[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48095-48096]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0094]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Channels of Trade
Policy for Commodities With Residues of Pesticide Chemicals, for Which
Tolerances Have Been Revoked, Suspended, or Modified by the
Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to Dietary Risk Considerations

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0562.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Channels of Trade Policy for Commodities With Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals, for Which Tolerances Have Been Revoked, Suspended, or
Modified by the Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to Dietary
Risk Considerations

OMB Control Number 0910-0562--Extension

    The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, which amended the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), established a new safety
standard for pesticide residues in food, with an emphasis on protecting
the health of infants and children. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is responsible for regulating the use of pesticides (under FIFRA)
and for establishing tolerances or exemptions from the requirement for
tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in food commodities
(under the FD&C Act). EPA may, for various reasons, e.g., as part of a
systematic review or in response to new information concerning the
safety of a specific pesticide, reassess whether a tolerance for a
pesticide residue continues to meet the safety standard in section 408
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 346a). When EPA determines that a
pesticide's tolerance level does not meet that safety standard, the
registration for the pesticide may be canceled under FIFRA for all or
certain uses. In addition, the tolerances for that pesticide may be
lowered or revoked for the corresponding food commodities. Under
section 408(l)(2) of the FD&C Act, when the registration for a
pesticide is canceled or modified due to, in whole or in part, dietary
risks to humans posed by residues of that pesticide chemical on food,
the effective date for the revocation of such tolerance (or exemption
in some cases) must be no later than 180 days after the date such
cancellation becomes effective or 180 days after the date on which the
use of the canceled pesticide becomes unlawful under the terms of the
cancellation, whichever is later.
    When EPA takes such actions, food derived from a commodity that was
lawfully treated with the pesticide may not have cleared the channels
of trade by the time the revocation or new tolerance level takes
effect. The food could be found by FDA, the Agency that is responsible
for monitoring pesticide residue levels and enforcing the pesticide
tolerances in most foods (the U.S. Department of Agriculture has
responsibility for monitoring residue levels and enforcing pesticide
tolerances in egg products and most meat and poultry products), to
contain a residue of that pesticide that does not comply with the
revoked or lowered tolerance. We would normally deem such food to be in
violation of the law by virtue of it bearing an illegal pesticide
residue. The food would be subject to FDA enforcement action as an
``adulterated'' food. However, the channels of trade provision of the
FD&C Act addresses the circumstances under which a food is not unsafe
solely due to the presence of a residue from a pesticide chemical for
which the tolerance has been revoked, suspended, or modified by EPA.
The channels of trade provision (section 408 (l)(5) of the FD&C Act)
states that food containing a residue of such a pesticide shall not be
deemed ``adulterated'' by virtue of the residue, if the residue is
within the former tolerance, and the responsible party can demonstrate
to FDA's satisfaction that the residue is present as the result of an
application of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that were lawful
under FIFRA.
    In the Federal Register of May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28544), we announced
the availability of a guidance document entitled ``Channels of Trade
Policy for Commodities With Residues of Pesticide Chemicals, for Which
Tolerances Have Been Revoked, Suspended, or Modified by the
Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to Dietary Risk
Considerations.'' The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on its
planned enforcement approach to the channels of trade provision of the
FD&C Act and how that provision relates to FDA-regulated products with
residues of pesticide chemicals for which tolerances have been revoked,
suspended, or modified by EPA under dietary risk considerations. The
guidance can be found at the following link: https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ChemicalContaminantsMetalsNaturalToxinsPesticides/ucm077918.htm. We
anticipate that food bearing lawfully applied residues of pesticide
chemicals that are the subject of future EPA action to revoke, suspend,
or modify their tolerances, will remain in the channels of trade after
the applicable tolerance is revoked, suspended, or modified. If we
encounter food bearing a residue of a pesticide chemical for which the
tolerance has been revoked, suspended, or modified, we intend to
address the situation in accordance with provisions of the guidance. In
general, we anticipate that the party responsible for food found to
contain pesticide

chemical residues (within the former tolerance) after the tolerance for
the pesticide chemical has been revoked, suspended, or modified will be
able to demonstrate that such food was handled, e.g., packed or
processed, during the acceptable timeframes cited in the guidance by
providing appropriate documentation to FDA as discussed in the guidance
document. We are not suggesting that firms maintain an inflexible set
of documents where anything less or different would likely be
considered unacceptable. Rather, we are leaving it to each firm's
discretion to maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate that
the food was so handled during the acceptable timeframes.
    Examples of documentation that we anticipate will serve this
purpose consist of documentation associated with packing codes, batch
records, and inventory records. These are types of documents that many
food processors routinely generate as part of their basic food
production operations. Accordingly, under the PRA, we are requesting
the extension of OMB approval for the information collection provisions
in the guidance.
    Description of Respondents: The likely respondents to this
collection of information are firms in the produce and food processing
industries that handle food products that may contain residues of
pesticide chemicals after the tolerances for the pesticide chemicals
have been revoked, suspended, or modified.
    In the Federal Register of May 25, 2017 (82 FR 24133), we published
a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed extension of
this collection of information. One comment was posted to the docket
but did not address any of the four information collection topics
solicited in our notice and so it is not discussed here.
    We therefore estimate the burden of this collection of information
as follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                              Activity                                  Number of      responses  per   Total  annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of documentation........................................               1                1                1                3                3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We expect the total number of pesticide tolerances that are
revoked, suspended, or modified by EPA under dietary risk
considerations in the next 3 years to remain at a low level, as there
have been no changes to the safety standard for pesticide residues in
food since 1996. Thus, we expect the number of submissions we will
receive under the guidance document will also remain at a low level.
However, to avoid counting this burden as zero, we have estimated the
burden at one respondent making one submission a year for a total of
one annual submission.
    We base our estimate of the hours per response on the assumption
that the information requested in the guidance is readily available to
the submitter. We expect that the submitter will need to gather
information from appropriate persons in the submitter's company and to
prepare this information for submission to FDA. The submitter will
almost always merely need to copy existing documentation. We believe
that this effort should take no longer than 3 hours per submission.

                                                   Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                      Average  burden
                              Activity                                  Number of       records  per    Total  annual         per          Total hours
                                                                      recordkeepers     recordkeeper       records       recordkeeping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop documentation process......................................               1                1                1               16               16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    In determining the estimated annual recordkeeping burden, we
believe that at least 90 percent of firms maintain documentation, such
as packing codes, batch records, and inventory records, as part of
their basic food production or import operations. Therefore, the
recordkeeping burden was calculated as the time required for the 10
percent of firms that may not be currently maintaining this
documentation to develop and maintain documentation, such as batch
records and inventory records. In previous information collection
requests, this recordkeeping burden was estimated to be 16 hours per
record. We retain our prior estimate of 16 hours per record for the
recordkeeping burden. As shown in table 1 of this document, we estimate
that one respondent will make one submission per year. Although we
estimate that only 1 out of 10 firms will not be currently maintaining
the necessary documentation, to avoid counting the recordkeeping burden
for the 1 submission per year as \1/10\ of a recordkeeper, we estimate
that 1 recordkeeper will take 16 hours to develop and maintain
documentation recommended by the guidance.

    Dated: October 10, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-22285 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26768-26770]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10948]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2520-072]

Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of
Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the Pad and
Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study
Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2520-072.
    c. Dated Filed: March 1, 2013.
    d. Submitted By: Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Mattaceunk Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Penobscot River in Aroostook and Penobscot
counties, Maine, within the towns of Medway, Woodville, Mattawamkeag,
and the unorganized township of Molunkus. No federal lands are located
within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Kevin Bernier, Manager, Licensing &
Compliance, Brookfield Renewable Energy Group, New England Regional
Operations Center, 1024 Central Street, Millinocket, Maine 04462.

    i. FERC Contact: Rachel McNamara at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402 and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Great Lakes Hydro America,
LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out
informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC filed with the Commission a Pre-
Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and
schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
Documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the
project name (Mattaceunk Hydroelectric Project) and number (P-2520-
072), and bear the appropriate heading: ``Comments on Pre-Application
Document,'' ``Study Requests,'' ``Comments on Scoping Document 1,''
``Request for Cooperating Agency Status,'' or ``Communications to and
from Commission Staff.'' Any individual or entity interested in
submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency
requesting cooperating status must do so by July 2, 2013.
    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or
EIS is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

Date: Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Time: 12:30 p.m.
Location: Gateway Inn, 1963 Medway Road, Medway, ME 04460
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Evening Scoping Meeting

Date: Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Gateway Inn, 1963 Medway Road, Medway, ME 04460
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals
and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be
available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions
for accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written
comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a
revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues,
identified through the scoping process.

Environmental Site Review

    The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an
Environmental Site Review of the project on Wednesday, June 5, 2013,
starting at 3:30 p.m. All participants should meet at the Gateway Inn,
located at 1963 Medway Road, Medway, Maine 04460. All participants are
responsible for their own transportation. Anyone with questions about
the site visit should contact Mr. Kevin Bernier of Brookfield Renewable
Energy Group at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or phone at (207)
723-4341 on or before May 29, 2013.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any

federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency
for development of an environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n. of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed
in the public records of the project.

    Dated: May 1, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10948 Filed 5-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Primary Evaluator

Date:  14-SEP-2006

	George F. Kramer, Ph.D., Senior Chemist

Registration Action Branch (RAB1)

Health Effects Division (HED) (7509C)

	Approved by

Date:  14-SEP-2006

	P.V. Shah, Ph.D. Branch Senior Scientist

RAB1/HED (7509C)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 This DER was originally prepared under contract by Dynamac Corporation (1910 Sedwick Rd., Building 100, Durham, NC 27713; submitted 06/23/2006).  The DER has been reviewed by HED and revised to reflect current Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) policies.

STUDY REPORT:

46609401.  Samoil, K. (2005) Diflubenzuron:  Magnitude of the Residue on Peanut.  Lab Project Number:  07737.01-PTR02.  Unpublished study prepared by Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4).  645 p.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In a field trial conducted during the 2001 growing season in TX, diflubenzuron (2 lb/gal flowable concentrate (FlC)) was applied to peanuts as three broadcast foliar applications during the crop’s developmental stage at ~0.125 lb ai/A/application for a total rate of 0.379 lb ai/A.  Single bulk samples of untreated and treated peanuts were harvested at commercial maturity, 29 days after the last treatment (DAT).  The harvested peanuts were dried, shelled, and processed into meal and refined oil using simulated commercial practices.  Prior to analysis, peanut nutmeat, meal, and oil were stored frozen for 244-639 days; the storage intervals are supported by the concurrent storage stability data.

The peanut nutmeat and its processed commodities (meal and refined oil) were analyzed for residues of diflubenzuron using a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)/ultraviolet (UV) method, for residues of 4-chlorophenylurea (CPU) using an HPLC/mass spectrometry (MS)/MS or UV method, and for residues of 4-chloroaniline (PCA) using a gas chromatography (GC)/MS method.  These methods, which are similar or based on method submissions previously deemed acceptable by the Agency, were adequately validated in conjunction with the peanut sample analyses.

The results show that combined residues of diflubenzuron, CPU, and PCA were below the combined method LOQ (<0.06 ppm) in/on peanut nutmeat treated at a seasonal rate of 0.379 lb ai/A.  Following processing of the treated nutmeat, the combined residues were below the method LOQs (<0.525 ppm) in peanut meal and <0.066 ppm (below the LOQ for diflubenzuron and PCA, and 0.011 ppm for CPU) in peanut oil.  Processing factors for meal and oil could not be reliably calculated due to differing LOQs and <LOQ residues in all matrices (raw and unprocessed).  Table 1 of OPPTS 860.1520 reports that the maximum theoretical concentration factor (by crop) is 3x for peanuts.

STUDY/WAIVER ACCEPTABILITY/DEFICIENCIES/CLARIFICATIONS:

Under the conditions and parameters used in the study, the submitted peanut processing study is adequate to satisfy the guideline requirement for processed food/feed (Residue Chemistry Guideline OPPTS 860.1500).  The acceptability of this study for regulatory purposes is addressed in the forthcoming U.S. EPA Residue Chemistry Summary Document DP# 321623.

COMPLIANCE:

Signed and dated Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), Quality Assurance and Data Confidentiality statements were provided.  The study authors noted numerous minor deviations from GLP compliance at the trial site, including the collection of weather data and descriptions of the field plot.  However, these deviations do not impact the validity of the study.

A.	BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Diflubenzuron is an insecticide/acaricide (insect growth regulator) that behaves as a chitin inhibitor to suppress the growth of many leaf-eating larvae, mosquito larvae, aquatic midges, rust mite, boll weevil, and flies.  Diflubenzuron was first registered in the United States in 1979 for use as an insecticide.  The Agency issued a Registration Standard for diflubenzuron in September, 1985, (NTIS #PB86-176500).  Diflubenzuron was also the subject of a Residue Chemistry Chapter dated 11/16/84, an Addendum to the Registration Standard dated 12/4/84, and a Reregistration Standard Update dated 6/21/91.  The Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for diflubenzuron was issued in August, 1997 (EPA 738-R-97-008).  Tolerances for residues of diflubenzuron are established under 40 CFR §180.377.

TABLE A.1.	Diflubenzuron Nomenclature.

Compound

Common Name	Diflubenzuron

Trade and other Names	Dimilin, Vigilante, Micromite, Adept

IUPAC Name	1-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(2,6-difluorobenzoyl)urea

CAS Name	N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide

CAS Registry Number	35367-38-5

End-Use Product (EP)	2 lb/gal FlC formulation; DIMILIN® 2L (EPA Reg. No. 400-461)

Regulated Metabolite

Common name	4-chlorophenylurea (CPU)

Regulated Metabolite

Common Name	4-chloroaniline (PCA)

TABLE A.2.	Physicochemical Properties of Diflubenzuron.

Parameter	Value	Reference

Melting range	230-232 °C	  HYPERLINK "http://www.arsusda.gov/acsl/services/ppdb/textfiles/DIFLUBENZURON"  http://www.arsusda.gov/acsl/services/ppdb/textfiles/DIFLUBENZURON

pH	Not available

	Density	Not available

	Water solubility (25 °C)	0.08 ppm

	Solvent solubility (25 °C) (ppm)	6.5 x 103     Acetone

2 x 103        Acetonitrile

2.4 x 104     Dioxane

1.04 x 105   Dimethylformamide

1.2 x 105     Dimethylsulfoxide

1 x 103        Methanol

6 x 102        Dichloromethane

	Vapor pressure (25 °C)	1.2 x 10- 4 mPa

	Dissociation constant, pKa	Not available

	Octanol/water partition coefficient, Log(KOW)	3.89

	UV/visible absorption spectrum	Not available

B.	EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

B.1.	Application and Crop Information

TABLE B.1.1.	Trial Site Conditions.

Location:

City, State; Year (Trial ID)

EP 1	Application

Tank Mix/ Adjuvants

Method; Timing	Volume

(GPA) 2	Single Rate

(lb ai/A)	RTI 3 (days)	Total Rate

(lb ai/A)

	Welasco, TX; 2001 (TX04)	2 lb/gal FlC	Three broadcast foliar applications; first flower, flowering, nuts from first flowers pink 14-17	0.121-0.132	13, 35	0.379	None

1 EP = End-use Product; DIMILIN® 2L

2 Gallons per acre

3 RTI = Retreatment Interval

B.2.	Sample Handling and Processing Procedures

Single bulk samples of control and treated peanuts were harvested at normal crop maturity, 29 DAT, and dried in the field for 7-10 days.  Collected samples were packed at ambient temperature and transported to the processing facility (Food Protein Research and Development Center, Bryan TX), where samples were processed using simulated commercial procedures.  Samples were stored frozen (ca. -12 ºC) until processing; processing was initiated 52 days after harvest of peanuts.

Peanuts were oven dried in the shell until the hull moisture was 7-12%; then shelled and the kernels oven dried to a moisture content of 7-10% and moisture-conditioned to 12%; the kernels were then heated to 93-104 °C and pressed to obtain crude oil.  The remaining presscake (meal) was submerged in heated hexane three times, and then warm air was forced through to remove residual hexane.  The crude oil mixture was heated to separate the crude oil and hexane, and the crude oil was refined separating the refined oil and soapstock.  The refined oil was then bleached and deodorized.  This process simulated industrial practice with the exception of a higher dry temperature and batch processing rather than continuous processing.

After processing, samples of meal and refined oil were collected, placed in frozen storage, and shipped along with the RAC subsample to PTRL West, Inc., Hercules CA for residue analysis.  All samples were stored frozen (<0 ºC) at PTRL until homogenization and analysis.

B.3.	Analytical Methodology

Peanut samples were analyzed for diflubenzuron, CPU, and PCA using separate methods based on those described in “Dimilin 25W, Dimilin 80WD, and Dimilin 2L in Almonds:  Magnitude of the Residue Study,” Janine E. Rose, PTRL Study No, 723W, September 1999.  Analysis for CPU in meal was done based on the method described in “Gas Chromatographic Determination of Diflubenzuron Metabolite A:  Parachlorophenyl Urea in Mushrooms,” D. Uhden, S.E. Kane, and M.A Morgenstern, Colorado Analytical Study No. 1248, November 20, 1995.

Samples of peanut nutmeat, meal, and oil were analyzed for diflubenzuron using an HPLC/UV method.  Briefly, residues are extracted twice with ethyl acetate and then filtered.  Residues are evaporated to dryness and redissolved in hexane.  Residues are partitioned with acetonitrile (ACN) and again evaporated to dryness.  Residues are redissolved with dichloromethane, and cleaned up on a Florisil solid-phase extraction (SPE) column.  After clean up, residues are analyzed by HPLC on a C18 column with UV detection.  The limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.05 ppm from nutmeat and oil, and 0.5 ppm for meal.  The limit of detection (LOD) is 0.026 ppm for nutmeat, 0.072 ppm for meal and 0.016 ppm for oil.

Samples of peanut nutmeat and oil were analyzed for CPU using HPLC/MS/MS or HPLC/UV methods.  Briefly, samples are extracted 3-5 times with ACN, and centrifuged or phase separated in a separatory funnel (oil).  The supernatants (or ACN phases) are combined and partitioned with hexane.  The ACN layer is concentrated to dryness, redissolved in ACN and water, and sequentially cleaned up on a C18 SPE column and silica gel SPE column.  After clean up, residues in nutmeat and oil are analyzed by HPLC/MS/MS or HPLC/UV.  The LOQ is 0.005 ppm for nutmeat and oil, and the LOD was not estimated.

Samples of peanut meal were analyzed for CPU using GC/MS method.  Briefly, samples are dried with sodium sulfate and extracted with ethyl acetate.  Residues are evaporated to dryness, redissolved in acetone and petroleum ether, and cleaned up on a silica gel SPE column.  Again, residues are evaporated to dryness and redissolved in ACN.  The sample is filtered and derivatized in a glass tube with heptafluorobutyric anhydride for 10 minutes.  Residues are then analyzed by GC/MS.  The LOQ is 0.02 ppm, and the LOD is 0.01 ppm for meal.

Samples of peanut nutmeat, meal, and oil were analyzed for PCA using a GC/MS method.  Briefly, residues are acidified with HCl and sonicated for 30 minutes at 60 °C.  NaOH and NaCl are added, and residues are extracted three times with hexane.  Residues are then partitioned with 0.1 N HCl, neutralized and extracted with hexane.  Extracts are dried and cleaned up with a Florisil column, derivatized with heptafluorobutyric acid for 10 minutes, after which water, sodium carbonate and hexane are added.  Residues in the hexane layer are analyzed by GC/MS.  The LOQ is 0.005 ppm for all matrices and the calculated LOD is 0.001 ppm.

In conjunction with the analysis of field trial and processing samples, the above methods were validated using control (or commercially obtained) samples of peanut matrices fortified with diflubenzuron, CPU or PCA at 0.005-1 ppm.

C.	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The HPLC/UV, HPLC/MS/MS or UV or GC/MS (for meal), and GC/MS methods used to determine residues of diflubenzuron, CPU, and PCA in/on peanut nutmeat, meal and oil were adequately validated in conjunction with the sample analyses.  Method recoveries from concurrent analysis of samples as well as from additional method verification (see Table C.1) are within the acceptable range of 70-120% except for two samples of nutmeat which reported CPU recoveries of 64% and 68% and one sample of meal which reported CPU recoveries of 65%.  In addition, method validation recoveries of diflubenzuron from meal at the 0.05 ppm fortification level reported only 32 ± 14% average recovery, therefore the method LOQ was increased to 0.5 ppm for diflubenzuron in meal.  A single low method validation recovery (48%) was obtained for CPU in refined oil, but all other recoveries in oil were acceptable.  Apparent residues of diflubenzuron, CPU, and PCA were each <LOQ in/on the untreated samples of nutmeat and meal, but residues of CPU in refined oil were 0.008 ppm in the control sample.  Adequate sample calculations and example chromatograms were provided.

Prior to analysis, samples of peanut nutmeat, meal, and oil were stored frozen for 244-639 days (Table C.2.1).  To validate sample storage conditions and intervals, a freezer storage stability study was conducted as part of the processing study.  The results of this study (Table C.2.2) indicate that diflubenzuron (average corrected stored recoveries of 82-102%) is relatively stable in/on nutmeat for up to 295 days, in meal for up to 643 days, and in oil for up to 365 days.  CPU and PCA also appear to be relatively stable (average corrected stored recoveries of 84-99%) in meal stored for up to 645 and 488 days, respectively, and in oil stored for up to 294 and 286 days, respectively.  However, CPU (average corrected stored recovery of 67%) and PCA (average corrected stored recovery of 63%) exhibited 33-37% reduction in residues in nutmeat after 421 and 289 days of frozen storage, respectively.

The results suggest that residues of CPU and PCA should be corrected in nutmeat in order to determine the residue levels that were present at the time of sample collection.  However, HED has determined that correction of CPU and PCA residues for degradation during storage would not have a significant effect on the results of the submitted study because individual residues of CPU and PCA in/on treated samples were mostly below the LOQ (<0.005 ppm).  These data are adequate to support the storage conditions and intervals of samples from the processing study.

The results show that combined residues of diflubenzuron, CPU, and PCA were below the combined method LOQs (<0.06 ppm) in/on peanut nutmeat treated at a seasonal rate of 0.379 lb ai/A.  Following processing of the treated nutmeat, the combined residues were below the method LOQs (<0.525 ppm) in peanut meal and <0.066 ppm (below the LOQ for diflubenzuron and PCA, and 0.011 ppm for CPU) in peanut oil.  The petitioner stated that the residue value for CPU in peanut oil is suspect because apparent residues of CPU in untreated refined oil were 0.008 ppm.  Processing factors for meal and oil could not be reliably calculated due to differing LOQs and <LOQ residues in all matrices (raw and unprocessed).

TABLE C.1.	Summary of Concurrent and Method Recoveries of Diflubenzuron and its Metabolites from Peanuts and Peanut Processed Commodities.

Analyte

Matrix	Spike level (ppm)

Sample size (n)

Recoveries (%)	Mean std dev (%)

Concurrent

Diflubenzuron	Nutmeat	0.05-0.2	13	74, 76, 76, 80, 80, 86, 86, 87, 90, 92, 94, 95, 102	86 ± 9

	Meal	0.5	2	84, 87	86

	Refined oil	0.05	2	87, 99	93

CPU	Nutmeat	0.01	14	64, 68, 70, 80, 80, 90, 90, 100, 100, 100, 110, 110, 120, 120	93 ± 19

	Meal	0.02	2	65, 85	75

	Refined oil	0.05	2	88, 120	104

PCA	Nutmeat	0.005	14	95, 97, 98, 98, 101, 102, 102, 105, 106, 106, 107, 108, 108, 110	103 ± 5

	Meal	0.005	2	95, 106	101

	Refined oil	0.005	2	93, 97	95

Method Validation

Diflubenzuron	Nutmeat	0.05-1.0	9	81, 84, 85, 85, 97, 98, 102, 106, 116 95 ± 12

	Meal	0.05	3	15, 40, 40	32 ± 14

0.5-1.0	6	78, 79, 79, 82, 84, 85	81 ± 3

	Refined oil	0.05-1.0	9	77, 78, 79, 79, 80, 81, 81, 83, 84	80 ± 2

CPU	Nutmeat	0.005-0.1	9	80, 91, 92, 93, 96, 98, 100, 100, 100	94 ± 6

	Meal	0.02-0.1	9	72, 78, 86, 90, 92, 92, 95, 95, 95 	88 ± 8

	Refined oil	0.005-0.1	9	48, 74, 78, 80, 84, 86, 93, 100, 100	83 ± 16

PCA	Nutmeat	0.005-0.1	9	100, 104, 110, 111, 112, 112, 113, 115, 120	111 ± 6

	Meal	0.005-0.1	9	90, 94, 94, 98, 102, 103, 104, 104, 105	99 ± 6

	Refined oil	0.005-0.1	9	96, 96, 98, 101, 102, 102, 104, 106, 111	102 ± 5

TABLE C.2.1	Summary of Storage Conditions.

Analyte

Matrix

Storage Temperature (°C)	Actual Storage Duration1 (days)	Interval of Demonstrated Storage Stability (days)

Diflubenzuron	Nutmeat	<0	244	295

	Meal

629	643

	Oil

276	365

CPU	Nutmeat	<0	408	421

	Meal

639	345

	Oil

270	294

PCA	Nutmeat	<0	266	289

	Meal

254	488

	Oil

252	286

1  From harvest/processing to analysis; extracts were stored for up to 4 days before analysis.  RAC samples were processed 52-56 days after harvest.

TABLE C.2.2	Stability of Diflubenzuron and its Metabolites in Frozen Peanut Matrices.

Matrix	Analyte	Spike Level

(ppm)	Storage interval (days)	Freshly Fortified Recovery (%)

[Average]	Stored Sample Recovery (%)

[Average]	Average Corrected Stored Recovery (%)

Nutmeat	Diflubenzuron	0.5	295	75, 69

[72]	65, 68

[67]	93

	CPU	0.5	421	79, 84

[81]	54, 53

[54]	67

	PCA	0.1	289	70, 71

[71]	41, 49

[45]	63

Meal	Diflubenzuron	0.5	643	96, 86

[91]	84, 65

[75]	82

	CPU	0.5	645	110, 106

[108]	90, 114

[102]	94

	PCA	0.1	488	108, 106

[107]	91, 88

[90]	84

Oil	Diflubenzuron	0.5	365	115, 113

[114]	114, 117

[116]	102

	CPU	0.5	294	90, 81

[86]	82, 87

[85]	99

	PCA	0.1	286	68, 71

[70]	65, 65

[65]	93

TABLE C.3.	Residue Data from Peanut Processing Study with Diflubenzuron.

RAC	Processed Commodity	Total Rate

(lb ai/A) 	PHI

(days)	Diflubenzuron + CPU + PCA =

Combined Residues (ppm)	Processing Factor

(Combined Residues)

Peanut	Nutmeat (RAC)	0.379	29	<0.05 + <0.005 + <0.005 = <0.06	--

	Meal

	<0.5 + <0.02 + <0.005 = <0.525	NC 1

	Refined oil

	<0.05 + 0.011 + <0.005 = <0.066	NC

1  Processing factors could not reliably be calculated (NC) because most residues were below the respective LOQ for that matrix.

CONCLUSION

The submitted peanut processing study is adequate.  The results show that combined residues of diflubenzuron, CPU, and PCA were below the combined method LOQs (<0.06 ppm) in/on peanut nutmeat treated at a seasonal rate of 0.379 lb ai/A.  Following processing of the treated nutmeat, the combined residues were below the method LOQs (<0.525 ppm) in peanut meal and <0.066 ppm (below the LOQ for diflubenzuron and PCA, and 0.011 ppm for CPU) in peanut oil.  The petitioner stated that the residue value for CPU in peanut oil is suspect because apparent residues of CPU in untreated refined oil were 0.008 ppm.  Processing factors for meal and oil could not be reliably calculated based on the results of this study.

E.	REFERENCES

None.

F.	DOCUMENT TRACKING

RDI:  RAB1 Chemists (8/23/06)

Petition Number(s):  PP#5E6967

DP#:  321623

PC Code:  108201

Template Version June 2005

	[Name of Active/Active Code/PC Code/Company/Company Code]

	DACO 7.4.5/OPPTS 860.1520/OECD IIA 6.5.4 and IIIA 8.5

	Processed Food and Feed - [matrices]

摧嬴¸

6

:

>

?

N

Q

S

U

V

b

d

e

m

‡

˜

ž

Ÿ

£

¨

³

º

Ç

È

Î

Ù

ä

æ

ç

í

ð

ñ

ó

õ

ö

U

W

_

d

v

D

Ò

Ó

ᔀv

‚

˜

™

š

ž

¯

¹

Ñ

Ò

Ó

×

ö

÷

̙

 hÄ9

$	¶

$	¶

$	¶

$	¶

$	¶

$	¶

@

@

321623/MRID No. 46609401					Page   PAGE  8  of   NUMPAGES  8


[Federal Register: March 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 9393-9395]
[DOCID:fr04mr09-33]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0107; FRL-8403-3]

Notice of Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0107 and the pesticide petition number (PP
8E7446), by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0107 and the pesticide petition number (PP). EPA's policy is that
all comments received will be included in the docket without change and
may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided, unless the comment includes
information

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard Cole, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of regulations
in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petition described in this notice contains data or information
prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully
evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether
the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on this
pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

Amended Tolerance Exemption

    PP 8E7446. Organic Works/BioNet International Corp. c/o
Interregional Research Project Number 4, 500 College Road East,
Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes to amend an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1258 for residues of the
biochemical pesticide, acetic acid, in or on all food commodities. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because there are no
known analytical studies which have determined residue magnitudes on
plant tissues following the herbicidal application of acetic acid. At
the upper application rate of 55 pounds of active ingredient per acre
the resulting concentrations should be well below the 1 to 1.5% levels
predicted when acetic acid is applied to hay or grain, a use for which
acetic acid has gained an exemption from the requirements of a
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1258. Since this product is a non-selective
herbicide the product will be applied either when the crop is not
present or the application will be directed away from the crop. The
product is not intended for any direct application to the crop
therefore only a minor amount of inadvertent residues could occur.
Acetic acid is a naturally occurring substance found in all plants
therefore inadvertent residues would be indistinguishable from acetic
acid already in the crop.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: February 12, 2009.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E9-4133 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19466-19468]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07195]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG20-108-000.
    Applicants: Yards Creek Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5268.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER15-1883-008; ER15-1418-008; ER18-2118-006; ER19-
2373-001; ER10-2005-018; ER11-26-018; ER10-2551-015; ER12-569-021;
ER16-91-008; ER16-632-006; ER20-819-001; ER20-820-001; ER15-1925-014;
ER16-2453-011; ER16-2190-010; ER16-2191-010; ER19-2901-002; ER10-1841-
018; ER15-2582-007; ER18-1978-005; ER15-2676-013; ER16-1672-011; ER13-
712-022; ER18-1863-005; ER17-2152-007; ER19-2461-001; ER19-987-005;
ER19-1003-005; ER10-1845-018; ER19-2269-001; ER10-1846-014; ER13-1991-
013; ER13-1992-013; ER18-1534-005; ER18-882-006; ER10-1849-020; ER19-
2437-001; ER19-1393-005; ER19-1394-005; ER13-752-012; ER12-2227-020;
ER10-1851-012; ER10-1852-036; ER10-1855-013; ER10-1857-013; ER10-1887-
020; ER10-1890-014; ER10-1899-013; ER11-2160-014; ER10-1905-018; ER10-
1907-017; ER10-1918-018; ER10-1920-021; ER10-1925-018; ER10-1927-018;
ER10-1928-021; ER11-2642-015.
    Applicants: Adelanto Solar, LLC, Adelanto Solar II, LLC, Armadillo
Flats Wind Project, LLC, Ashtabula Wind I, LLC, Ashtabula Wind II, LLC,
Ashtabula Wind III, LLC, Baldwin Wind, LLC, Blackwell Wind, LLC, Blythe
Solar 110, LLC, Blythe Solar II, LLC, Blythe Solar III, LLC, Blythe
Solar IV, LLC, Breckinridge Wind Project, LLC, Brady Interconnection,
LLC, Brady Wind, LLC, Brady Wind II, LLC, Bronco Plains Wind, LLC,
Butler Ridge Wind Energy Center, LLC, Carousel Wind Farm, LLC, Casa
Mesa Wind, LLC, Cedar Bluff Wind, LLC, Chaves County Solar, LLC,
Cimarron Wind Energy, LLC, Coolidge Solar I, LLC, Cottonwood Wind
Project, LLC, Crowned Ridge Wind, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind III, LLC,
Dougherty County Solar, LLC, Day County Wind, LLC Desert Sunlight 250,
LLC, Desert Sunlight 300, LLC, East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC,
Elk City Renewables II, LLC, Elk City Wind, LLC, Emmons-Logan Wind,
LLC, Endeavor Wind I, LLC, Endeavor Wind II, LLC, Energy Storage
Holdings, LLC, Ensign Wind, LLC, ESI Vansycle Partners, L.P., Florida
Power & Light Company, FPL Energy Burleigh County Wind, LLC, FPL Energy
Cape, LLC, FPL Energy Cowboy Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Green Power Wind,
LLC, FPL Energy Illinois Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Montezuma Wind, LLC, FPL
Energy Mower County, LLC, FPL Energy North Dakota Wind, LLC, FPL Energy
North Dakota Wind II, LLC, FPL Energy Oklahoma Wind, LLC, FPL Energy
Oliver Wind I, LLC, FPL Energy Oliver Wind II, LLC, FPL Energy Sooner
Wind, LLC, FPL Energy South Dakota Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the NextEra MBR Sellers
(Part 1), et al.
    Filed Date: 3/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20200327-5332.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1930-012; ER10-1931-013; ER10-1932-013; ER10-
1935-013; ER13-2147-001; ER10-1950-018; ER13-2112-009; ER16-90-007;
ER17-2340-004; ER15-2477-007; ER15-2101-008; ER10-1952-019; ER19-2389-
002; ER15-2601-005; ER18-1952-007; ER19-2398-002; ER11-3635-013; ER10-
2006-018; ER18-2246-006; ER19-1392-004; ER10-1961-019; ER12-1228-021;
ER10-1962-013; ER16-2275-009; ER16-2276-009; ER10-1964-016; ER18-1771-
007; ER12-2226-011; ER12-2225-011; ER14-2138-008; ER16-1354-007; ER10-
1966-012; ER18-2003-005; ER17-822-005; ER17-823-005; ER18-241-004;
ER14-2707-016; ER14-1630-009; ER16-1872-008; ER15-1375-007; ER15-2602-
005; ER10-2720-021; ER11-4428-021; ER12-1880-020; ER18-2182-005; ER12-
895-019; ER18-1535-004; ER14-21-007; ER11-4462-041; ER18-772-004; ER16-
2443-004; ER17-1774-003; ER10-1970-017; ER11-4677-014; ER10-1972-017;
ER17-838-016; ER10-1973-012; ER10-1951-020; ER10-1974-023; ER16-2241-
009.
    Applicants: FPL Energy Stateline II, Inc., FPL Energy Stateline II,
Inc., FPL Energy Vansycle, L.L.C, FPL Energy Wyman, LLC, FPL Energy
Wyman IV, LLC, Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC, Garden Wind, LLC,
Genesis Solar, LLC, Golden Hills Interconnection, LLC, Golden Hills
North Wind, LLC, Golden Hills Wind, LLC, Golden West Power Partners,
LLC, Gray County Wind Energy, LLC, Grazing Yak Solar, LLC, Green
Mountain Storage, LLC, Gulf Power Company, LLC, Hancock County Wind,
LLC, Hatch Solar Energy Center I, LLC, Hawkeye Power Partners, LLC,
Heartland Divide Wind Project, LLC, High Lonesome Mesa Wind, LLC, High
Majestic Wind Energy Center, LLC, High Majestic Wind II, LLC, High
Winds, LLC, Kingman Wind Energy I, LLC, Kingman Wind Energy II, LLC,
Lake Benton Power Partners II, LLC, Langdon Renewables, LLC, Limon
Wind, LLC, Limon Wind II, LLC, Limon Wind III, LLC, Live Oak Solar,
LLC, Logan Wind Energy LLC, Lorenzo Wind, LLC, Luz Solar Partners Ltd.,
III, Luz Solar Partners Ltd., IV, Luz Solar Partners Ltd., V, Mammoth
Plains Wind Project, LLC, Manuta Creek Solar, LLC, Marshall Solar, LLC,
McCoy Solar, LLC, Meyersdale Storage, LLC, Minco Wind, LLC, Minco Wind
II, LLC, Minco Wind III, LLC, Minco IV & V Interconnection, LLC, Minco
Wind Interconnection Services, LLC, Montauk Energy Storage Center, LLC,
Mountain View Solar, LLC, NEPM II, LLC, New Mexico Wind, LLC, NextEra
Blythe Solar Energy Center, LLC, NextEra Energy Bluff Point, LLC,
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, NextEra Energy Montezuma II Wind,
LLC, NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC,
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, NextEra Energy Services Massachusetts,
LLC, Northeast Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership, Ninnescah Wind
Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the NextEra MBR Sellers
(Part 2), et al.
    Filed Date: 3/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20200327-5336.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1195-001.
    Applicants: GSG 6, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report per Settlement (ER19-
1195) to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1074-001.
    Applicants: Marsh Landing LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Filing of Black Start
Agreement to be effective 4/26/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5302.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1422-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Taylor EC-Golden
Spread EC 5th A&R Interconnection Agreement to be effective 3/12/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1423-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 5608; Queue No. AE1-218 to be effective 3/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1424-000.
    Applicants: Yards Creek Energy, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Service Rate
Schedule to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1425-000.
    Applicants: Jersey Central Power & Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate changes to be effective
2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1426-000.
    Applicants: Monongahela Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate changes 2020 to be
effective 2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1427-000.
    Applicants: Pennsylvania Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate changes 2020 to be
effective 2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5225.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1428-000.
    Applicants: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Comp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Normal Rate Schedule changes
2020 to be effective 2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5234.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1429-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Buckeye Power, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised SA No. 4753--NITSA
Among PJM and Buckeye Power, Inc. to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5236.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1430-000.
    Applicants: Ohio Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Normal Rate Schedule changes
2020 to be effective 2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5237.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1431-000.
    Applicants: The Toledo Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Normal Rate Schedule changes
2020 to be effective 2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5239.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1432-000.
    Applicants: Pennsylvania Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Normal Rate Schedule changes
2020 to be effective 2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5244.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1433-000.
    Applicants: Metropolitan Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Normal Rate Schedule changes
2020 to be effective 2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5245.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1434-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Amendment to Sappi
North America, Inc. Interconnection Agreement to be effective 2/29/
2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5283.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1435-000.
    Applicants: Energy Harbor LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Succession and Requests
for Administrative Cancellation and Waiver to be effective 2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5334.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1436-000.
    Applicants: Energy Harbor LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Succession and Revisions
to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5335.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1437-000.
    Applicants: Energy Harbor Generation LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Succession and Revisions
to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5352.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1438-000.
    Applicants: Energy Harbor Nuclear Generation LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Succession and Revisions
to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 2/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5324.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1439-000.
    Applicants: Pleasants Corp..
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 3/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5329.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1440-000.
    Applicants: Yards Creek Energy, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5338.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1441-000.
    Applicants: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Yards Creek to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5347.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 31, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07195 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P