FAX 

To: 6'-& NN (VI <':"1 VI \ \ -, 

Fax: '}..O \ ll'?1,LI~ I 

Date: <J 11"1 II <)/ 

Re: C: \> (VI A. 

From: '7C::D~ S'" ~,,,, t '"" 

fax: 202.564.8251 

Phone: ,\--01..' Sb~ . ~~ S I 

Cc: 

Comments: \'~ "', ,t.v,)\\ '" rI 

OCSPP OPPT EAD 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

202.564.8251 

Pages: 

'Y 

r- Urgent I- For Review I- Please Comme - Please Reply - Please Recycle -

nt 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 

VIA FACSIMILE: 201-437-4801 

April 19,2012 

Attention: Glenn Merritt (201-437-4000) 

OFFICE OF 

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND 

TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

Subject: Follow-up to fax transmission of 4/13/12 (ePMA removal ofCBI claims regarding 

identified studies) 

Dear Mr. Merritt: 

This is sent to you pursuant our conversation of several minutes ago. In Larry Robinson's fax of 

April 13th while there is a waiver of confidential business information (CBI) claims in the 

identified studies there is a an assertion of copyright protections and some additional text that 

provides in part ... "Reproduction, reference, summarization, retransmission or other use of this 

copyrighted document. .. including electronic transmission, using the internet or email .... is 

strictly prohibited .... " 

While we understand the basis for the copyright protections, we have a concern that the language 

in the fax might be interpreted to mean that ePMA is asserting that the studies submitted per the 

TSCA activity are not to be made available in an Agency e-docket (electronic docket) or be 

included in EPA websites among the collection of TSCA health and safety studies. 

We are thinking that the identified limitations noted in the fax are not intended to apply to EPA's 

normal procedures for the handling of non-CBI materials submitted by entities subject to TSCA 

regulations (including the posting of such materials on government websites) and submitted by 

such entities in order to comply with a TSCA requirement, but are rather intended to limit 

entities outside the government from the unauthorized use or appropriation of the studies. 

Can you please confirm CPMA's intent? Many thanks. 

Scott M. Sherlock, Attorney Advisor 

Environmental Assistance Division 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 


CONFIDENTIAL ~C*HRC #N-4196-29

ACUTE ORAL TOXICITY STUDY

IN RATS OF

ALKALI BLUE

GG (CP-1816)

Sherwin Williams Company Huntingdon Research Center

11541 South Champlain Avenue 216 Congers Road

Chicago, Illinois 60628 New City, New York 10956
SUMMARY

An acute oral toxicity study of Alkali Blue GG (CP-1816) was conducted

in young albino rats. Based on a 100% survival rate at 5 gm/kg of

body weight, Alkali Blue would be considered as non-toxic. The LD50

would be estimated at greater than 5 gm/kg of body weight.

Principal Investigator: ________________

Paul J. Upman

Manager, Acute Toxicology

ApYroved By: _______________

Charles 0. Ward, Ph.D.

Director, Toxicology

May 6, 1976

jab

HUNTINGDON RESEARCH CENTER 216 CONGERS ROAD NEW CITY, NEW YORK 10956
INTRODUCTI ON

Alkali Blue GG (CP-1816) was received from the Sherwin Williams

Company and evaluated for its oral toxicity in rats.

METHODS

Ten albino Sprague-Daw~ey rats (5 male, 5 female) were obtained from

Taconic Farms. The rats were housed five to a cage and fed Purina

Laboratory Chow and water ad libitum.

Following~a brief acclimation period, the rats were fasted overnight

then gavaged with the test material at -the -rate- of 5 gm/kg-of body

weight.

Body weights were recorded at dosing and on Day 14. Observations were

made frequently after dosing and daily until terminati-on. -Animals

sacrificed at Day 14 were subjected to a gross examination of the viscera.

HUNTINGDON RESEARCH CENTER 216 CONGERS ROAD NEW CITY, NEW YORK 10956
RE S ULTS

No animals died during the 14-day observation period. No sinns of

toxicity were noted after administration. Body weight gain (Table I)

was good.- No observations were noted at necropsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Ten rats were gavaged with Alkali Blue GG (CP-1816) at 5 gm/kg in an

attempt to define the LD0 No clinical signs were noted, no animals

died and post-mortem observations were normal. Based on the results

of this study, the solution would be considered as non-toxic. The

LD50 would be estimated at greater than 5 gm/kg of body weight.

HUNTINGDON RESEARCH CENTER 216 CONGERS ROAD NEW CITY, NEW YORK 10956
> ~ > *) >) 3 3 >1 >.4 >

Im V') CP0 0 0

o 0 0 0 0 0 0

o 00 0 0 0 0

4-) 4- 4-) 4-) 4-) 4-J 4-) 4J 4-) 4-

5 - M) 0) V)i ) U ) ) L) 0) in

0U 0n 0 000 00000

Lo L 0) 0 0 0) 0 0) 0) 0 0)0

r- 1 S.- S- S... S.- - S.- S-. S- S- -

4-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

S.-

4-

0

$.- E E E= E E E E E E E

'a S.- S- S- 4... S - S.- S- S.- SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LI L) i fL LI) U) M) Li) U) th %A

Z: S.- S - S.- $.- 5- S.- S- S- S.-

0= cc 'a to cc co t't a ea co

0_ CL 02 0002C -1 0- 02

0- - 0 0 CL C'- 0 0O 0.. 0

C)-

- i

Lii CD C~

to 00

u-E E E DE E) 

o0 -o r o r u a C) o- a) a

E E 4- 4 4 -a

0) - o C1 C