73224 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2014–28955 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0122; FRL–9919–40] 

C.I. Pigment Yellow 1; Exemption From 

the Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of C.I. Pigment 

Yellow 1 (butanamide, 2- (4-methyl-2- 

nitrophenyl) azo -3-oxo-N-phenyl-) 

when used as an inert ingredient as a 

colorant in seed treatment formulations 

not to exceed 10% weight(wt)/wt under 

40 CFR 180.920. Exponent Inc. on 

behalf of Clariant Corporation, 

submitted a petition to EPA under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA), requesting establishment of an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of C.I. 

Pigment Yellow 1. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

December 10, 2014. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before February 9, 2015, and must 

be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0122, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan T. Lewis, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 

32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2014–0122 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before February 9, 2015. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2014–0122, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Petition for Exemption 

In the Federal Register of October 24, 

2014 (79 FR 63594) (FRL–9916–03), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, 

announcing the filing of a pesticide 

petition (PP IN–10661) by Exponent, 

Inc. (1150 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 

1100, Washington, DC 20036) on behalf 

of Clariant Corporation (4000 Monroe 

Road, Charlotte, NC 28205). The 

petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 

be amended by establishing an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of C.I. Pigment 

Yellow 1 (butanamide, 2- (4-methyl-2- 

nitrophenyl) azo -3-oxo-N-phenyl-) 

(CAS Reg. No. 2512–29–0) when used as 

an inert ingredient as a colorant in 

pesticide formulations applied as a seed 

treatment not to exceed 10% wt/wt. 

That document referenced a summary of 

the petition prepared by Exponent, Inc., 

the petitioner, which is available in the 

docket, http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments were received on the notice 

of filing. EPA’s response to these 

comments is discussed in Unit V.C. 

III. Inert Ingredient Definition 

Inert ingredients are all ingredients 

that are not active ingredients as defined 

in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are 

not limited to, the following types of 

ingredients (except when they have a 

pesticidal efficacy of their own): 

Solvents such as alcohols and 

hydrocarbons; surfactants such as 

polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty 

acids; carriers such as clay and 

diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as 

carrageenan and modified cellulose; 

wetting, spreading, and dispersing 

agents; propellants in aerosol 

dispensers; microencapsulating agents; 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73225 

and emulsifiers. The term ‘‘inert’’ is not 

intended to imply nontoxicity; the 

ingredient may or may not be 

chemically active. Generally, EPA has 

exempted inert ingredients from the 

requirement of a tolerance based on the 

low toxicity of the individual inert 

ingredients. 

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish an exemption 

from the requirement for a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing a 

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. . . .’’ 

EPA establishes exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance only in those 

cases where it can be clearly 

demonstrated that the risks from 

aggregate exposure to pesticide 

chemical residues under reasonably 

foreseeable circumstances will pose no 

appreciable risks to human health. In 

order to determine the risks from 

aggregate exposure to pesticide inert 

ingredients, the Agency considers the 

toxicity of the inert in conjunction with 

possible exposure to residues of the 

inert ingredient through food, drinking 

water, and through other exposures that 

occur as a result of pesticide use in 

residential settings. If EPA is able to 

determine that a finite tolerance is not 

necessary to ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

inert ingredient, an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance may be 

established. 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in 

FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has 

reviewed the available scientific data 

and other relevant information in 

support of this action. EPA has 

sufficient data to assess the hazards of 

and to make a determination on 

aggregate exposure for C.I. Pigment 

Yellow 1 including exposure resulting 

from the exemption established by this 

action. EPA’s assessment of exposures 

and risks associated with C.I. Pigment 

Yellow 1 follows. 

A. Toxicological Profile 

EPA has evaluated the available 

toxicity data and considered their 

validity, completeness, and reliability as 

well as the relationship of the results of 

the studies to human risk. EPA has also 

considered available information 

concerning the variability of the 

sensitivities of major identifiable 

subgroups of consumers, including 

infants and children. Specific 

information on the studies received and 

the nature of the adverse effects caused 

by C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 as well as the 

no-observed-adverse-effect-level 

(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the 

toxicity studies are discussed in this 

unit. 

The acute oral lethal dose (LD)50 of 

C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 in rat was greater 

than 10,000 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg). 

The acute dermal LD50 of C.I. Pigment 

Yellow 1 in rats was greater than 2,000 

mg/kg. In a primary skin and eye 

irritation study in rabbits, C.I. Pigment 

Yellow 1 was not irritating to the skin 

or eyes of rabbits. C.I. Pigment Yellow 

1 was not a sensitizer as determined by 

mouse Local Lymph Node Assay 

(LLNA)/Redfern Contract Consultants 

(LLNA/RCC) cytotest cell assay. 

In a repeated dose toxicity study with 

a reproduction/developmental toxicity 

screening test, C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 

was administered orally to groups of 11 

male and female Wistar rats at dose 

levels of up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. 

Parental systemic toxicity, functional 

observation battery (FOB) parameters, 

locomotor activity, reproductive 

function and performance, and offspring 

viability and growth were assessed in 

this study. Over the entire treatment 

period, weight gain was decreased by 

11% and 16% in mid- and high-dose 

group males, respectively, however, the 

absolute body weights were not affected. 

The parental systemic toxicity, 

reproductive toxicity and offspring 

toxicity NOAEL for C.I. Pigment Yellow 

1 was 1,000 mg/kg/day (the limit dose). 

C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 was negative 

for mutagenicity in a reverse gene 

mutation assay and in an in vitro 

mammalian cell gene mutation assay 

using Chinese hamster cells. 

No studies investigating the 

carcinogenic potential of C.I. Pigment 

Yellow 1 are available. A Deductive 

Estimation of Risk from Existing 

Knowledge (DEREK) evaluation of the 

toxicity of C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 

indicated structural alerts based on the 

aromatic nitrogen structure and 

included plausible outcome for 

mutagenicity in vitro and plausible 

outcomes for carcinogenicity and 

hepatoxicity. However, based on the 

lack of target organ toxicity at the limit 

dose, lack of mutagenicity, limited 

solubility and limited bioavailability, 

C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 is not expected to 

be carcinogenic. 

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/

Levels of Concern 

Once a pesticide’s toxicological 

profile is determined, EPA identifies 

toxicological points of departure (POD) 

and levels of concern to use in 

evaluating the risk posed by human 

exposure to the pesticide. For hazards 

that have a threshold below which there 

is no appreciable risk, the toxicological 

POD is used as the basis for derivation 

of reference values for risk assessment. 

PODs are developed based on a careful 

analysis of the doses in each 

toxicological study to determine the 

dose at which the NOAEL and the 

LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/

safety factors are used in conjunction 

with the POD to calculate a safe 

exposure level—generally referred to as 

a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a 

reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin 

of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold 

risks, the Agency assumes that any 

amount of exposure will lead to some 

degree of risk. Thus, the Agency 

estimates risk in terms of the probability 

of an occurrence of the adverse effect 

expected in a lifetime. For more 

information on the general principles 

EPA uses in risk characterization and a 

complete description of the risk 

assessment process, see http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/

riskassess.htm. 

The available data suggest low acute 

oral toxicity. There was no evidence 

systemic toxicity in the reproductive 

and developmental study at the limit 

dose. There were no effects on 

reproductive, developmental and 

offspring toxicity at the limit dose of 

1,000 mg/kg/day. It was negative for 

mutagenicity in two in vitro assays. In 

addition, based on its limited water 

solubility of C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 is not 

expected significantly via oral and 

dermal routes. Based on above 

consideration, EPA concluded that it is 

not necessary to conduct quantitative 

dietary risk as well as risk from 

exposure via dermal and inhalation. 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73226 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

exposure to C.I. Pigment Yellow 1, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

proposed exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. EPA 

assessed dietary exposures from C.I. 

Pigment Yellow 1 in food as follows: 

Dietary exposure can occur from 

eating foods containing residues of C.I. 

Pigment Yellow 1. Because no hazard 

endpoint of concern was identified for 

the acute and chronic dietary 

assessment (food and drinking water), a 

quantitative dietary exposure risk 

assessment was not conducted. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 residues 

may be found in drinking water. 

However, since an endpoint of concern 

was not identified for the dietary 

assessment (food and drinking water), a 

quantitative dietary exposure risk 

assessment was not conducted. 

3. From non-dietary exposure. The 

term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in 

this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

(e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), 

carpets, swimming pools, and hard 

surface disinfection on walls, floors, 

tables). C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 is used as 

an inert ingredient in pesticide products 

that could result in short- and 

intermediate-term residential exposure. 

However, based on the lack of toxicity, 

a quantitative exposure assessment from 

residential exposures was not 

performed. 

4. Cumulative effects from substances 

with a common mechanism of toxicity. 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 

requires that, when considering whether 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’ 

EPA has not found C.I. Pigment 

Yellow 1 to share a common mechanism 

of toxicity with any other substances, 

and C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 does not 

appear to produce a toxic metabolite 

produced by other substances. For the 

purposes of this tolerance action, 

therefore, EPA has assumed that C.I. 

Pigment Yellow 1 does not have a 

common mechanism of toxicity with 

other substances. For information 

regarding EPA’s efforts to determine 

which chemicals have a common 

mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate 

the cumulative effects of such 

chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/

cumulative. 

D. Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children 

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA 

provides that EPA shall apply an 

additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety 

for infants and children in the case of 

threshold effects to account for prenatal 

and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the database on toxicity 

and exposure unless EPA determines 

based on reliable data that a different 

margin of safety will be safe for infants 

and children. This additional margin of 

safety is commonly referred to as the 

FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying 

this provision, EPA either retains the 

default value of 10X, or uses a different 

additional safety factor when reliable 

data available to EPA support the choice 

of a different factor. 

Based on an assessment of C.I. 

Pigment Yellow 1, EPA has concluded 

that there are no toxicological endpoints 

of concern for the U.S. population, 

including infants and children, and has 

conducted a qualitative assessment. As 

part of its qualitative assessment, the 

Agency did not use safety factors for 

assessing risk, and no additional safety 

factor is needed for assessing risk to 

infants and children. 

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

EPA determines whether acute and 

chronic dietary pesticide exposures are 

safe by comparing aggregate exposure 

estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and 

chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer 

risks, EPA calculates the lifetime 

probability of acquiring cancer given the 

estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, 

intermediate-, and chronic-term risks 

are evaluated by comparing the 

estimated aggregate food, water, and 

residential exposure to the appropriate 

PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE 

exists. 

Based on the lack of any endpoints of 

concern, EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to the general population or to 

infants and children from aggregate 

exposure to C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 

residues. 

V. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method is not required 

for enforcement purposes since the 

Agency is establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

without any numerical limitation. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

United Nation Food and Agriculture 

Organization/World Health 

Organization food standards program, 

and it is recognized as an international 

food safety standards-setting 

organization in trade agreements to 

which the United States is a party. EPA 

may establish a tolerance that is 

different from a Codex MRL; however, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level. 

The Codex has not established a MRL 

for C.I. Pigment Yellow 1. 

C. Response to Comments 

One comment was received for a 

notice of filing from a private citizen 

who opposed the authorization to sell 

any pesticide that leaves a residue on 

food. The Agency understands the 

commenter’s concerns and recognizes 

that some individuals believe that no 

residue of pesticides should be allowed. 

However, under the existing legal 

framework provided by section 408 of 

the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA), EPA is authorized to 

establish pesticide tolerances or 

exemptions where persons seeking such 

tolerances or exemptions have 

demonstrated that the pesticide meets 

the safety standard imposed by the 

statute. 

VI. Conclusions 

Therefore, an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance is established 

under 40 CFR 180.920 for C.I. Pigment 

Yellow 1 (2512–29–0) when used as an 

inert ingredient colorant in seed 

treatment formulations not to exceed 

10% wt/wt. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action establishes an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this action 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73227 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This action does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the exemption in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), do not apply. 

This action directly regulates growers, 

food processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States or tribes, nor does 

this action alter the relationships or 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established by Congress 

in the preemption provisions of FFDCA 

section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency 

has determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on States 

or tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this action. In addition, this action 

does not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described under Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VIII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 26, 2014. 

Susan Lewis, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.920, add alphabetically the 

inert ingredient in the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the requirement 

of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Inert ingredients Limits Uses 

*******

C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 (CAS Reg. No. 

2512–29–0).

Not to exceed 10% (weight/weight) in pesticide formulation .......................................... Colorant. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–28936 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket No. 13–39; FCC 14–175] 

Rural Call Completion 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document affirms the 

Commission’s commitment to ensuring 

that high quality telephone service must 

be available to all Americans. In the 

underlying Order, the Commission 

established rules to combat extensive 

problems with successfully completing 

calls to rural areas, and created a 

framework to improve the ability to 

monitor call problems and take 

appropriate enforcement action. In the 

Order on Reconsideration, the 

Commission denies several petitions for 

reconsideration that, if granted, would 

impair the Commission’s ability to 

monitor, and take enforcement action 

against, call completion problems. The 

Commission does, however, grant one 

petition for reconsideration because the 

Commission finds that modifying its 

original determination will significantly 

lower providers’ compliance costs and 

burdens without impairing the 

Commission’s ability to obtain reliable 

and extensive information about rural 

call completion problems. 

DATES: Effective January 9, 2015, except 

for amendments to §§ 64.2101, 64.2103, 

and 64.2105, which contain new or 

modified information collection 

requirements that will not be effective 

until approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claude Aiken, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Competition Policy Division, 

(202) 418–1580, or send an email to 

claude.aiken@fcc.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 13– 

39, adopted and released November 13, 

2014. The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Information Center, Portals II, 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The document 

may also be purchased from the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES