[Federal Register: November 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71722-71724]
[DOCID:fr25no08-138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0182, Notice 1]

Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC; Receipt of Application for Extension
of a Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
108

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application for a temporary exemption.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR 555.6(b),
Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC (``MBUSA''), on behalf of its parent
corporation Daimler AG (``Daimler'') has applied for a renewal of a
temporary exemption from S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. The basis of the application is to continue
the development and field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety
feature providing a level of safety at least equal to that of the
standard. We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application
in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 555.7(a), and have made
no judgment on the merits of the application.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than December 26,
2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ari Scott, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-
2992; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. Background

    In June of 2005, MBUSA petitioned the agency on behalf of its
parent corporation, DaimlerChrysler AG,\1\ seeking a temporary
exemption from S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 108. In short, S5.5.10 specifies that with certain exceptions not
applicable to this petition, all lamps, including stop lamps must be
wired to be steady-burning.\2\ In order to develop and evaluate an
innovative brake signaling system in the United States, MBUSA sought a
temporary exemption from the ``steady-burning'' requirement as it
applies to stop lamps. At the time of the original petition, the system
was available in Europe on the S-class, CL-class, and SL-class Mercedes
vehicles. MBUSA states that the system enhances the emergency braking
signal by flashing three stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 during
strong deceleration. In addition, after emergency braking, the system
automatically activates the hazard warning lights of the stopped
vehicle until it starts to move again or the lights are manually
switched off. The petitioner states that this signaling system reduces
the following drivers' reaction time by attracting their attention, and
also enhances visibility of the stopped vehicle, thus helping to reduce
the incidence and severity of rear end collisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Due to corporate changes since the previous petition was
received, the parent company of MBUSA is now Daimler AG.
    \2\ See S5.5.10 of 49 CFR 571.108. Turn signal lamps, hazard
warning signal lamps, school bus warning lamps must be wired to
flash. Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for
signaling purposes. Motorcycle headlamps may be wired to modulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA granted MBUSA's petition for exemption on January 30,
2006.\3\ The exemption was for a two-year period.\4\ In granting
MBUSA's request in the original grant, NHTSA made several
determinations. The agency stated that MBUSA had met the requirements
to receive an exemption under 49 CFR Part 555(b), which permits
exemptions from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on the basis
that the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of safety equipment. Specifically, the agency stated that
based on information provided by MBUSA, it appeared the proposed brake
lamp system provided at least an equivalent level of safety to those
that comply with FMVSS No. 108. Furthermore, NHTSA decided that
granting the requested would be in the public interest, because the new
field data obtained through this temporary exemption would enable the
agency to make more informed decisions regarding the effect of flashing
brake

signaling systems on motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 71 FR 4961.
    \4\ We note that under 49 CFR 555.8(e), ``if an application for
renewal of temporary exemption that meets the requirements of Sec.
555.5 has been filed not later than 60 days before the termination
date of an exemption, the exemption does not terminate until the
Administrator grants or denies the application for renewal.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that prior to the original petition for
exemption, NHTSA had previously denied petitioner's request to
permanently amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow flashing brake signaling
systems. Among the reasons for the denial was the need for additional
data on safety benefits of flashing brake lamps. The petitioner argues
that granting this temporary exemption would allow them to provide the
information NHTSA found lacking.
    In this petition, MBUSA requests that the exemption be extended for
an additional two years. The reason given is that MBUSA needs the
renewal to further evaluate whether benefits can be realized through
the allowance of emergency brake lights on passenger vehicles in the
United States. MBUSA cited data gleaned from its trials in the United
States and in Germany that indicates that the emergency braking system
may help to prevent some crashes. Although the samples used were very
limited, MBUSA states that a renewal of the exemption will allow
significantly more data to be collected and analyzed.
    Between February 2006 and August 2007, MBUSA sold approximately
2870 vehicles with the modified brake lamps. In accordance with the
requirements of 49 CFR 555.6(b)(5), MBUSA will not sell more than 2,500
exempted vehicles in any twelve-month period within the two-year
exemption period. For addition details, please see the MBUSA petition
at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22653. The
following (Parts II--VIII) summarizes MBUSA's petition in relevant
part.

II. Question as to Whether the Current Request for a Renewal of the
Petition Was Received 60 Days Prior to the Expiration of the Current
Exemption

    In its request for renewal of the temporary exemption granted in
the 2006 notice, the petitioner argued that although the 2006 notice
stated that ``[t]he exemption from S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 is
effective from January 23, 2006 until January 23, 2008,'' because the
notice was not published in the Federal Register until January 30,
2006, the term of the exemption should be interpreted to run until
January 30, 2008. Therefore, under 49 CFR Part 555.8(e), because this
petition for renewal was submitted December 3, 2006,\5\ the exemption
should not terminate until the Administrator grants or denies the
application for renewal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As the petitioner states, because the day 60 days prior to
January 30 falls on the weekend (Saturday, December 1), the period
should be deemed to run from the following Monday, which is December
3, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having examined the Federal Register notice, we agree that the
petition for renewal was submitted within the required time period for
the exemption to continue until NHTSA reaches a final decision. In the
grant notice, we stated that we were granting the exemption for a
period of ``twenty-four months.'' While the notice stated that the
period ran from January 23, 2006 through January 23, 2008, we believe
that these dates were erroneous. We note that 49 CFR 555.7(f) states
that ``unless a later effective date is specified in the notice of the
grant, a temporary exemption is effective upon publication of the
notice in the Federal Register and exempts vehicles manufactured on and
after the effective date.'' [emphasis added] Because the January 23
date stated in the text of the notice was earlier than the date of
publication in the Federal Register, pursuant to Sec.  555.7(f), the
petition was effective only as of January 30, 2006. Accordingly, the
twenty-four month period of the exemption commenced from that date, and
given the new petition, will not expire until the Administrator grants
or denies this new petition.

III. Description of the New Motor Vehicle Safety Feature

    The petitioner states that its brake signaling system provides two
innovative safety-enhancing features.
    First, three stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 flash at a
frequency of 5 Hz in the event of strong deceleration. This occurs if
the velocity is >50 km/h (31 mph) and at least one of the following
conditions is met:
    1. Deceleration is >7 m/s \2\; or
    2. The brake assist function is active; or
    3. The Electronic Stability Program (ESP) control unit detects a
panic braking operation.
    The petitioner states that the activation criteria ensures that the
enhanced brake signals are only activated when truly needed. Thus, the
brake lights will flash only in severe braking situations, and will
flash at a relatively high frequency that allows for fast recognition.
Further, using the panic brake signal from the ESP control unit as a
trigger would activate the system only when the achievable deceleration
is substantially smaller than the demanded one. Thus, the stop lamps
would not flash in routine situations.
    Second, after emergency braking, the system automatically activates
the hazard warning lights of the stopped vehicle until it starts to
move again, or the lights are manually switched off.

IV. Petitioner's Statement Concerning Benefits of the New Motor Vehicle
Safety Feature

    The petitioner states that the brake signaling system provides
important safety enhancements not found in a vehicle equipped with a
traditional brake signaling system. First, the flashing system reduces
the following driver's reaction time and encourages maximum
deceleration of following vehicles. The petitioner expects especially
strong benefits during adverse weather conditions and for inattentive
drivers. Second, the activation of hazard warning lamps on the stopped
vehicle also enhances vehicle recognition after it came to a complete
stop. The petitioner believes that together, these features will help
to reduce rear end collisions and improve safety.
    The petitioner is aware of the agency's longstanding restriction on
flashing stop lamps, in the interest of standardized, instantly
recognizable lighting functions. However, MBUSA believes its system
will be easily recognizable, and would not interfere with NHTSA's
objectives.

V. The Petitioner's Research and Testing Done Prior to the Current
Exemption

    In its original petition submitted in 2005, the petitioner offered
information on driver behavior studies that would help to determine if
the proposed brake light system can significantly reduce driver
reaction times. One study that MBUSA used was a driver braking behavior
study to understand how often rapid deceleration braking occurs in the
United States. The study followed 96 subjects using 15 Mercedes-Benz
vehicles equipped with a driver behavior and vehicle dynamics recorder.
The study indicated that one emergency braking maneuver occurred for
every 2,291 miles driven. The study also suggested that, based on the
criteria described in the previous section, only 23 out of 100,000
braking maneuvers would activate the flashing stop lamps. The
petitioner concluded that the flashing brake light will occur rarely,
which will help to avoid ``optical pollution'' and enhance the
effectiveness of the brake light system.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Driver behavior research is described in Attachment A of the
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner stated that the study showed that flashing brake
lights reduce driver reaction time by an average of 0.2 seconds, which
is a reduction sufficient

to meaningfully reduce the number and/or severity of rear end
collisions. MBUSA argues that even higher reduction in reaction time
would occur under real-world driving conditions, where drivers are less
focused on the driving task and subject to more sources of distraction.
The study also showed positive effects from the flashing brake light
signal under adverse weather conditions and in distraction situations.
Finally, the test subjects expressed a preference for flashing brake
lights when compared to other brake light symbols. In addition, the
petitioner also referred to a Japanese study showing that short,
flashing intervals are more effective than slower intervals, as well as
more effective than enlarging the area of the lamp.

VI. Additional Planned Research and Research Done During the Period of
the Current Exemption

    The petitioner states that the plan for monitoring the experience
of these vehicles focused on both dealer inputs and insurance claims.
However, to date, the petitioner states that it has only acquired a
limited amount of data. Data from one insurance company, representing
about 20% of the modified vehicles in the U.S. has been obtained. This
information, while based on very limited data, showed some improvement
in the crash ratio of the experimental vehicles. Additionally, Daimler
has been able to collect data from the German Federal Statistical
Office. According to the petition, the data indicate a decrease of rear
impacts compared to other Mercedes-Benz passenger cars.
    Finally, the petitioner notes a recent Department of Transportation
study of rear-end crashes in an effort to help develop improvements in
this field.\7\ MBUSA states that while the agency is studying the issue
on its own, the information the petitioner collects will be a valuable
supplement to the agency's efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Analysis of Rear-End Crashes and Near-Crashes in the 100-
Car Naturalistic Driving Study to Support Rear-Signaling
Countermeasure Development,'' DOT HS 810 8145, October 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Petitioner's Statement Concerning How a Temporary Exemption
Facilitate the Development and Field Evaluation of a New Motor Vehicle
Safety Feature

    The petitioner states that it intends to monitor the exempted
vehicles and study the effectiveness of the brake signaling system.
First, MBUSA will gather information about rear-end collisions of
vehicles equipped with the system. This information will be combined
with the parallel results from the European fleet and, according to the
petitioner, may prove to be valuable in evaluating the anticipated
safety benefits of the new brake light system. Second, the test fleet
may enable MBUSA to evaluate acceptance of the flashing stop lamps
among the American public.

VIII. Petitioner's Statement Concerning Why Granting the Petition for
Exemption Is in the Public Interest

    As indicated above, the petitioner argues that granting the
requested exemption from FMVSS 108 would enable it to continue
developing and evaluating its innovative brake signaling system, thus
contributing substantially to ongoing efforts to consider the
effectiveness of enhanced lighting systems in reducing rear-end
crashes. MBUSA believes that the system will help to significantly
reduce following driver reaction times, thus reducing rear end
collisions.
    The petitioner also noted that rear end collisions are a
significant traffic safety concern, particularly in dense traffic
areas, and an important cause of rear end collisions is a following
driver's failure to detect that a leading vehicle has performed an
emergency braking action. MBUSA believes that an enhanced braking
signal that alerts following drivers to urgent braking situations has
the potential to significantly enhance safety.

IX. How You May Comment on This Petition

    We invite you to submit comments on the application described
above. You may submit comments identified by docket number at the
heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: DOT Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-(202)-493-2251
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket in order to read background
documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any
time or to M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
    We shall consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated below. To the extent
possible, we shall also consider comments filed after the closing date.
We shall publish a notice of final action on the application in the
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50. and 501.8.

    Issued on: November 19, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-27961 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8582]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03398]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension: Industry Guides, SEC File No. 270-069, OMB Control No.
3235-0069.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Industry Guides are used by registrants in certain industries as
disclosure guidelines to be followed in presenting information to
investors in Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) and Exchange Act
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) registration statements and certain other
Exchange Act filings. The paperwork burden from the Industry Guides is
imposed through the forms that are subject to the disclosure
requirements in the Industry Guides and is reflected in the analysis of
these documents. To avoid a Paperwork Reduction Act inventory
reflecting duplicative burdens, for administrative convenience the
Commission estimates the total annual burden imposed by the Industry
Guides to be one hour.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 12, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03398 Filed 2-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Memorandum To: Suzie Kocchi, U. S. EPA From: Nimmi Damodaran, Betsy David, and Joanna Pratt, Stratus Consulting Inc.; Robert Russell, RJR Consulting; Mike Cartmell, Independent Consultant Date: June 14, 2004 Subject: Economic impacts on small businesses in the spray foam industry due to a use ban on HCFC 141b The Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( RFA/ SBREFA) requires EPA to carefully consider the economic impacts of its rules on small entities. The RFA/ SBREFA requires the agency to determine, to the extent feasible, the rule's economic impact on small entities, explore regulatory options for reducing any significant economic impact on a substantial number of such entities, and explain its ultimate choice of regulatory approach. It does not require agencies to minimize a rule's impact on small entities if there are legal, policy, factual, or other reasons for not doing so. Since its enactment in 1980, the RFA/ SBREFA has required every federal agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule for which the agency is required to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. This requirement is not necessary if the agency certifies that the rule " will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." A small entity is defined as ( 1) a small business that has fewer than 500 employees; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

This memorandum examines whether there is a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in the spray polyurethane foam industry due to a ban on the use of HCFC 141b according to the type of business. Two types of businesses may be affected by an HCFC 141b use ban in the spray foam sector:

businesses that manufacture polyurethane/ polyisocyanurate foam systems ( NAICS 326150), hereafter referred to as " systems houses"

businesses that use polyurethane/ polyisocyanurate systems to apply insulation to buildings, roofs, pipes, etc. ( NAICS 326150), hereafter referred to as " spray foam contractors."

Systems Houses The majority of spray foam systems houses are currently making significant technical progress toward conversions in essentially all applications ( see memorandum dated February 23, 2004 on Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 6/ 14/ 2004)

Page 2 SC10457 the status of HCFC 141b requirements based on 2004 petitions, available stockpile, and conversion to alternatives, found in EPA docket OAR 2003 0228 009). The primary zero ozone depletion potential ( ODP) blowing agents are HFC 245fa, HFC 134a, water, and hydrocarbonbased systems. Of these three, HFC 134a is not readily suited to use in spray foam due to its very low boiling point. There are fewer than 20 spray foam systems houses in the United States. Nine of these systems houses petitioned for an exemption allowance for the production of HCFC 141b to meet their stated needs for 2004. At least three of these petitioners have already developed systems with alternative blowing agents.

With respect to the RFA/ SBREFA, there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses in this type of business. The section of the EPA's guidelines relevant to impacts on systems houses indicates that if fewer than 100 businesses experience an economic impact, then the rule is presumed not to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ( details are found in Chapter 2 of Revised Interim Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, March 29, 1999, http:// www. epa. gov/ sbrefa/ documents/ iguid99. pdf). Since there are fewer than 20 spray foam systems houses in total and a smaller number that may not have developed systems with alternative blowing agents, we can reasonably assume that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Spray Foam Contractors According to information provided by the Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance ( SPFA), the U. S. spray foam industry comprises more than 3,000 suppliers, distributors, and contractors. A majority of these are small businesses employing fewer than 50 people. Over the past 12 years, the spray polyurethane industry has faced two major disruptions relating to changes in the blowing agent used in the systems. The first occurred at the end of 1993 after the EPA banned the use of CFC 11. Although supplies of the new replacement blowing agent, HCFC 141b, were available before the forced switch, the development and testing of proven non CFC systems did not proceed in a totally smooth fashion. Some field related problems surfaced after the spray foam insulation with HCFC 141b had been applied. The second disruption is the transition away from HCFC 141b to new zero ODP blowing agents. The spray foam industry has sought to avoid a similar experience with this second transition and has committed to following a structured approach to ensure products are fully tested before their introduction.

To gauge the potential impacts of an HCFC 141b use ban on small businesses, we conducted telephone interviews with seven distributors and contractors between May 14 and May 24, 2004. To obtain a geographical representation, we selected companies located in all the main regions of the country. Following is a brief summary of the issues identified by each respondent:

Montana Urethane Systems Supply ( MUSS), located in Bozeman, Montana, is a distributor of spray polyurethane systems and equipment and has three employees. It Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 6/ 14/ 2004)

Page 3 SC10457 serves the roofing and wall sectors of residential, light commercial, and agricultural construction. The products it supplies compete with other insulation materials, including fiberglass, cellulose, and polyiso and polystyrene boardstock.

MUSS has first hand experience with each of the three replacement blowing agents under development for use in spray foam [ i. e., hydrocarbon, water ( CO2), and HFC 245fa]. However, it is concerned about safety issues associated with hydrocarbons and does not feel that the water blown systems will provide adequate properties for the Rocky Mountain region. Therefore, contractors in Montana are focusing on HFC 245fa as the preferred alternative to HCFC 141b. To date, MUSS estimates that approximately 25% of the systems being sold today are based on HFC 245fa, with the rest using HCFC 141b. Costs for newer systems were said to be 20% to 22% higher, although some of these increases are the result of higher steel costs for the thicker gauge drums required with HFC 245fa systems. MUSS believes, however, that some of the chemical cost increases will decline over time. Products from several systems houses have been evaluated in the field and all seem to have more cold weather problems than the HCFC 141b based systems. The most common complaint is that the current HFC 245fa systems cannot be applied at temperatures below 40 ° F, which will affect the length of the spraying season.

Another issue is that because the new systems are higher in viscosity, many of the older spray foam machines are not totally suitable and should be refurbished. The cost of a new machine is approximately $ 15,000$ 20,000; alternatively, new heaters can be installed for $ 2,500$ 3,000. Finally, because of the lower boiling point of HFC 245fa, the newer systems have a higher vapor pressure and drums arrive in Bozeman, Montana, severely bulged because of the region's high elevation.

According to MUSS, the installed price of foam from HCFC 141b systems today is about 300% higher than the price for competing insulation materials. This gives some idea of the additional features and benefits provided by spray polyurethane foam. However, MUSS is not sure how much of an additional premium the market in Montana can bear. MUSS believes that up to 20% of the contractors that apply other insulation materials in addition to spray foam may drop out of the spray market primarily because of the expected shorter spraying season.

Central Coatings Inc. is a spray foam roofing contractor located in Madera, California with between 30 and 35 employees. The company has been in business since 1967. It has tested each of the alternative technologies and has concluded that HFC 245fa offers the best combination of properties, safety, and performance. One of its systems house suppliers has switched entirely to HFC 245fa blown products and another is in the process of completing all the testing. Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 6/ 14/ 2004)

Page 4 SC10457 Although some problems still exist due to the higher vapor pressure and lower boiling point of HFC 245fa, Central Coatings is being advised by systems houses that these will become less of an issue over time and the operating window with the new blowing agent will eventually be wider than with HCFC 141b. Central Coatings' current costs for systems based on HFC 245fa are approximately 5% higher than those based on HCFC 141b. Overall, Central Coatings thinks the transition out of HCFC 141b will go fairly smoothly and the company does not anticipate any competitive issues with other insulation materials.

RPC Industries, in business for over 20 years, has operations in Hampton and Charlottesville, Virginia and employs approximately 30 people. The company is involved in wall and roofing applications with spray foam and other single ply products and has gained some experience with new systems based on HFC 245fa. Generally these experiences have been positive, although there has been a need to pay more attention to heat settings and to protect the drums from high temperatures. RPC Industries indicated that it is too early to tell whether water ( CO2) blowing will provide the ease of use provided with HFC 245fa and is very concerned about the flammability issues associated with the hydrocarbons.

As long as HCFC 141b based systems are still available, RPC does not expect the new HFC 245fa based products to be widely introduced since they are currently about 15% more expensive. After the transition has been completed, RPC thinks there will be some disruption but does not believe that this level of cost increase will be a catastrophe for the industry because spray foam provides many additional features for the price.

West Roofing Systems Inc. is based in LaGrange, Ohio and has been in business since 1979. The company focuses on the roofing sector. Initially, West Roofing Systems was concerned about the transition to the new blowing agents. However, after working with three different systems house suppliers, it is now very comfortable with the new HFC 245fa based products, which it says are better and more controlled than systems based on HCFC 141b. Since their current overall cost increase with HFC 245fa is approximately 5%, West Roofing does not expect any negative impacts from the transition, especially given that the cost of asphalt based roofing materials is rising quickly.

The Phoenix, Arizona based division of D. C. Taylor Co employs 25 30 people and is the only division in the entire company that participates in the spray foam sector. The company is a full spectrum roofing contractor and works with a variety of alternative insulation types, including those used with single ply and ethylene propylene diene monomer ( EPDM) membranes. D. C. Taylor has reviewed each of the new blowing agent technologies and concluded that despite some difficulties associated with handling HFC 245fa in the desert Southwest, it offers the best combination of cost, ease of use, and Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 6/ 14/ 2004)

Page 5 SC10457 performance. The cost increase of going to HFC 245fa is expected to be in the range of 5 to 10% and once everyone has switched out of HCFC 141b, the company does not expect to see any major impacts or competitive disadvantages.

Another Arizona based contractor, Spray Foam Southwest, Inc. ( SFS) of Tempe, stated that none of the alternatives are adequately developed at this point and believes strongly that the industry needs more time to resolve all the existing problems. These problems include foam dimensional stability, issues related to the low boiling point and high cost of HFC 245fa, and the flammability of hydrocarbons. In addition, none of the alternatives has worked sufficiently well for SFS in a wall application. Another major concern is how well the new systems will perform in the very high ambient temperatures of summer, since all of the company's experience to date has been gathered in the winter and spring.

In an effort to narrow the choices and determine the preferred type of system under summer conditions, Spray Foam Southwest has ordered a multifunctional spray foam machine that will be able to spray off ratio water blown systems and flammable hydrocarbons, and even meter HFC 245fa as a third stream. Such a piece of equipment will cost more than $ 30,000, but the company feels such an investment is critical to making the right decision.

With between 50 60 employees and having been established in 1971, Spray Foam Southwest is one of the larger, more experienced contractors in the desert Southwest. The company is optimistic that the basic characteristics of spray polyurethane foam ( such as the absence of thermal bridging and the ability to prevent air infiltration and leaks by virtue of the seamless, homogeneous foam structure) will ensure a continued strong market position in extreme climatic regions. It feels that despite its current increased costs of approximately 20%, HFC 245fa will be the eventual first choice among the new blowing agents.

Specified Urethane Systems Co, Inc. ( SUSCO) is based in Dallas, Texas and employs between 75 and 85 people. Their business is entirely spray polyurethane foam, split 70% roofing and 30% walls. The company is focusing on water ( CO2) blowing for wall systems but is encountering problems with low foam densities resulting in open cells. If possible, the density should be over 1.5 pcf installed with closed cells to provide better thermal insulation performance. SUSCO prefers HFC 245fa for roofing.

The main issue the company sees currently is that full testing and code approvals have not been finalized and therefore it feels that more time should be allowed to consume the entire stockpile HCFC 141b and complete all the necessary testing. Water blown systems are expected to be equal in cost to current HCFC 141b systems, although some investment in new pumps and heaters will be required to handle the off ratios and higher Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 6/ 14/ 2004)

Page 6 SC10457 viscosity of water blown formulations. They believe the cost is likely to be 15% to 25% higher for HFC 245fa products.

The contractors interviewed for this memorandum generally view HFC 245fa as the preferred new blowing agent, especially for roofing. Despite some handling issues, most of these contractors do not expect the conversion from HCFC 141b to create any major concerns in California or east of the Mississippi. The two areas where contractors believe they may encounter problems are the Rocky Mountain states, because of the high elevation and the colder temperatures, and the desert Southwest, where extreme summer conditions may cause problems not yet foreseen. It is our understanding that Honeywell, the supplier of HFC 245fa, is working with spray foam systems houses to address problems as they surface.

Initial cost increases for HFC 245fa systems are expected to be about 5% to 25% higher than the costs for current HCFC 141b based products. The range reflects the price differences among the different systems houses. However, alternative water blown formulations may offer some protection against higher cost if density and other application issues can be overcome. There was general agreement that the benefits and features of spray polyurethane foam will protect the product against a major market downturn and the consequent direct impact on the livelihoods of contractors. Those contractors whose current suppliers do not have approved systems based on non ODP blowing agents will need to identify other suppliers with approved systems if they want to use this material. It also seems likely that increased costs incurred by the spray foam contractors will be passed on to the customers. Additionally, since all contractors will face the same increased input costs, there will be no competitive disadvantages due to such increases. Based on information obtained in these telephone interviews, one would not expect a significant economic impact on a significant number of small entities.


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 23, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1999-6110

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  SERVICIOS AEREOS ESTRELLA, S.A. de C.V.
                Date Filed:  January 7, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charters in accordance
with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  January 3, 2003, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Lee A. Bauer,<PHONE_NUMBER>          DOT
analyst:  Allen Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                            Action date:  January 23,
2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  January 23, 2004, through January
23, 2005

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register: April 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 24876]
[DOCID:fr27ap06-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Bullhide Corp.; Order of Suspension of Trading

April 25, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Bullhide Corp (a/k/a Bullhide Liner Corp.) because it has not filed a
periodic report since the period ended December 31, 1999.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 25,
2006, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 8, 2006.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-4009 Filed 4-25-06; 11:26 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 11779]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04953]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-499-000]

Constitution Pipeline; Company, LLC; Notice Rejecting Request for
Emergency Motion for Suspension of Non-Mechanical Tree Felling

    On February 25, 2016, Megan Holleran filed an emergency motion
pursuant to Rule 212 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure \1\ requesting that the Commission require Constitution
Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution) to suspend all non-mechanical tree
felling activities on her family's Pennsylvania property \2\ pending
review of a federal court order (attached to the motion as Exhibit B)
in an eminent domain proceeding enjoining certain protest activities.
Ms. Holleran asserts that the court order has the effect of expanding
the easement area for tree felling beyond the boundaries approved by
the Commission and provides a basis for the Commission to reconsider
the effects of tree felling activities and/or its issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.212 (2015).
    \2\ On January 29, 2016, Constitution was granted a partial
notice to proceed with limited non-mechanical tree felling in
Pennsylvania. Constitution Pipeline Co., LLC, Docket No. CP13-499-
000 (January 29, 2016) (delegated letter order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issues related to the acquisition of property rights by a pipeline
under the eminent domain provisions of section 7(h) of the NGA are
matters for the applicable state or federal court. Since the Commission
has no responsibility or jurisdiction over these matters, the subject
motion is rejected.
    This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing
by the Commission of this notice must be filed within 30 days of its
issuance, as provided in section 19(a) of the Natural Gas Act,\3\ and
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 717r (2012).
    \4\ 18 CFR 385.713 (2015).

    Dated: March 1, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04953 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43800-43801]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-498-000]

Spire Storage West, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on August 9, 2019, Spire Storage West, LLC (Spire
Storage), 3773 Richmond Avenue, Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77046, filed
in the above referenced docket a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.213(b) of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and its blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP11-24-000 for authorization to convert four
existing observation wells to injection/withdrawal usage and to
construct related pipeline facilities at its Clear Creek Plant natural
gas storage facility in Uinta County, Wyoming. Spire Storage states
that the proposed project will allow it to operate the Clear Creek
Plant up to its maximum certificated injection and withdrawal
capabilities on a more predictable and sustainable basis. Spire Storage
estimates the cost of the project to be approximately $6.0 million, all
as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
    The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at
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 at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
James

F. Bowe, Jr., King & Spalding, LLP, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite
200, Washington, DC 20006, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at
(202) 626-3737, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: August 16, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18124 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 24722]
[DOCID:fr05my10-109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2009-0001]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-0080; Application for Surplus
Federal Real Property Public Benefit Conveyance and BRAC Program for
Emergency Management Use

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; revision of a
currently approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0080; FEMA Form
119-0-1 (replaces 60-25), Surplus Federal Real Property Application for
Public Benefit Conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Application for Surplus Federal Real Property Public Benefit
Conveyance and BRAC Program for Emergency Management Use.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0080.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 119-0-1 (replaces 60-25),
Surplus Federal Real Property Application for Public Benefit
Conveyance.
    Abstract: Use of the Application for Surplus Federal Real Property
Public Benefit Conveyance and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Program for Emergency Management Use is necessary to implement the
processes and procedures for the successful, lawful, and expeditious
conveyance of real property from the Federal Government to public
entities such as State, local, county, city, town, or other like
government bodies, as it relates to emergency management response
purposes, including fire and rescue services. Utilization of this
application will ensure that properties will be fully positioned for
use at their highest and best potentials as required by GSA and
Department of Defense regulations, public law, Executive Orders, and
the Code of Federal Regulations.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: 2.5 Hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 250 hours.
    Estimated Cost: There are no record keeping, capital, start-up or
maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

    Dated: April 28, 2010.
Samuel C. Smith,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-10530 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42889]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-2224-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Pegasus Wind,
LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Pegasus Wind, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 10, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected] or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 20, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18319 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49271-49272]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0880]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Frequently Asked Questions About
Medical Foods; Second Edition; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance for industry entitled ``Frequently
Asked Questions About Medical Foods; Second Edition.'' The draft
guidance, when finalized, will provide responses to additional
questions regarding the definition, labeling, and availability of
medical foods and updates to some of the existing responses.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on the
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by October 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of this draft
guidance to the Office of Nutrition, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-850), Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send
two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing
your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawne Suggs-Anderson, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-850), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Frequently Asked Questions About Medical Foods; Second
Edition.'' This draft guidance is being issued consistent with our good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent FDA's current thinking on medical foods. It
does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternate approach may be used if
such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and
regulations.
    We originally issued this guidance in May 2007. This draft guidance
provides responses to additional questions regarding the definition,
labeling, and availability of medical foods and updates to some of the
existing responses.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (the
PRA). The collections of information in sections 101.3, 101.4, 101.5,
101.15, and 101.105 of 21 CFR part 101 have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0381.
    The labeling provisions recommended in this draft guidance in
response to Question 13 are not subject to review by OMB because they
do not constitute a ``collection of information'' under the PRA.
Rather, the recommended labeling is a ``public disclosure of
information originally supplied by the Federal government to the
recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public'' (5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2)).

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only
necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to
the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain this draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: August 7, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-19532 Filed 8-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P