties in a nontechnical, question-and-answer format, and it includes a review of the general health effects observed following exposure. Chapter 2: Relevance to Public Health: The Relevance to Public Health Section evaluates, interprets, and assesses the significance of toxicity data to human health.
  • (GIVIMP) for the Development and Implementation of in Vitro Methods for 829 Regulatory Use in Human Safety Assessment

    (GIVIMP) for the Development and Implementation of in Vitro Methods for 829 Regulatory Use in Human Safety Assessment

    1 2 Draft GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON GOOD IN VITRO METHOD PRACTICES (GIVIMP) 3 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF IN VITRO METHODS FOR 4 REGULATORY USE IN HUMAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT 5 6 FOREWORD 7 8 A guidance document on Good In Vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP) for the development and 9 implementation of in vitro methods for regulatory use in human safety assessment was 10 identified as a high priority requirement. The aim is to reduce the uncertainties in cell and 11 tissue-based in vitro method derived predictions by applying all necessary good scientific, 12 technical and quality practices from in vitro method development to in vitro method 13 implementation for regulatory use. 14 The draft guidance is coordinated by the European validation body EURL ECVAM and has 15 been accepted on the work plan of the OECD test guideline programme since April 2015 as a 16 joint activity between the Working Group on Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and the 17 Working Group of the National Coordinators of the Test Guidelines Programme (WNT). 18 The draft document prepared by the principal co-authors has been sent in September 2016 to 19 all 37 members of the European Union Network of Laboratories for the Validation of 20 Alternative Methods (EU-NETVAL1) and has been subsequently discussed at the EU- 21 NETVAL meeting on the 10th of October 2016. 22 By November/December 2016 the comments of the OECD Working Group on GLP and 23 nominated experts of the OECD WNT will be forwarded to EURL ECVAM who will 24 incorporate these and prepare an updated version.
  • “Six-Pack” Testing Strategy: Influx of Modern in Vitro Techniques Gertrude-Emilia Costin, Ph.D., M.B.A

    “Six-Pack” Testing Strategy: Influx of Modern in Vitro Techniques Gertrude-Emilia Costin, Ph.D., M.B.A

    Modernizing the “six-pack” testing strategy: influx of modern in vitro techniques Gertrude-Emilia Costin, Ph.D., M.B.A. Institute for In Vitro Sciences, Inc. (IIVS) NorCal SOT Fall Symposium 2017 The 3Rs 28 September 2017, San Francisco, CA, USA Perspectives, challenges, common goals and working together Safety/ Testing Labs Labeling/ Industry/ Regulatory Manufacturer Agency Consumer/ End-user Safety Presentation Outline Current regulatory climate – global acceptance of in vitro methods The reductionist concept of in vitro methods Drivers of in vitro methods advancement Beyond the “six-pack” battery of acute toxicity tests Acute oral toxicity Acute dermal toxicity (oral vs dermal route comparison) Acute inhalation toxicity Ocular irritation (the EPA OPP testing strategy) Skin irritation/corrosion Skin sensitization Modernizing the “six-pack” testing strategy: influx of modern in vitro techniques Current regulatory climate – global acceptance of in vitro methods The reductionist concept of in vitro models 1940s 1990s Whole animal Organ - Eyeball Tissue - Cornea Cell culture (Rabbit) (Enucleated chicken or (Resected bovine (Statens Seruminstitut rabbit eye) cornea) Rabbit cornea cells) “Less is more” Retinal Pigment Epithelium Semi-permeable Membrane Vascular network Nutrient channels Fibrinogen- endothelial cell administration channel Body-on-a-chip Organ-on-a-chip Tissue construct Cell culture (Human organotypic (Human retina) (Human EpiCorneal™ (Normal human microtissues) model) corneal epithelial cells) 2010s 2000s G.-E. Costin and H. A. Raabe. In vitro toxicology models. In: The Role of the Study Director in Non-clinical Studies. Pharmaceuticals, Chemicals, Medical Devices, and Pesticides. (Eds. William Brock, Barbara Mounho and Lijie Fu), John Wiley and Sons (2014). G.-E. Costin.
  • 12–3–08 Vol. 73 No. 233 Wednesday Dec. 3, 2008 Pages 73545–73760

    12–3–08 Vol. 73 No. 233 Wednesday Dec. 3, 2008 Pages 73545–73760

    12–3–08 Wednesday Vol. 73 No. 233 Dec. 3, 2008 Pages 73545–73760 VerDate Aug 31 2005 18:03 Dec 02, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\03DEWS.LOC 03DEWS sroberts on PROD1PC70 with FRONTMATTER II Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 202–741–6005 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005 Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing.
  • Strategic Plan 2012‐2017

    Strategic Plan 2012‐2017

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Asheville, North Carolina Field Office STRATEGIC PLAN 2012‐2017 THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, WORKING WITH OTHERS, CONSERVES, PROTECTS, AND ENHANCES FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS AND THEIR HABITATS FOR THE CONTINUING BENEFIT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND______________________________________3 STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES_______________________________8 AFO STAFFING AND DIVERSITY PLAN____________________________________13 APPENDIX A: AFO STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITY WORK AREA MAP/GIS METHODOLOGY__18 MAP OF AFO STRATEGIC PLAN (FIGURE 2)_______________________________33 APPENDIX B: ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES FOR WHICH AFO HAS RESPONSIBILITIES__________________________________________________________34 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES AND CITATIONS______________________________38 APPENDIX D: STAFF ACTION PLANS_________________________________________52 APPENDIX E: TABLE OF ACRONYMS_____________________________________79 2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Asheville Field Office (AFO), an Ecological Services facility, was established in the late 1970s. Forty-one counties make up the AFO’s core work area in western North Carolina, which includes many publicly owned conservation lands, especially in the higher elevations, as well as the metropolitan areas of Charlotte, Winston- Salem, and Asheville (Figure 1). This area primarily encompasses portions of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont physiographic provinces. In addition
  • In the Circuit Court of the Stateof Oregon for Jackson County

    In the Circuit Court of the Stateof Oregon for Jackson County

    3/17/2021 4:49 PM 21CV10291 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATEOF OREGON FOR JACKSON COUNTY LARRY JOHNSON and GAYLE JOHNSON CASE NO. Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. COMPLAINT FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY, NEGLIGENCE, FRAUD, MONSANTO COMPANY, a corporation; BREACH OF WARRANTIES, LOSS OF EAGLE POINT HARDWARE, LLC, a CONSORTIUM corporation. Total Claim: $39,037,679.39 Defendants. Claim is Not Subject to Mandatory Arbitration Fee Authority: ORS 21.160(1)(e) COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Larry Johnson and Gayle Johnson, by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their cause of action against Defendants Monsanto Company and Eagle Point Hardware, LLC, alleging the following upon information and belief (including investigation made by and through Plaintiffs’ counsel), except those allegations that pertain to Plaintiffs, which are based on personal knowledge: INTRODUCTION All claims in this action are a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent, willful, and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of the products as Roundup®. Plaintiffs in this action seek recovery for damages as a result of LARRY JOHNSON developing Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (“NHL”), which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by Defendant, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of Roundup®, and its active ingredient, glyphosate, and the attendant effects of developing NHL. Plaintiffs did not know of an association between exposure to Roundup® and the increased risk of developing NHL until well after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”), an agency of the World Health Organization (“WHO”), first published its evaluation of glyphosate.