Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 48421 [05-16333]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 17, 2005 / Notices • A 90-day subchronic inhalation toxicity study. • A 14-day dermal toxicity study. • Genotoxicity (gene mutation and chromosomal effects) studies. The second phase (program review testing) consisted of: • A developmental toxicity study. • An in vitro dermal penetration study. Test results from the first and second phases are contained in the docket for this testing action. Whether or not a third phase of testing would be required that would focus on in vivo dermal penetration rate testing is to be determined by EPA, with input from CPSC, after its review of the program’s test results, recommendations submitted by the DBEs Group and any comments received from the public in response to this notice. C. What Did the DBEs Group Recommend Regarding Phase 3 Testing? Following the submission of test results obtained under phase 2 testing, the DBEs Group submitted its recommendation in a letter dated May 14, 2003, arguing that in vivo dermal penetration rate testing was not needed (See Dibasic Esters Group. Letter concerning the need for additional dermal studies involving DBEs submitted to the TSCA Public Docket Office, EPA May 14, 2003). The DBEs Group stated the following in support of its position: ‘‘Since the 14-day dermal study confirmed a lack of systemic toxicity in rats, and given that the in vitro dermal study established that DBEs, when applied alone as a single solvent system or as part of a 1:3:1 blend [DMS:DMG:DMA], penetrated rat skin significantly faster compared to human skin, the DBEs Group has concluded that it is unnecessary to conduct additional dermal experiments with DBEs. The DBEs Group does recognize that had systemic toxicity been noted in the 14-day dermal study, accompanied by target organ effects, an in vivo dermal study using radio[-]labeled DBE could be justified, exclusive of the in vitro dermal penetration rate differences reported for rat and human skin.’’ III. What Will Occur Once Program Review Has Been Completed? The primary outcome of the program review will be an EPA decision on whether or not the DBEs Group should proceed to sponsor in vivo dermal penetration rate testing, and, if so, the specific protocol that would be followed in such testing, including the identification of the DBEs or DBE mixture to be studied. On completing its review, including the consideration of VerDate jul<14>2003 13:34 Aug 16, 2005 Jkt 205001 comments submitted in response to this notice, EPA will notify the DBEs Group of its decision regarding phase 3 testing by letter, which will also be entered in the public docket. Accordingly, EPA specifically requests public comment on the need for, and, if there is thought to be a need, the specific nature of, in vivo dermal penetration rate testing for individual DBEs or mixtures of DBE. Comments that support such testing should provide a clear rationale for such testing and specify how the testing should be conducted, identifying test species and target organ(s), if appropriate. EPA understands that the 1:3:1 [DMS:DMG:DMA] blend of DBEs is a mixture common to many DBEcontaining consumer products and industrial solvent products and was the subject of some of the tests conducted under the first two phases of ECA testing. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 10, 2005. Linda Gerber, Acting Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. [FR Doc. 05–16297 Filed 8–16–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Report No. 2724] Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding August 4, 2005. Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission’s Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is available for viewing and copying in Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission’s copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1–800–378–3160). Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by September 1, 2005. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired. Subject: In the Matter of the Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 48421 Communications Requirements through the year 2010 (WT Docket 96–86). In the Matter of Petition for Waiver of the Part 15 UWB Regulations Filed by the Multi-band OFDM Alliance Special Interest Group (ET Docket 04–352) Number of Petitions Filed: 2. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 05–16333 Filed 8–16–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–U FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may obtain copies of agreements by contacting the Commission’s Office of Agreements at 202–523–5793 or via e-mail at tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Agreement No.: 011383–040. Title: Venezuelan Discussion Agreement. ¨ Parties: Hamburg-Sud, Seaboard Marine Ltd., King Ocean Service de Venezuela, and SeaFreight Line. Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW., Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. Synopsis: The amendment adds provisions dealing with specific liability for penalties, financial security, and dispute resolution. Agreement No.: 011550–011. Title: ABC Discussion Agreement. Parties: A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, ¨ Hamburg-Sud, King Ocean Services Limited, and SeaFreight Line. Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW., Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. Synopsis: The amendment adds provisions dealing with specific liability for civil penalties and dispute resolution. Agreement No.: 011673–001. Title: Space Charter Agreement Between Kambara Kisen Co., Ltd. and Mariana Express Lines Limited. Parties: Kambara Kisen Co., Ltd. and Mariana Express Lines Limited. Filing Parties: Charles L. Coleman, III, Esq.; Holland & Knight LLP; 50 California Street, Suite 2800; San Francisco, CA 94111. Synopsis: The amendment reduces the number of slots the parties will exchange and updates Mariana Express’s address. E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 48421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16333]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2724]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

August 4, 2005.
    Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's 
Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is 
available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). 
Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by September 1, 2005. See 
Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies 
to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions have expired.
    Subject: In the Matter of the Development of Operational, Technical 
and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public 
Safety Communications Requirements through the year 2010 (WT Docket 96-
86).
    In the Matter of Petition for Waiver of the Part 15 UWB Regulations 
Filed by the Multi-band OFDM Alliance Special Interest Group (ET Docket 
04-352)
    Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-16333 Filed 8-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.