# 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


## - ntUNITED 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, PESTICIDESAND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Subject: Follow-upto fax transmission of4/13/12 (ePMAremoval ofCBI claimsregarding identified studies) 

### DearMr. Merritt: This is sent to you pursuant ourconversation ofseveral minutes ago. In Larry Robinson's fax of April 13th while there is a waiver ofconfidential business information (CBI) claims in the identified studies there is a an assertion ofcopyrightprotections and some additional text that provides in part ... "Reproduction, reference, summarization, retransmission or otheruse ofthis copyrighted document...including electronic transmission, using the internet oremail....is strictly prohibited...." While we understand the basis for the copyrightprotections, we have a concernthat the language in the fax might be interpreted to mean that ePMA is asserting that the studies submitted perthe TSCA activity are not to bemade available in an Agencye-docket (electronic docket) orbe included in EPA websites among the collection ofTSCAhealth 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 ofnon-CBI materials submitted by entities subject to TSCA regulations (including the posting ofsuch materials ongovernment websites) and submittedby 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 ofthe studies. Canyou please confirm CPMA's intent? Manythanks.
Scott M. Sherlock, Attorney Advisor Environmental Assistance Division Office ofPollution 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 inyoung 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

### INTRODUCTION 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

### RES 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 LD 50 

### 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

E E E E) u-E D o0 -o r o r u a C) o- a) a E E 4- 4 4 -a 0) - o C1 C