[Federal Register: January 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2275]
[DOCID:fr18ja07-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-72-005]

Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Refund Report

January 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 8, 2007, Northern Border Pipeline
Company (Northern Border) tendered for filing a refund report showing
the computation of refunds that were made to Northern Border's
customers pursuant to Articles X-XII of the Stipulation and Agreement
dated September 18, 2006, filed in Docket No. RP06-72-000 (Stipulation
and Agreement) and approved by the Commission in a Letter Order on
November 21, 2006 (117 FERC ] 61,217).
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 17, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-573 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 39690-39691]
[DOCID:fr07au09-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No 2

July 31, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-739-002.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System submits Substitute
Fifteenth Revised Sheet 120 to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 07/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090728-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-658-002.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits Third Revised
Sheet No. 385 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No 1, to
be effective 8/28/09.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090728-0076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-679-001.
    Applicants: Wyckoff Gas Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Wyckoff Gas Storage Company, LLC submits Sub. First
Revised Sheet 31 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to
be effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090729-0123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-713-002.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits Thirteenth
Revised Sheet 286 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1,
to be effective 8/28/09.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090728-0078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-715-002.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.

    Description: Hardy Storage Company, LLC submits Third Revised Sheet
Nos. 186 and 187 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Revised Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090728-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-548-001.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits Substitute Second
Revised Sheet No. 3 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 07/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-550-001.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Co, LP submits Original Sheet No.
4021 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 07/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-552-001.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Co, LLC submits Original Sheet
No. 1307 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 07/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-815-001.
    Applicants: Enbridge Offshore Pipelines (UTOS) LLC.
    Description: Enbridge Offshore Pipelines submits Second Revised
Sheet 4 et al., to be effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090729-0124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-716-002.
    Applicants: Central Kentucky Transmission Company.
    Description: Central Kentucky Transmission Company submits Third
Revised Sheet 254 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Revised
Volume 1 to be effective 8/31/09.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-718-002.
    Applicants: Egan Hub Storage, LLC.
    Description: Egan Hub Storage, LLC submits tariff sheets reflecting
the change standards on 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-720-001.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission submits tariff sheets
reflecting the changed standards on 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-721-001.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff sheets
reflecting the changed standards on 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-736-001.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC submits tariff sheets
reflecting the changed standards on 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to any subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18920 Filed 8-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 59)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15336-15342]
[DOCID:fr29mr10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 157

[Docket No. RM05-1-002]

Regulations Governing the Conduct of Open Seasons for Alaska
Natural Gas Transportation Projects

March 18, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is amending its regulations, in order to
clarify them in response to Order Nos. 717 and 717-

A, governing the Standards of Conduct for transmission providers. These
amendments are required in order to make clear to prospective
applicants for an Alaska natural gas transportation project which
Standards of Conduct are applicable to conducting open seasons for
Alaska natural gas transportation projects. This clarification will
benefit both prospective applicants and prospective shippers of an
Alaska natural gas transportation project by eliminating any
uncertainties those parties may have pertaining to the standards of
conduct governing open seasons for such a project.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective April 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Holmes, Assistant General
Counsel, Energy Projects, Office of the General Counsel, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Whit
Holden, Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order No. 2005-B; Final Rule

                            Table of Contents

                                                              Paragraph
                                                               numbers

I. Introduction............................................            1
II. Background.............................................            3
III. Discussion............................................            8
IV. Information Collection Statement.......................           33
V. Environmental Analysis..................................           34
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act.............................           35
VII. Document Availability.................................           36
VIII. Effective Date.......................................           39

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer,
Philip D. Moeller, and John R. Norris.

I. Introduction

    1. By this instant final rule, the Commission is amending part 157,
subpart B of its regulations, specifically 18 CFR 157.34 and 157.35, in
order to clarify and reconcile them in response to Order Nos. 717 and
717-A,\1\ governing the Standards of Conduct for transmission
providers. Part 157, subpart B contains the regulations governing open
seasons for Alaska natural gas transportation projects. Specifically,
the Commission is eliminating references to ``energy affiliates'' in
Sec. Sec.  157.34 and 157.35 of the Commission's regulations in order
to be consistent with Order No. 717, in which the Commission eliminated
the concept of ``energy affiliates'' in response to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the DC Circuit decision in National Fuel Gas Corporation v.
FERC (National Fuel).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717, 73 FR 63796 (Oct. 27, 2008); FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,280
(2008), order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 717-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,297 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 717-B, 129
FERC ] 61,123 (2009).
    \2\ 468 F.3d 831 (DC Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission, in Order No. 717, also eliminated the corporate
functional approach taken in Order No. 2004's \3\ Standards of Conduct
in favor of an employee functional approach. In doing so, the
Commission revised and reformed the Standards of Conduct to combine the
best elements of Order No. 2004, with those of the Standards of Conduct
originally adopted by the Commission in Order Nos. 497 \4\ (for the gas
industry) and 889 \5\ (for the electric industry). By this rule, the
Commission is reconciling in Sec.  157.35(d) to the specific Standards
of Conduct with which a project sponsor conducting an open season for
an Alaska natural gas transportation project must comply, as they have
been revised and now appear in the Commission's regulations as a result
of Order Nos. 717 and 717-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
2004, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,155 (2003), order on reh'g, Order No.
2004-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,161, order on reh'g, Order No.
2004-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,166, order on reh'g, Order No.
2004-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,172 (2004), order on reh'g, Order
No. 2004-D, 110 FERC ] 61,320 (2005), vacated and remanded as it
applies to natural gas pipelines sub nom. National Fuel Gas Supply
Corp. v. FERC, 468 F.3d 831 (DC Cir 2006); see Standards of Conduct
for Transmission Providers, Order No. 690, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,237, order on reh'g, Order No. 690-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,243 (2007); see also Standards of Conduct for Transmission
Providers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
32,611 (2007); Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
32,630 (2008).
    \4\ Inquiry into Alleged Anticompetitive Practices Related to
Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines, Order No. 497, 53 FR
22139 (Jun. 14, 1988), FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles
1986-1990 ] 30,820 (1988), Order No. 497-A, order on reh'g, 54 FR
52781 (Dec. 22, 1989), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles
1986-1990 ] 30,868 (1989) Order No. 497-B, order extending sunset
date, 57 FR 9 (Jan. 2, 1992), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations
Preambles January 1991-June 1996 ] 30,934 (1991), reh'g denied, 57
FR 5815 (Feb. 18, 1992), aff'd in part and remanded in part sub nom.
Tenneco Gas v. FERC, 969 F.2d 1187 (DC Cir. 1992) (Tenneco)
(collectively, Order No. 497).
    \5\ Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of
Conduct, Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,035 (1996), order
on reh'g, Order No. 889-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,049, reh'g
denied, Order No. 889-B, 81 FERC ] 61,253 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    3. In 1988, the Commission, in Order No. 497, first adopted
Standards of Conduct for transmission providers. In Order No. 497, the
Commission sought to deter undue preferences by (i) separating a
transmission function provider's employees engaged in transmission
services from those engaged in its marketing services, and (ii)
requiring that all transmission customers, affiliated and non-
affiliated, be treated on a non- discriminatory basis.
    4. In 2003, the Commission issued Order No. 2004, which broadened
the Standards of Conduct to include a new category of affiliate, the
energy affiliate.\6\ The new standards were made applicable to both the
electric and gas industries, and provided that the transmission
employees of a transmission provider \7\ must function independently
not only from the company's marketing affiliates but from its energy
affiliates as well, and that

transmission providers may not treat either their energy affiliates or
their marketing affiliates on a preferential basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Order No. 2004 Standards of Conduct defined an energy
affiliate as an affiliate of a transmission provider that (1)
engages in or is involved in transmission transactions in U.S.
energy or transmission markets; (2) manages or controls transmission
capacity of a transmission provider in U.S. energy or transmission
markets; (3) buys, sells, trades, or administers natural gas or
electric energy in U.S. energy or transmission markets; or (4)
engages in financial transactions relating to the sale or
transmission of natural gas or electric energy in U.S. energy or
transmission markets. Order No. 2004, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,155
at P 40; see also 18 CFR 358.3(d). Certain categories of entities
were excluded from this definition in subsequent sections of the
regulations.
    \7\ A transmission provider was defined as (1) any public
utility that owns, operates, or controls facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce; or (2) any
interstate natural gas pipeline that transports gas for others
pursuant to subpart A of Part 157 or subparts B or G of Part 284 of
the same chapter of the regulations. Order No. 2004, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,155 at P 33-34; see also 18 CFR 358.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. In 2005, the Commission issued Order No. 2005,\8\ amending its
regulations to establish requirements governing the conduct of open
seasons for proposals to construct Alaska natural gas transportation
projects.\9\ In order to further the Commission's goal of a non-
discriminatory open season, Order No. 2005 applied certain of the
Standards of Conduct requirements of Order No. 2004, several of which
incorporated Order No. 2004's ``energy affiliate'' concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Regulations Governing the Conduct of Open Seasons for Alaska
Natural Gas Transportation Projects, Order No. 2005, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,174 (2005), order on reh'g, Order No. 2005-A, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,187 (2005).
    \9\ Order No. 2005 fulfilled the Commission's responsibilities
under section 103 (e)(1) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (the
Act), enacted on October 13, 2004, which directed the Commission,
within 120 days from enactment of the Act, to promulgate regulations
governing the conduct of open seasons for Alaska natural gas
transportation projects, including procedures for allocation of
capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In 2006, in National Fuel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit overturned the standards as applied to gas transmission
providers on the ground that the evidence of energy affiliate abuse
cited by the Commission was not in the record.\10\ As a result of the
court's decision in National Fuel, on January 9, 2007, the Commission
issued an interim rule, Order No. 690,\11\ which repromulgated the
portions of the Standards of Conduct not challenged in National Fuel as
applied to natural gas transmission providers. Subsequently, on October
16, 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 717 amending the Standards of
Conduct for transmission providers to make them clearer and to refocus
the rules on the area where there is the greatest potential for abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ National Fuel, 468 F.3d at 841.
    \11\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
690, 72 FR 2427 (Jan. 19, 2007); FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,237 (2007)
(Interim Rule); clarified by, Standards of Conduct for Transmission
Providers, Order No. 690-A, 72 FR 14235 (Mar. 27, 2007); FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,243 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The reforms in Order No. 717 were intended to eliminate the
elements that had rendered the Standards of Conduct difficult to
enforce and apply. The Commission strove to conform the Standards of
Conduct with the court's opinion in National Fuel and combine the best
elements of Order No. 2004 with those elements of the Standards of
Conduct originally adopted in Order Nos. 497 and 889. Specifically,
Order No. 717 (i) eliminated the concept of energy affiliates, and (ii)
eliminated the corporate separation approach in favor of the employee
functional approach used in Order Nos. 497 and 889.

III. Discussion

    8. The Commission's goal in promulgating Sec. Sec.  157.34 and
157.35 of its regulations was to prevent unduly discriminatory behavior
and limit the ability of a project applicant for an Alaska natural gas
transportation project to unduly favor its affiliates in the open
season process. The Commission sought to do this by applying certain of
the Standards of Conduct requirements of Order No. 2004 to all project
applicants conducting open seasons for an Alaska natural gas
transportation project because this would minimize the risk that an
affiliate of a project applicant would have an advantage over non-
affiliates in obtaining capacity through the open season.
    9. First, in Sec.  157.35(c), the Commission required project
applicants to create/designate a unit or division to conduct the open
season. The employees of this unit or division are treated as
transmission function employees, and as such are required, under Order
No. 2004, to function independent of the other non-regulated divisions
of the project applicant, as well as the project applicant's Marketing
and Energy Affiliates.\12\ This, the Commission stated, would prevent
Energy Affiliates or Marketing Affiliates of the project applicant who
participate in the open season from having the advantage of information
or strategy that non-affiliated open season participants do not have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 18 CFR 358.4(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Second, in Sec.  157.35(d), the Commission provided that the
project sponsor's unit or division conducting an open season would be
subject to certain provisions of the Standards of Conduct,
specifically, those pertaining to: separation of functions (18 CFR
358.4(a)(1) and (3)); written procedures (18 CFR 358.4(e)(3), (4), (5)
and (6)); information access (18 CFR 358.5(a)); information disclosure
(18 CFR 358.5(b)); prohibitions against discrimination (18 CFR
358.5(c)(3) and(5)) and discounts (18 CFR 358.5(d).

A. Concept of ``Energy Affiliates''

1. Current Alaska Open Season Regulations--Sec. Sec.  157.34(c)(19),
(20)(i) and (ii), and (21), and 157.35(c)
    11. The current regulations governing the conduct of open seasons
for Alaska natural gas transportation projects refer in several
sections to ``energy affiliates.'' In particular, paragraphs (19),
(20)(i) and (ii), and (21) of Sec.  157.34(c): include ``Energy
Affiliates'' among the entities that a prospective applicant must list
and identify in organizational charts to be included in the prospective
applicant's Notice of Open Season.
    12. Additionally, as part of the Commission's regulations to
prevent undue discrimination or preference in the conduct of open
seasons for Alaska natural gas transportation projects, Sec.
157.35(c): Requires that all prospective applicants conducting open
seasons for an Alaska natural gas transportation project function
independent of, among others, their Energy Affiliates, as defined the
Commission's Standards of Conduct.

B. New Alaska Open Season Regulations--Sec. Sec.  157.34(c)(19),
(20)(i) and (ii), and (21), and 157.35(c)

    13. As stated above, Order No. 717 eliminated the concept of
``energy affiliates'' by deleting that term, as it was defined in Sec.
358.3(d) \13\ of the pre-Order No. 717 Standards of Conduct. Order No.
717 also deleted from the Standards of Conduct the definition of
``marketing affiliate,'' consistent with its goal of eliminating Order
No. 2004's corporate functional approach. In its stead, Order No. 717
refers to the terms ``marketing function'' in new Sec.  358.3(c) \14\
and ``marketing function employee'' in new Sec.  358.3(d).\15\ In the
case of interstate pipelines and their affiliates, marketing function
means ``the sale for resale in interstate commerce, or the submission
of offers to sell interstate commerce, natural gas'' subject to several
exclusions, including ``sales of natural gas solely from a seller's own
production, or a ``seller's own gathering or processing facilities.''
\16\ However, for purposes of these regulations, these exclusions,
which also existed under the definition of ``marketing'' under the
Order No. 2004 Standards of Conduct (see 18 CFR 358.3(l)(1)), cannot be
read to exclude any prospective project sponsors that comprised or were
affiliated with the owner of the Alaskan North Slope natural gas. The
Commission made this clear by providing in Sec.  157.35(d) of the open
season regulations that all project applicants, even those who would
not otherwise be subject to the Standards of Conduct provisions, must
comply with certain enumerated sections of the Standards of Conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 18 CFR 358.3(d).
    \14\ 18 CFR 358.3(c).
    \15\ 18 CFR 358.3(d).
    \16\ 18 CFR 358.3(c)(iii) and (iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Therefore, in order to render the regulations governing the
conduct of

open seasons for Alaska natural gas transportation projects consistent
with the current Standards of Conduct, the Commission is amending
paragraphs (19), (20) and (21) of Sec.  157.34(c) to eliminate
references to ``energy affiliates'' and ``marketing affiliates,'' and
is adopting Order No. 717's employee functional approach as reflected
in the marketing function/marketing function employee concept. However,
the Commission is also making clear that the ``producer exemption'' of
Sec.  358.3(c)(iii) does not apply in the case of prospective
applicants conduction open seasons for Alaska natural gas
transportation projects.
    15. The Commission is also amending Sec.  157.35(c) to eliminate
references to ``Energy Affiliates'' in that provision of the open
season regulations, and to replace the term ``marketing affiliates''
with ``affiliates'' performing a ``marketing function,'' as those terms
are defined in the current Standards of Conduct. Again, the Commission
is making clear in this section that the ``producer exemption'' of
Sec.  358.3(c)(iii) does not apply in the case of prospective
applicants conduction open seasons for Alaska natural gas
transportation projects.

C. Specific Provisions of the Standards of Conduct; Current Alaska Open
Season Regulations--Sec.  157.35(d)

    16. As explained above, Commission provided in Sec.  137.35(d) that
the project sponsor's unit or division conducting an open season would
be subject to certain provisions of the Commission's Standards of
Conduct, namely, Sec. Sec.  358.4(a)(1) and (3); 358.4(e)(3), (4), (5),
and (6); 358.5(a), (b), (c)(3) and (5); and 358.5(d). That section also
provided that the exemptions from Sec.  358.4(a)(1) and (3) set forth
in Sec.  358.4(a)(4), (5), and (6) of the open season regulations also
applied to any project applicant conducting an open season for an
Alaska natural gas transportation project.
    17. Below, we will discuss the specific Standards of Conduct with
which an applicant for an Alaska natural gas transportation project
must comply and compare those requirements with those contained in the
Standards of Conduct as revised by Order No. 717.

D. Separation of Functions--Sec. Sec.  358.4(a)(1) and (3) (2004)

    18. Under Sec.  157.35(d) of the Commission's open season
regulations, any project applicant conducting an open season for an
Alaska natural gas transportation project must comply with the
separation of functions requirements of the Standards of Conduct found
in Sec. Sec.  358.4(a)(1) and (3) of the Commission's regulations.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Old 18 CFR 358.4(a)(1) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. The independent functioning requirements of Sec.  358.4(a)(1)
now appear in the new Standards of Conduct, as amended by Order No.
717, at Sec.  358.5(a) of the Commission's regulations.\18\ The new
standard has two minor differences from the Order No. 2004 standard.
First, the exception for emergency circumstances affecting system
reliability was replaced by a broader exception ``as permitted in this
part or otherwise permitted by Commission order.'' This change should
have no impact on a project applicant's obligations since no emergency
circumstances affecting system reliability would occur at the open
season stage. The second difference is that reference to ``Marketing
and Energy Affiliates'' has been replaced by reference to ``marketing
function employees,'' reflecting Order No. 717's elimination of the
Energy Affiliate and the adoption of an employee functional approach in
lieu of a corporate functional approach. The separation of functions
requirements described in Sec.  358.4(a)(3) are now found in Sec.
358.5(b) of the new standards,\19\ although they, too, are now
expressed in terms that reflect Order No. 717's employee functional
approach by replacing reference to ``Marketing and Energy Affiliates''
with reference to ``marketing function employees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 18 CFR 358.5(a).
    \19\ 18 CFR 358.5(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Written Procedures--Sec. Sec.  358.4(e)(3), (4), (5) and (6)

    20. Section 157.35(d) of the Commission's open season regulations
also imposes on any project applicant conducting an open season for an
Alaska natural gas transportation project certain requirements
pertaining to written procedures, training, and compliance oversight as
set out in Sec. Sec.  358.4(e)(3), (4), (5) and (6).\20\ Specifically,
Sec.  358.4(e)(3) requires each project applicant to post on its
Internet Web site its written procedures describing how it will comply
with the applicable Standards of Conduct and pursuant to Sec.
358.4(e)(4), these procedures are to be distributed to specified
employees. Also, under the requirements of Sec.  358.4(e)(5), each
project applicant is required to train its employees involved in the
open season or part of the open season unit/division, officers,
directors and employees with access to transportation information or
information concerning gas purchases, sales or marketing functions.
Finally, the project applicant must also designate a Chief Compliance
Officer who will be responsible for Standards of Conduct compliance as
set out in Sec.  358.4(e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Old 18 CFR 358.4(e)(3), (4), (5) and (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Requirements pertaining to written procedures, training, and
compliance oversight are now set out in Sec. Sec.  358.7(d) (posting
written procedures); 358.8(b)(2) (distribution of written procedures);
358.8(c)(1) (employee training); and 358.8(c)(2) (designation of
compliance officer). Although there are some differences in the details
of these procedures, they are minor, and should impose no undue burdens
on project applicants conducting open seasons. Likewise, they will not
dilute or alter the Commission's goal to ensure a non-discriminatory
open season for an Alaska natural gas transportation project.
    22. For example, the new Standards of Conduct do not specifically
require that the procedures to be posted must be ``in such detail as
will enable customers and the Commission to determine that the
Transmission Provider is in compliance with the requirements of this
section.'' \21\ Additionally, the training requirements of the old
Standards of Conduct must now be met annually and new employees must be
trained within 30 days.\22\ Finally, in addition to designating a Chief
Compliance Officer, the new Standards of Conduct require that the Chief
Compliance Officer's name and contact information be posted.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Compare old 18 CFR 358.4(e)(3) with 18 CFR 358.7(d).
    \22\ Compare old 18 CFR 358.4(e)(5) with 18 CFR 358.8(c)(1).
    \23\ Compare old 18 CFR 358.4(e)(6) with 18 CFR 358.8(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Information Access and Disclosure--Sec. Sec.  358.5(a) and (b)

    23. The application of the information access (18 CFR 358.5(a)) and
disclosure (18 CFR 358.5(b)) requirements also apply to project
applicants in order to ensure that employees of Marketing/Energy
Affiliates \24\ participating in the Open Season will not have access
to any transmission information that is not publicly available to non-
affiliated participants and to require that any disclosure of non-
public transmission information to a Marketing/Energy Affiliate will be
immediately disclosed to all other actual and potential open season
participants by posting that

information on the project applicant's Internet Web site. Additionally,
Sec.  157.35(d) provides that the requirements set out in Sec.
358.5(b)(4) for written consent before releasing non-affiliated
customer information to a Marketing or Energy Affiliate and posting
that consent on the Internet also apply to project applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ As explained infra, the concept of Energy Affiliate has
been eliminated, and the marketing affiliate has been supplanted by
the concept of the marketing function employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. Requirements pertaining to information access and disclosure
are now set out in Sec. Sec.  358.6 and 358.7(a), (b), and (c).
Although reworded to reflect the elimination of the Energy Affiliate
and the replacement of references to Marketing Affiliates with the
concept of marketing function employees, the new Standards of Conduct
similarly ensure that a project sponsor's affiliated employees who
conduct a marketing function will not have access to any transmission
information that is not publicly available to non-affiliated open
season participants and similarly require that any disclosure of non-
public transmission information to a marketing function employee will
be immediately posted on project applicant's Internet Web site for all
other actual and potential open season participants to see.

G. Prohibition Against Discrimination--Sec. Sec.  358.5(c)(3) and (5)

    25. In Order No. 2005, the Commission sought to broadly prohibit
discrimination by a project applicant conducting an open season and
limit its ability to unduly favor a Marketing/Energy Affiliate by
imposing some of the non-discrimination requirements of Order No. 2004.
Specifically, under Sec.  157.35(d), the non-discrimination provisions
of the Standards of Conduct contained in Sec. Sec.  358.5(c)(3) and (5)
\25\ were made to apply to project applicants. Section 358.5(c)(3)
requires a Transmission Provider to process all similar requests for
transmission in the same manner and within the same period of time; and
Sec.  358.5(c)(5) prohibits transmission providers from giving their
Marketing or Energy Affiliates any preference over any other wholesale
customer in matters relating to the sale or purchase of transmission
service. The Commission felt that these provisions would ensure that a
project applicant will not provide any preferences to affiliated
participants in the context of an open season. These prohibitions
remain intact under new Sec. Sec.  358.4(c) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Old 18 CFR 358.5(c)(3) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Discounts--Sec.  358.5(d)

    26. Finally, Sec.  157.35(d) imposes on a project applicant the
provisions of Sec.  358.5(d),\26\ under which a Transmission Provider
is required to post an offer of a discount for transmission service at
the time an offer is contractually binding.\27\ This, too, was done to
ensure the transparency of the open season process and discourage undue
preferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Old 18 CFR 358.5(d).
    \27\ If an offer of a discount becomes contractually binding
through the execution of a precedent agreement, the offer must be
posted at that time, not at the time of the final agreement. See
Order No. 2004-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,161 at P 227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. In Order No. 717, the Commission deleted the obligation of
Sec.  157.35(d) to post discount information from the current Standards
of Conducts. In P 218 of Order No. 717, we stated the following:

    The Commission further clarifies that where the information
called for under the posting requirements of the Standards is
duplicative of information required to be posted by transmission
providers under other provisions of our regulations or orders, such
as the posting requirements of 18 CFR part 284 and 18 CFR part 37,
only a single posting is required, and the transmission provider is
to follow the posting requirements, inclusive of substance, venue,
and timing, of the other regulations or orders. We believe the
posting requirements contained in such regulations or orders are
sufficient to fulfill the transparency goals of the Standards of
Conduct. Inasmuch as discount information is required to be posted
both for the gas and electric industries under other provisions of
our regulations, we delete proposed section 358.4(b), which had set
forth proposed requirements for the posting of discount
information.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,280, at P 218 (2008).

    28. The Commission recognizes that other provisions of our
regulations or orders, such as the posting requirements of 18 CFR part
284 and 18 CFR part 37, might not attach to a prospective applicant for
an Alaska natural gas transportation project. However, under the open
season regulations, such an applicant may not give undue preference to
any person in matters relating to the sale or purchase of transmission
service (including, but not limited to, issues of price * * *).\29\
Under Sec.  157.34(d)(4) of the Commission's regulations, a prospective
applicant must submit copies of all precedent agreements to the
Commission, at which time any discounted rates would be revealed, and
the Commission can address any concerns or complaints regarding
preferential treatment at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ This requirement appears in both the Order No. 2004
Standards of Conduct (18 CFR 358.5(c)(5)) and the Order No. 717
Standards of Conduct (18 CFR 358.4(d)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Exemptions--Sec. Sec.  358.4(a)(4), (5), and (6)

    29. In addition, Sec.  157.35(d) provides that the exemptions from
Sec. Sec.  358.4(a)(1) and (3) set forth in Sec. Sec.  358.4(a)(4),
(5), and (6) also apply to each project applicant conducting an Alaska
natural gas transportation project open season. The applicable
exemptions from the separation of functions would also apply to permit
the project applicant to share various categories of employees,
including: Support, field and maintenance employees (Sec.
358.4(a)(4)); senior officers and directors who are not ``Transmission
Function Employees'' (as defined by 18 CFR 358.3(j)), provided that
they do not participate in directing, organizing, or executing
transmission system operations or market functions or act as conduits
for sharing prohibited information with a Marketing or Energy Affiliate
(Sec.  358.4(a)(5)); and risk management employees who are not engaged
in transmission functions or sales or commodity functions (Sec.
358.4(a)(6)).
    30. The new Standards of Conduct do not specifically enumerate
similar categories of employees that may be shared. Instead, the
sharing of these types of employees may be permitted by virtue of, and
to the extent that, the employee in question is not one ``who actively
and personally engages on a day-to-day basis in marketing functions.''
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 18 CFR 358.3(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. As discussed above, applying the new Standards of Conduct
provisions regarding the functional separation, information access and
disclosure, and non-discrimination provisions of Order No. 717 to the
open season process will ensure, in the same way that the Standards of
Conduct currently listed in the open season regulations do, that the
open season is conducted in a manner that is non-discriminatory and
provides equal access to all participants, particularly those not
affiliated with the project applicants. If during or following the open
season the Commission determines that the project applicant has
violated any of these requirements, the results of the open season with
regard to the affiliates of that project applicant may be voided and a
new open season held for that capacity.
    32. Therefore, in order to render the regulations governing the
conduct of open seasons for Alaska natural gas transportation projects
consistent with the current Standards of Conduct, the Commission is
amending paragraph (d) of Sec.  157.35 to replace the various Order No.
2004 Standards of Conduct which

project sponsors conducting open seasons for an Alaska natural gas
transportation project must comply with the applicable new Standards of
Conduct promulgated under Order No. 717, as discussed above.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    33. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB
to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency rule.\31\ However, this instant Final Rule does not increase or
decrease the information collection requirements that are already
imposed under the Commission's open season regulations for Alaska
natural gas transportation projects already imposed and compliance with
OMB regulations is thus not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Environmental Analysis

    34. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\32\
Issuance of this instant Final Rule does not represent a major Federal
action having a significant adverse effect of the human environment
under the Commission's regulations implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Part 380 of the Commission's
regulations lists exemptions to the requirement to draft an
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. Included is
an exemption for procedural, ministerial, or internal administrative
actions.\33\ This rulemaking is exempt under that provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 30,783 (1987).
    \33\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    35. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \34\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This instant Final Rule concerns amendments to certain provisions of
the Commission's regulations governing the conduct of open seasons for
Alaska natural gas transportation projects, namely, 18 CFR 157.34 and
157.35. These changes are being made in order to render the open season
regulations consistent with the Commission's current Standards of
Conduct by reconciling references to the specific Standards of Conduct
with which a project sponsor conducting an open season for an Alaska
natural gas transportation project must comply. In large measure, the
amendments made in this instant rule do not impose obligations on any
Alaska natural gas transportation project applicants that are different
than the obligations imposed under the current open season regulations.
Rather than being substantive in nature, this rulemaking merely
reconciles the references to specific requirements under the Standards
of Conduct imposed under Order No. 2004, with those requirements as
they now appear in the Standards of Conducts as a result of Order No.
717. Other than in minor details, such as training and posting
requirements, as discussed above, any differences in the
responsibilities imposed as a result of this rulemaking are differences
in form rather than in substance as a result of the new employee
functional approach taken by Order No. 717. The Commission certifies
that it will not have a significant economic impact upon participants
in Commission proceedings. Therefore, an analysis under the RFA is not
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Document Availability

    36. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    37. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    38. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll-free at 1-866-208;3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at 202-502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VIII. Notice and Comment and Effective Date

    39. The Commission is issuing this rule as an instant Final Rule
without a period for public comment. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), notice and
comment procedures are unnecessary where a rulemaking concerns only
agency procedure or practice, or where the agency finds that notice and
comment is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.
    40. This rule concerns the amendment of 18 CFR 157.34 and 157.35 in
order to clarify them in response to Order Nos. 717 and 717-A,
governing the Standards of Conduct for transmission providers. The
changes made in this rulemaking pertain to certain of these standards
with which all project applicants conducting open seasons for an Alaska
natural gas transportation project must comply.
    41. Moreover, on January 29, 2010, TransCanada Alaska Company LLC
filed, pursuant to Sec.  157.38 of the Commission's regulations, a
Request for Commission Approval of Detailed Plan for Conducting an Open
Season in Docket No. PF09-11-001, and the Commission is aware that
another potential sponsor of a proposed Alaska natural gas
transportation project is preparing to soon file with the Commission
its plan for conducting an open season. It is therefore important to
clarify as expediently as possible exactly what is required of
prospective applicants in order for them to comply with the open season
regulations involving the Commission's Standards of Conduct.\35\ For
these reasons, the Commission finds that notice and public procedure on
this rulemaking are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ In this regard, the Commission is mindful of the Alaska
Natural Gas Pipeline Act's overall objective of facilitating the
timely development of an Alaska natural gas transportation project
to bring Alaskan natural gas to markets in Alaska and in the lower
48 States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review
do not apply to this Final Rule, because this Final Rule concerns
agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the
rights of non-agency parties.
    43. These regulations are effective April 28, 2010.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 157

    Administrative practice and procedure; Natural gas; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 157,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT

0
1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w.

0
2. In Sec.  157.34, paragraphs (c)(19), (20), and (21) are revised to
read as follows:

Sec.  157.34  Notice of open season.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (19) A list of the names and addresses of the prospective
applicant's affiliated sales and marketing units and affiliates
involved in the production of natural gas in the State of Alaska.
Affiliated unit means ``Affiliate'' as defined in Sec.  358.3(a) of
this chapter. Marketing units and or affiliates are those conducting a
``marketing function'' as defined in Sec.  358.3(c) of this chapter,
except that the exemption in Sec.  358.3(c)(2)(iii) shall not apply;
    (20) A comprehensive organizational chart showing:
    (i) The organizational structure of the prospective applicant's
parent corporation(s) with the relative position in the corporate
structure of marketing and sales units and any affiliates involved in
the production of natural gas in the State of Alaska.
    (ii) The job titles and descriptions, and chain of command for all
officers and directors of the prospective applicant's marketing and
sales units and any affiliates involved in the production of natural
gas in the State of Alaska; and
    (21) A statement that any officers and directors of the prospective
applicant's affiliated sales and marketing units and affiliates
involved in the production of natural gas in the State of Alaska named
in paragraph (c)(19) of this section will be prohibited from obtaining
information about the conduct of the open season or allocation of
capacity that is not posted on the open season Internet Web site or
that is otherwise also available to the general public or other
participants in the open season.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  157.35, paragraphs (c) and (d) are revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  157.35  Undue discrimination and preference.

* * * * *
    (c) Each prospective applicant conducting an open season under this
subpart must function independent of the other divisions of the
prospective applicant as well as the prospective applicant's
``affiliates'' performing a ``marketing function'' as those terms are
defined in Sec.  358.3(a) and (c) of the Commission's regulations,
except that the exemption in Sec.  358.3(c)(2)(iii) shall not apply. In
instances in which the prospective applicant is not an entity created
specifically to conduct an open season under this subpart, the
prospective applicant must create or designate a unit or division to
conduct the open season that must function independent of the other
divisions of the project applicant as well as the project applicant's
``affiliates'' performing a ``marketing function'' as those terms are
defined in Sec.  358.3(a) of this chapter, except that the exemption in
358.3(c)(2)(iii) shall not apply.
    (d) Each project applicant conducting an open season under this
subpart that is not otherwise subject to the provisions of part 358 of
this chapter must comply with the following sections of that part:
Sec. Sec.  358.4(c) and (d), 358.5, 358.6, 358.7(a), (b), and (c), and
358.8 (b) and (c) of this chapter.

[FR Doc. 2010-6770 Filed 3-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Atrazine Science Reevaluation: Potential Health Impacts

October 7, 2009

I.  Background

Atrazine is currently one of the most widely used agricultural
herbicides in the United States, with approximately 70 million pounds of
active ingredient applied domestically per year. First registered for
use in December 1958, atrazine may be applied both before and after
planting to control broadleaf and grassy weeds.  Its primary uses are on
corn, sorghum, sugarcane and to a lesser extent on residential lawns in
the Southeast. Currently, the heaviest uses of atrazine are found in the
Midwest.

The Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) was finalized in
January 2003 with an addendum added in October 2003 (US EPA 2003).  The
Agency completed the reregistration eligibility process for atrazine in
April 2006.

Recently, articles in the media and a report by the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) have raised human health concerns for atrazine
and have been critical of EPA’s regulatory oversight of this
herbicide.  Specifically, these publications have claimed that EPA is
not taking into account emerging scientific evidence in animal
toxicology and human epidemiology studies in determining the Agency’s
levels of concern for atrazine concentrations in drinking water sources.
 The publications claim that the Agency is failing to inform the public
in a timely fashion about atrazine spikes in drinking water when they
occur.  In addition, the publications encourage EPA to expand its public
notification mandates/efforts and make the data available sooner,
suggesting that the public has a right to know about atrazine levels in
drinking water regardless of whether the detections violate any
regulatory standards.

EPA is launching a comprehensive re-evaluation of the science associated
with the atrazine human health and ecological risk assessments.  The
initial effort will consider human health issues, including cancer and
non-cancer effects observed in animals tested in controlled laboratory
studies and from human epidemiology studies.  To ensure that the best
science possible is used to inform the atrazine human health risk
assessment, and to ensure transparency in regulatory decision making,
EPA is seeking advice from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP or Panel) on a
variety of challenging scientific issues.  As described in detail below,
the Agency is planning to hold three meetings of the SAP in 2010 in
addition to an informational presentation to the Panel in November 2009.
 At the end of this peer review process, the Agency will determine if
the current human health risk assessment should be revised and whether
any further risk mitigation is warranted.

The following text provides the SAP and the public with a summary of the
regulatory history of atrazine and the most recent human health risk
assessment, and an overview of the science peer review plan, that will
be discussed at the November, 2009 presentation.  The purpose and scope
of subsequent SAP meetings planned for February, April, and September
2010 are also described here.

II.  Previous Scientific Advisory Panel Reviews of Atrazine

The human health and ecological risk assessments for atrazine are
complex and have a long history of data development, regulatory
evaluation, and FIFRA SAP review.  The Agency has sought advice from the
SAP on human health issues during three review meetings (FIFRA SAP,
1988, 2000a, 2003a) and it has sought advice on ecological risk
assessment issues during four review meetings (FIFRA SAP 2003b, 2007a,
2007b, 2009).

Atrazine was first taken to the SAP for evaluation of rat mammary gland
tumor response in 1988 (FIFRA SAP, 1988).  At that time, the SAP noted
that a “hormonal influence” might be an important consideration in
the development of these mammary gland tumors.  Subsequent to this
meeting, substantial research was conducted on atrazine's hormonal or
neuroendocrine mode of action (MOA).  The Agency returned to the SAP in
2000 (FIFRA SAP, 2000a) for advice on atrazine’s MOA leading to
mammary gland tumors, reproductive and developmental effects in rats, as
well as the human relevance of these findings.  The SAP agreed with the
Agency’s proposal for atrazine’s neuroendocrine mode of action, and
they further concluded that it is unlikely that the mechanism by which
atrazine induces mammary tumors in female Sprague Dawley rats could be
operational in humans. Nevertheless, the SAP further concluded that it
is not unreasonable to expect that atrazine might cause adverse effects
on hypothalamic-pituitary function in humans if exposures were
sufficiently high (p. 14, FIFRA SAP, 2000a).  At the 2000 SAP, the Panel
further advised the Agency to evaluate cancer epidemiology research in
more depth as more information became available, particularly for
prostate cancer and Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  Based on the 2000 SAP
guidance, EPA changed its position on atrazine and reclassified it from
a “possible carcinogen” to “not likely to be carcinogenic in
humans”.

In 2003, the Agency presented its evaluation on prostate cancer to the
FIFRA SAP.  At that meeting, the SAP evaluated the available
epidemiology studies suggesting an association between atrazine and
prostate cancer in workers at an atrazine manufacturing plant in St.
Gabriel Louisiana.  The SAP concurred with EPA’s conclusion that the
data did not suggest an association between atrazine exposure and
prostate cancer, but that the increase in incidence of prostate cancer
in workers at the plant could likely be explained by the increase in
Prostate Serum Antigen (PSA) screening at the plant (FIFRA SAP, 2003a).
The SAP also stated that a more thorough and systematic review of the
biologic and epidemiologic literature on the topic of the potential or
observed carcinogenic effects of atrazine exposure was required before
concluding that atrazine exposure is an unlikely explanation for at
least part of the excess of prostate cancer in the St. Gabriel
manufacturing plant.

Since 2003, the Agency sought advice from the FIFRA SAP on issues
related to potential ecological effects of atrazine (FIFRA SAP 2003b,
2007a, 2007b, 2009).  In an evaluation of the SAP’s report of 2007
(FIFRA SAP, 2007a) EPA concluded that atrazine does not affect amphibian
gonadal development or metamorphosis across concentrations of 0.1 to 100
parts per billion (ppb) based on studies available at that time.
Although the 2007 SAP believed that further testing with indigenous
species could provide additional data, it was acknowledged that suitable
animal husbandry and rearing protocols were not available to obtain
comparable statistical power that was applied to measuring the effects
of atrazine in Xenopus laevis.  Given these husbandry and rearing
constraints, additional testing with amphibians has not been required.
Since that review, there have been additional publications that suggest
there may be a relationship between atrazine exposure and amphibian
immune response.  These studies do not demonstrate a consistent
relationship.  In 2007 (FIFRA SAP 2007b) and 2009 (FIFRA SAP, 2009) the
SAP also provided advice on EPA's approach to assess atrazine's effects
on aquatic plants and its associated impacts on aquatic community
structure and function.  These reviews provided advice concerning the
design and subsequent interpretation of an EPA- required monitoring
program to evaluate the extent to which watersheds in high atrazine use
areas are exposed to atrazine concentrations that could cause effects to
aquatic communities.

Considering the SAP’s previous reviews and the body and nature of
studies available, the human health risk assessment is the focus of the
Agency's 2010 science peer-review plan. At the conclusion of this
process, EPA will ask the SAP to review atrazine’s potential effects
on amphibians and aquatic ecosystems.

III.  Human Health Risk Assessment

Mode of Action Approach

In recent years, U.S. and international efforts have advanced the
scientific basis for human health risk assessments by increasing the use
of mechanistic and kinetic data.  International organizations including
the World Health Organization’s International Programme for Chemical
Safety (IPCS) (Sonich-Mullin, 2001; Boobis et al., 2006; Boobis et al.,
2008) and the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) discuss the
use of mechanistic data when considering animal to human extrapolation
(Meek et al., 2003; Seed et al., 2005).  The USEPA Cancer Guidelines (US
EPA 2005) also follows a similar MOA framework to the IPCS approach
(Sonich-Muller, 2001).  In addition, the ILSI human relevance framework
provides a foundation for evaluating the qualitative and quantitative
relevance of in vitro and in vivo data derived from animal models in
human health risk assessment.  Generally, a MOA understanding improves
the foundation for establishing dose-response relationships, considering
animal to human extrapolation, and estimating human variability,
including the identification of sensitive lifestages or subpopulations.
Similarly, the 2007 National Research Council (NRC) report “Toxicity
Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and A Strategy” (NRC 2007)
describes the importance of basing risk assessment on toxicity pathways
and the value of using initiating events in hazard identification.

In 2000, EPA presented a proposed MOA for atrazine to the FIFRA SAP
which supported the Agency’s approach.  EPA described this MOA and the
relevant cancer and reproductive toxicity data in the “Atrazine:
Hazard and Dose-Response Assessment and Characterization” (FIFRA SAP,
2000a).  In brief, upon high levels of exposure to atrazine, the release
of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) from the hypothalamus is
reduced, thereby lessening the afternoon pituitary luteinizing hormone
surge in female Sprague Dawley rats.  As a result, the estrus cycle
lengthens.  This, in turn, leads to increased estrogen levels and an
increased incidence of mammary tumors in female Sprague Dawley rats.

The Agency incorporated the understanding of atrazine's neuroendocrine
mode of action in developing its risk assessment.  As noted below, for
several exposure scenarios, the Agency used an early key event (i.e.,
attenuation of preovulatory luteinizing hormone surge) from atrazine’s
toxicity pathway as the basis for interspecies extrapolation.  Although
EPA has determined that atrazine’s cancer mode of action (i.e.,
attenuation of the luteinizing hormone surge) in the Sprague-Dawley rat
is not likely to be operative in humans, which is consistent with the
SAP recommendation (FIFRA SAP, 2000a), it is not unreasonable to assume
that atrazine might cause adverse effects on hypothalamic-pituitary
function in humans.  Thus, the same endocrine perturbations that induce
tumors in rats may play a role in at least some developmental effects
(not associated with reproductive aging) that may be relevant to humans.

Hazard Identification

1.  Non-cancer:

Summary of 2003 Human Health Risk Assessment

The 2003 EPA human health risk assessment identified non-cancer effects
of atrazine following acute and chronic dietary exposures, short- and
intermediate incidental oral exposures, and short-, intermediate-, and
long-term dermal and inhalation exposures.  Effects observed in
developmental toxicity studies (i.e., delayed ossification of certain
cranial bones in fetuses, and decreased body weight gain in adults that
are not likely due to atrazine’s MOA but rather to general toxicity)
were selected as the endpoint of concern for acute dietary exposure.
Delayed preputial separation in male rats (which is associated with
atrazine’s neuroendocrine MOA) was the basis for assessing the
short-term oral, dermal and inhalation exposures.  Effects indicative of
disruption of hypothalamic function (i.e., attenuation of pre-ovulatory
luteinizing hormone surge) were determined to be appropriate toxicity
endpoints of concern for chronic dietary, intermediate incidental oral,
and intermediate- and long-term dermal and inhalation exposures.  For
oral to dermal route-to-route extrapolation, a dermal absorption factor
of 6% was applied.  A 100% absorption factor for oral to inhalation
route-to-route extrapolation was assumed.  Table 1 below summarizes the
toxicological endpoints and uncertainty factors from the atrazine
dietary and drinking water risk assessment.

TABLE 1.  Summary of Toxicological Endpoints and Other Factors Used in
the Dietary Risk Assessment of Atrazine and Its Chlorinated Metabolites

The 2003 atrazine human health risk assessment identified a 90-day
average concentration of 37.5 ppb for atrazine and its chlorinated
metabolites in raw water as the level of concern, providing availability
of sufficient data to estimate water exposure. This level of concern was
based on the neuroendocrine-related effects observed in laboratory
animal studies.  An FQPA safety factor of 10X was retained for the
dietary assessment of atrazine and its chlorinated metabolites if there
were insufficient data to estimate water exposure.  The FQPA factor of
10X was based on the following residual uncertainties: (a) a 3X
hazard-driven uncertainty factor for residual uncertainty pertaining to
the neuroendocrine MOA effects that have not been fully characterized in
the toxicity database, and (b) a 3X exposure-driven safety factor for
residual uncertainties pertaining to the drinking water exposure
assessment (i.e., the magnitude and duration of atrazine exposures in
drinking water).  Water monitoring data available at the time for
atrazine and its chlorinated metabolites indicated that exposure via
drinking water sources was high in some community water systems (CWS).
 In addition, widespread low levels of atrazine were commonly detected.
 Limitations in the extent and frequency of sampling for atrazine and
its chlorinated metabolites raised uncertainties regarding the level of
exposure to atrazine and its metabolites.

To address uncertainty regarding exposures to atrazine and its
chlorinated metabolites in drinking water, a monitoring program was
implemented as a condition of atrazine’s re-registration under FIFRA,
for CWS identified as being of potential concern.  In this program, CWS
are sampled weekly prior to and during the growing season and biweekly
during the remainder of the year in order to capture 90-day
“rolling” average concentrations during the year.  All compliance
monitoring data required under the Safe Drinking Water Act are reviewed
to determine whether the CWS exceed a yearly average concentration of
1.6 ppb atrazine or 2.6 ppb Total Chloro-Triazine (TCT). These triggers
are used as indicators to identify potentially vulnerable CWS for
inclusion in the weekly to biweekly monitoring program.  (Note that the
maximum contaminant level (MCL) derived through the SDWA is a yearly
average of 3 ppb.)  For those CWS in the monitoring program, the 3X
exposure-driven portion of the FQPA safety factor was not considered
necessary and, therefore, it was removed.  However, the hazard-driven
3X FQPA safety factor was retained for all drinking water risk
assessments.

As part of the year-long review of the health effects associated with
exposure to atrazine, the Agency will be evaluating the results of
laboratory animal and human epidemiology studies published since the
Agency’s last evaluation of atrazine’s non-cancer effects.  Included
in this review will be the most recent “ecological epidemiology”
studies dealing with atrazine and its potential association with birth
defects, low birth weight, and premature births.

“Ecological epidemiology studies” are based on a human population
rather than an individual unit of analysis.  Ecological studies are
normally regarded as inferior to non-ecological designs, such as
HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohort_study" \o "Cohort study"
cohort  and   HYPERLINK
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-control_study" \o "Case-control
study"  case-control  studies, because they are susceptible to the “
HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy" \o
"Ecological fallacy"  ecological fallacy ” (i.e., assuming that the
average value of the characteristic being studied and the average
incidence/prevalence of a disease or condition applies to all the
individuals in a human population).  Thus, ecological epidemiology
studies are viewed as being hypothesis-generating, in that they provide
useful guidance to help in the design of additional studies, but they
are not viewed as being conclusive by themselves.

The Agency will conduct a robust literature review to identify
peer-reviewed scientific papers published since 2003 to ensure that all
available studies are evaluated in a weight of the evidence analysis
that includes new epidemiology studies, new studies in laboratory
animals, and new information about potential MOAs that might have been
identified since EPA’s 2003 assessment.

2.  Cancer:

In the 2003 IRED, EPA concluded that, considering human epidemiology and
laboratory animal data, atrazine is “not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans.”  Consistent with the advice of the SAP (FIFRA SAP 2000a), EPA
determined that atrazine’s cancer MOA for the formation of mammary
tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat is not likely operative in humans.
Although hypothalamic disruption of pituitary function (i.e.,
attenuation of the luteinizing hormone surge) and resulting estrus cycle
disruption may be occurring in humans following atrazine exposure, the
hormonal environment resulting from these events would be expected to be
much different from the hormonal environment seen in the rat because of
its reproductive aging process for which there is no human counterpart.
Specifically, the prolonged/increased exposure to estrogen and
prolactin, which is associated with early onset of prolonged estrus that
provides the basis for early-onset and increased mammary tumors in
susceptible strains of rats, is not expected to occur in humans.

In July 2003, EPA convened a meeting of the FIFRA SAP that addressed
human epidemiology data on atrazine and its potential to cause prostate
cancer.  EPA concluded that the epidemiology data do not support a
positive cancer finding for atrazine.  EPA’s conclusion is based on an
assessment that the increase in prostate cancer incidence at the St.
Gabriel plant in Louisiana was not a true increase of cancer incidence
but rather an increase in cancer detection due to the intensive PSA
screening at this plant.  This conclusion was reached because prostate
cancer was found primarily in active employees who received intensive
PSA screening; there was no increase in advanced tumors or mortality due
to prostate cancer in this cohort; and the proximity to atrazine
manufacturing did not appear to be correlated with a worker’s risk of
prostate cancer detection.

The FIFRA SAP (FIFRA SAP, 2003a) concurred with EPA’s conclusion on
these epidemiology studies stating “the increase in prostate specific
antigen (PSA) screening at the St. Gabriel plant likely led to an
increase in the detection of cases of prostate cancer.”  Further, the
Panel noted that “substantive and persuasive arguments have been made
to support the EPA’s conclusion that PSA screening could explain the
observed increase in prostate cancer incidence in the workers”.  In
addition, the Panel further states that “A more thorough and
systematic review of the biologic and epidemiologic literature on the
topic of the potential or observed carcinogenic effects of atrazine
exposure is required before concluding that atrazine exposure is an
unlikely explanation for at least part of the excess of prostate cancer
in the St. Gabriel workers.”

Since the 2003 SAP meeting on the cancer epidemiology of atrazine, EPA
has continued to follow additional work including the National Cancer
Institute’s Agricultural Health Study (AHS), which is the largest
study to date on pesticides.  Rusiecki et al. (2004) did not find clear
associations between atrazine exposure and any cancer site available for
analysis in the AHS.  The authors did point out further studies are
warranted for tumor types in which there was a suggestion of trend
(lung, bladder, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma).  However,
the numbers of cases for these tumor types were small and the lower
bound confidence intervals were below 1.0.  Consequently, it is unclear
whether these findings could be due to a chance association.  In
addition, Alavanja et al. (2003) did not observe an association between
atrazine use and prostate cancer in an AHS study comparing those with
prostate cancer to those not diagnosed with the disease.  Outside of the
AHS cohort, in a pooled analysis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cases
identified through a series of case-control studies in Midwestern
states, De Roos (2003) observed increased risk for NHL among men who
report use of atrazine (1.5 (1.0 to 2.2)) (adjusting for the influence
of the use of other pesticides); researchers also observed evidence of a
joint effect of increased risk of NHL among men who used atrazine in
combination with carbofuran, diazinon or alachlor, with an odds ratio
1.5 (0.9 to 2.7), 2.3 (1.2 to 4.2), 1.6 (1.0 to 2.7), respectively.  EPA
is waiting for the follow-up AHS studies to confirm the initial findings
of no-association with prostate cancer and to clarify the other
suggested findings with a larger sample size.  It is anticipated that
these results will be available in 2010.

Drinking Water Monitoring

As a condition of reregistration of atrazine, EPA required the
registrants to implement a monitoring program in selected CWS.  The
inclusion of a CWS into the atrazine monitoring program is based on
Total Chloro-Triazine (TCT) concentration that includes atrazine and its
metabolites. If the annual TCT average exceeds 2.6 ppb in finished
water, the registrant must comply with atrazine monitoring program
requirements specified in the IRED. The atrazine monitoring program
requires the registrant to sample raw and finished water weekly during
the use season when atrazine is applied to cropland, and biweekly during
all other months.

The Agency and other researchers have studied the issue of sample
frequency to characterize pesticide exposure for drinking water.  For
example, in 2000, the Agency held a consultation with the SAP on
national drinking water survey designs (FIFRA SAP, 2000b).  Generally,
longer durations of concern (e.g., annual average concentration for a
long-term chronic effect) require a less frequent sampling design to
approximate longer term exposures.  However, as the duration of the
exposure of concern shortens, the frequency and timing of sampling
become more important in determining the confidence in how well the
sample data capture these short-duration exposures.  This is most
critical when the Agency is concerned about acute effects resulting from
peak, or single day, exposures.  Depending on the aquatic resource being
sampled, the likelihood increases that a peak exposure is being missed
by less frequent sampling.

In the April and September 2010 SAP meetings the Agency will be
eliciting comments from the SAP about the scientific basis for the
drinking water sampling frequency and monitoring approach used in the
required atrazine monitoring plan.  In the event that the critical
effect and/or duration of exposure used to assess risk changes, the
Agency may need to re-consider the monitoring frequency currently
required.

IV.  2009-2010 Science Peer Review Plan

As noted previously, EPA is launching a special comprehensive scientific
re-evaluation of the human health and ecological effects of atrazine.
The initial effort will focus on human health issues and include four
SAP meetings.  The first to be held, in November 2009, will be a
presentation of the Agency’s approach for this re-evaluation.

The Agency’s 2003 IRED provided a detailed evaluation of the human
health effects of atrazine.  New evidence will be analyzed in the
context of how it relates to or is different from the evidence available
for the last atrazine assessment.  The Agency evaluations presented at
these meetings will represent collaborative efforts by the Office of
Pesticide Programs (lead office), the Office of Water, and the Office of
Research and Development.

In November 2009, EPA will present the peer review plan to the FIFRA
SAP.

At the February 2010 meeting, the Agency will present a proposed generic
approach for incorporating epidemiology and human incidence data in risk
assessment along with EPA’s preliminary evaluation of the human
ecological epidemiology studies of atrazine that have become available
since the last atrazine assessment.  These studies focus on the
potential link between atrazine and non-cancer human health effects.
The Agency will solicit comment on how these human ecological
epidemiology studies inform the Agency’s on-going re-evaluation of
non-cancer effects.

At the April 2010 meeting the Agency will solicit comment from the SAP
on the Agency’s scientific evaluation of atrazine non-cancer effects
based on animal laboratory toxicology studies, including both those
studies used in past evaluations and those that have been published
since then (i.e. the extent to which the Agency’s IRED was
scientifically sound when released in 2003 and the extent to which new
scientific findings change the understanding and assessment of
atrazine’s risks).  The SAP also will be asked to comment on EPA’s
review of the scientific evidence relevant to setting an appropriate
FQPA Safety Factor for protection of infants and children, selecting the
point of departure, selecting an appropriate averaging time for
monitoring water and developing the sampling frequency for monitoring
CWS.

At the September 2010 meeting, the SAP will be charged with reviewing
the Agency’s scientific evaluation of atrazine cancer and non-cancer
effects based on animal laboratory toxicology studies and human
epidemiological studies, including both those studies used in past
evaluations and those that have been published since the 2003 IRED.  The
SAP will be convened at this time because it is anticipated that the
Agency will have received the new results of the AHS for atrazine
earlier in 2010.  A key focus of the September 2010 meeting will be to
receive feedback about EPA’s evaluation of the weight of the evidence
of the human health effects of atrazine using MOA information and the
findings of both the human epidemiology and animal laboratory studies in
an integrated analysis.  In the event that new, relevant information
becomes available, the SAP may again be asked to review the scientific
evidence relevant for considering the FQPA Safety Factor for atrazine.
The Panel will also be asked to comment on the sampling frequency plan
for monitoring CWS in the context of the new integrated weight of the
evidence analysis.

At the conclusion of this process, EPA will ask the SAP to review
atrazine’s potential effects on amphibians and aquatic ecosystems.

IV.  References

Alavanja, M.C.R., Samanic, C., Dosimeci, M., Lubin, J., Tarone, R.,
Lynch, C.F., Knott, C., Thomas, K., Hoppin, J.A., Barker, J., Coble, J.,
Sandler, D.P., Blair, A. (2003). Use of agricultural pesticides and
prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort. American
Journal of Epidemiology, 157(9), 800-814.

Boobis, A.R., Cohen, S.M., Dellarco, V., McGregor, D., Meek, M.E.,
Vickers, C., Willcocks, D., Farland, W. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2006 Nov-Dec;
36(10):781-92.

Boobis AR, Doe JE, Heinrich-Hirsch B, Meek ME, Munn S, Ruchirawat M,
Schlatter J,

Seed J, Vickers C. 2008. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a
noncancer

mode of action for humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 38:87-96.

De Roos AJ, Zahm SH, Cantor KP, Weisenburger DD, Holmes FF, Burmeister
LF,

Blair A. Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors
for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men. Occup Environ Med. 2003
Sep;60(9):E11. PubMed PMID: 12937207; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1740618.

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).  2009. “The Ecological
Significance of Atrazine Effects on Primary Producers in Surface Water
Streams in the Corn and Sorghum Growing Region of the United States.”
Report from the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting of May, 2009
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, Office of Science Coordination and
Policy, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington, DC.  Available:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2009.

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).  2007a. “Interpretation of the
Ecological Significance of Atrazine Stream-Water Concentrations using a
Statistically-Designed Monitoring Program.  Report from the FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting of December, 2007a.  FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency.  Washington, DC.  Available:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2007.

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).  2007b. “The Potential for
Atrazine to Affect Amphibian Gonadal Development.”  Report from the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting of October, 2007b.  FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel, Office of Science Coordination and Policy,
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington, DC.  Available:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2007.

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).  2003a. “Characterization of
Epidemiology Data Relating to Prostate Cancer and Exposure to
Atrazine.”  Report from the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting of
July, 2003.   FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington, DC.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/tools/atozindex/atrazine.htm

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).  2003b. “Potential
Developmental Effects of Atrazine on Amphibians.”  Report from the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting of July, 2003   FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency.  Washington, DC.  Available:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/tools/atozindex/atrazine.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/tools/atozindex/atrazine.htm

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).  2000a. “Atrazine:  Hazard and
Dose-Response Assessment and Characterization.”  Report from the FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting of June 27-29, 2000.   FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel, Office of Science Coordination and Policy,
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington, DC.  Available:
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/tools/atozindex/atrazine.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/tools/atozindex/atrazine.htm

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).  2000b.  “Consultation:
National Drinking Water Survey Design for Assessing Chronic Exposure.”
 Report from the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting of June 6-7,
2000.  FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, Office of Science Coordination
and Policy, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington, DC.  Available:
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2000/060600_mtg.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2000/060600_mtg.htm

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).  1988. “A set of issues being
considered by the Agency in connection with the peer review
classification of atrazine a class C carcinogen.”  Report from the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting of September 14, 1988.  FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel, Office of Science Coordination and Policy,
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington, DC.  Available:
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/1988"
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/1988

Meek, M.E., J.R. Bucher, S.M. Cohen et al. 2003. A framework for human
relevance analysis of information on carcinogenic modes of action. Crit.
Rev. Toxicol. 33:591-653.

NRC (National Research Council). 2007.  Toxicity Testing in the 21st
Century: A Vision and a Strategy (2007). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, Washington D.C. Available at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.nap.edu"  http://www.nap.edu .

Rusiecki JA, De Roos A, Lee WJ, Dosemeci M, Lubin JH, Hoppin JA, Blair
A, Alavanja MC. Cancer incidence among pesticide applicators exposed to
atrazine in the Agricultural Health Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Sep
15;96(18):1375-82.

Seed J., E.W. Carney, R.A. Corley et al. 2005. Overview: Using mode of
action and

life stage information to evaluate the human relevance of animal
toxicity data. Crit. Rev.

Toxicol. 35(8-9):664-672.

Sonich-Mullin, C., Fielder, R., Wiltse, J., Baetcke, K., Dempsey, J.,
Fenner-Crisp, P., Grant, D., Hartley, M., Knaap, A., Kroese, D.,
Mangelsdorf, I., Meek, E., Rice, J.M., and Younes, M. (2001). IPCS
conceptual framework for evaluating a MOA for chemical carcinogenesis.
Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 34:146–152.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003.  Interim
Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Atrazine.  Case No. 0062.
October 2003.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Guidelines for
Carcinogen

Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment
Forum,

Washington, DC. EPA/630/P-03/001F. Federal Register 70(66):17765-17817.
Available at http://epa.gov/cancerguidelines/

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  12  of   NUMPAGES  12

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  12