[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57603-57610]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23276]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2019 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0171]
RIN 0910-AH83

Food Labeling: Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food Sold From
Certain Vending Machines; Front of Package Type Size

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is issuing this
final rule to revise the type size labeling requirements when front-of-
pack (FOP) labeling is used to meet the calorie declaration
requirements for articles of food sold from glass-front vending
machines. We are taking this action to reduce the regulatory burden on
industry, increase flexibility for the labeling of certain articles of
food sold from glass-front vending machines, and ensure that consumers
continue to have visible FOP calorie information for articles of food
at the point of purchase.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 27, 2019.
Compliance Date: The compliance date for type size FOP labeling
requirements (21 CFR 101.8(b)(2)) for articles of food sold from glass-
front vending machines is July 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this final rule into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjan Morravej, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration,
5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Final Rule
    B. Summary of the Major Provision of the Final Rule
    C. Legal Authority
    D. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
    A. Need for the Regulation/History of This Rulemaking
    B. Summary of Comments to the Proposed Rule
III. Legal Authority
IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule and FDA Response
    A. Introduction
    B. Description of General Comments and FDA Responses
    C. Comments on Our Proposed 150 Percent Type Size Requirement
and FDA Responses
    D. Comments on Our Alternate Approaches and FDA Responses
    E. Comments on the Proposed Compliance Date and FDA Responses
    F. Miscellaneous Comments and FDA Responses
V. Description of the Final Rule
VI. Effective and Compliance Dates
VII. Economic Analysis of Impacts
VIII. Analysis of Environmental Impact
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
X. Federalism
XI. Reference

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Final Rule

    We are amending our vending machine labeling regulations in part
101 (21 CFR part 101) by revising the type size requirement in Sec.
101.8(b)(2) (21 CFR 101.8(b)(2)) when FOP labeling is used to meet the
calorie declaration requirements for articles of food sold from glass-
front vending machines. Our regulations previously required that the
FOP calorie declaration type size for articles of food sold from glass-
front vending machines be at least 50 percent of the size of the
largest printed matter on the label. The final rule requires, instead,
that the FOP calorie declaration type size be at least 150 percent (one
and one-half times) the minimum required size of the net quantity of
contents (i.e., net weight) declaration on the package of the vended
food. This change will reduce regulatory burdens on, and increase
flexibility for, industry, while ensuring that calorie information is
visible to consumers to help them make informed dietary decisions.

B. Summary of the Major Provision of the Final Rule

    The final rule revises the type size requirement for calories
labeled on the front of the package of vended foods in Sec.
101.8(b)(2) by amending the type size to 150 percent (one and one-half
times) the minimum required type size of the net quantity of contents
declaration.

C. Legal Authority

    This action is consistent with our authority in section
403(q)(5)(H) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21
U.S.C. 343(q)(5)(H)). Section 403(q)(5)(H) requires certain vending
machine operators to provide calorie declarations for certain articles
of food sold from vending machines. In addition, we are issuing this
rule consistent with our authority in sections 201(n) (21 U.S.C.
321(n)) and 403(a)(1) and (f) of the FD&C Act. Further, we are issuing
this rule under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)),
which gives us the authority to issue regulations for the efficient
enforcement of the FD&C Act. We discuss our legal authority in greater
detail in section III, ``Legal Authority.''

D. Costs and Benefits

    Because this final rule only requires minor revisions to FOP
calorie labeling type size requirements when FOP labeling is used to
meet the calorie declaration requirements for articles of food sold
from glass-front vending machines, we estimate there are no costs to
vending machine operators and potential cost savings to vending machine
operators and packaged food manufacturers. We expect the cost savings
of this revision to outweigh the costs, with no significant effect on
consumer behavior or health.

II. Background

A. Need for the Regulation/History of This Rulemaking

    Section 403(q)(5)(H) of the FD&C Act requires certain vending
machine operators to provide calorie declarations for certain articles
of food sold from vending machines. Under section 403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of
the FD&C Act, a vending machine operator must provide a sign in close
proximity to each article

of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous
statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article
if: (1) An article of food is sold from the vending machine that does
not permit a prospective purchaser to examine the Nutrition Facts label
before purchasing the article, or does not otherwise provide visible
nutrition information at the point of purchase and (2) the machine is
operated by a person who is engaged in the business of owning or
operating 20 or more vending machines.
    In the Federal Register of December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71259), we
issued a final rule to implement these labeling requirements (``2014
final rule''). The 2014 final rule, which became effective on December
1, 2016, requires vending machine operators that own or operate 20 or
more vending machines (or that voluntarily register with us to be
subject to the 2014 final rule) to provide calorie declarations for
certain foods sold from vending machines. If FOP calorie labeling is
used to meet that requirement, the 2014 final rule requires the calorie
labeling be clear and conspicuous and easily read on the article of
food while in the vending machine, in a type size at least 50 percent
of the size of the largest printed matter on the label (79 FR 71259 at
71291).
    After the 2014 final rule's publication, some trade associations
and food manufacturers stated that the FOP type size requirement
presented significant technical challenges to the packaged food
industry and asked us to: (1) Amend the requirement and (2) provide
additional flexibility for providing FOP calorie information.
    In the Federal Register of July 12, 2018 (83 FR 32221), we issued a
proposed rule to revise the type size labeling requirements for FOP
calorie declarations for packaged food sold from glass-front vending
machines such that the minimum type size would be 150 percent (one and
one-half times) the size of the net quantity of contents declaration,
instead of being based on the largest printed matter on the label. We
also asked for comment on two alternate approaches: Requiring the
visible nutrition information to be in a type size that is at least 100
percent of the size of the net quantity of contents declaration
(Alternate Approach A) and not specifying any size for the visible
nutrition information (Alternate Approach B). We proposed a compliance
date of January 1, 2020, and announced our intent to exercise
enforcement discretion pending completion of the rulemaking for
products sold in glass-front vending machines that: (1) Provided FOP
calorie disclosures and (2) complied with all aspects of the 2014 final
rule except the type size requirement. Finally, we announced our intent
to exercise enforcement discretion, at least until January 1, 2020, for
calorie disclosures for gums, mints, and roll candy products sold in
glass-front machines in packages that are too small to bear FOP
labeling.

B. Summary of Comments to the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule provided a 90-day comment period. We received
more than 120 comments. The comments came from individual consumers,
academia, healthcare professionals, consumer advocacy groups, industry,
public health groups, and trade associations. Among other things, the
comments discussed:
     FOP labeling type size. Some comments said that larger FOP
calorie labeling type size would help consumers read the information
and make an informed dietary decision, while other comments noted that
larger type size would reduce industry flexibility and may have no
effect on consumer decisions.
     Regulatory burdens to industry. Some comments said we
should reduce regulatory burdens and provide additional flexibility for
industry while still giving consumers the information they need to make
informed dietary decisions; other comments wanted a larger minimum type
size for FOP calorie disclosures regardless of any burden to industry.
     Compliance dates. Some comments wanted an extended
compliance date to allow companies to bring their FOP labeling into
compliance with the rule.
     Whether FDA should: (1) Maintain the 2014 final rule's
type size requirement, (2) finalize the proposed requirement, (3)
finalize Alternate Approach A, or (4) finalize Alternate Approach B.
Some comments wanted to retain the 2014 final rule's type size
requirements and stated that the requirements were the most beneficial
to public health. The comments supporting either our proposed type size
requirement or an alternate approach generally did not support
Alternate Approach B. Many supported the proposed type size, while some
said Alternate Approach A would reduce the regulatory burden on
industry while still giving consumers the information they need to make
informed dietary decisions.
    We discuss the comments and our responses to the comments in more
detail in part IV of this document.

III. Legal Authority

    We are revising the labeling requirements for providing calorie
declarations for food sold from certain vending machines, as set forth
in this final rule, consistent with our authority in section
403(q)(5)(H) of the FD&C Act. Under section 403(q)(5)(H) of the FD&C
Act, certain vending machine operators must provide calorie
declarations for certain articles of food sold from vending machines.
Under section 403(a)(1) of the FD&C Act, such information must be
truthful and non-misleading. Under section 403(f) of the FD&C Act, any
word, statement, or other information required by or under the FD&C Act
to appear on the label or labeling of an article of food must be
prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with
other words, statements, designs, or devices, in the labeling) and in
such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the
ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.
Under section 403(a), (f), or (q) of the FD&C Act, food to which these
requirements apply is deemed misbranded if these requirements are not
met. In addition, under section 201(n) of the FD&C Act, the labeling of
food is misleading if it fails to reveal facts that are material in
light of representations made in the labeling or with respect to
consequences that may result from use. Thus, we are issuing this rule
under sections 201(n) and 403(a)(1), (f), and (q)(5)(H) of the FD&C
Act, as well as under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act, which gives us
the authority to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the
FD&C Act.

IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule and FDA Response

A. Introduction

    We received more than 120 comments on the proposed rule. The
comments came from individual consumers, academia, healthcare
professionals, consumer advocacy groups, industry, public health
groups, and trade associations.
    We describe and respond to comments in subsections B through F of
this section. We preface each comment discussion with a numbered
``Comment'' and each response by the word ``Response'' to make it
easier to identify comments and our responses. We have numbered each
comment to help distinguish among different topics. The number assigned
is for organizational purposes only and does not signify the comment's
value, importance, or the order in which it was received.

B. Description of General Comments and FDA Responses

    Many comments generally supported or opposed the proposed rule
without focusing on a particular provision. In the following
paragraphs, we discuss and respond to such general comments.
    (Comment 1) Some comments supported the 2014 final rule's
requirement that the calorie labeling type size be at least 50 percent
of the size of the largest printed matter on the label. The comments
expressed concern that the proposed type size of 150 percent of the
minimum required net weight declaration may be too small for consumers
to see or could be easily missed by hurried consumers or by children.
The comments said that the larger type sizes required by the 2014 final
rule make it easier for consumers to make informed dietary decisions.
One comment suggested that there is no evidence that a reduction in
calorie type size will benefit consumers. Another comment said that
reducing the type size could lead to less consumer use of FOP calorie
declarations and said we should conduct consumer studies to determine
the appropriate type size.
    (Response 1) The preamble to the proposed rule explained that
several industry representatives indicated that the 50 percent type
size requirement for FOP calorie labeling presented significant
technical challenges to the packaged foods industry (83 FR 32221 at
32223). These challenges included calorie declarations that would be
very large on some products and difficulties in label redesign (id.).
Additionally, several voluntary FOP labeling programs presented calorie
information in sizes ranging from 100 to 150 percent of the minimum
size of the net quantity of contents statement, and these FOP labeling
programs would be disrupted significantly if the label had to comply
with the 50 percent type size requirement in addition to having the
voluntary FOP information. For these reasons, we proposed to amend the
50 percent type size requirement. The comments suggesting that we keep
the 50 percent type size requirement did not address the technical
challenges described in the preamble to the proposed rule or the
potential impact to voluntary FOP nutrition labeling programs.
Consequently, the final rule revises Sec.  101.8(b)(2) to require the
type size of the calorie declaration for articles for food sold from
certain vending machines be at least 150 percent of the minimum
required size of the net quantity of contents declaration on the
package.
    Regarding the comments stating that changing the type size
requirement would result in declarations that are too small or less
useful to consumers, we note that the final rule requires the visible
nutrition information to be in a type size ``at least 150 percent'' of
the size of the net quantity of contents declaration. This means that
the information may be larger than 150 percent, and so the rule gives
manufacturers the flexibility to make the most efficient and effective
use of their label space in presenting the required nutrition
information. We also note that both section 403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the
FD&C Act and the final rule require the information to be ``clear and
conspicuous.'' Thus, given that a type size of at least 150 percent of
the size of the net quantity of contents declaration ensures that the
FOP calorie declaration is clear and conspicuous and visible to
consumers at the point of purchase, and given that the rule does not
limit how large the nutrition information must be, we disagree that the
rule will result in declarations that are too small or not useful to
consumers.
    (Comment 2) Some comments expressed concern that vending operators
could assume that simply stocking glass-front machines with products
that have FOP declarations complies with vending machine labeling
requirements (Sec.  101.8) and may not provide calorie information in
cases where the coil or positioning of a product prevents a consumer
from being able to read the FOP calorie declarations before purchasing
a product.
    (Response 2) We affirm that vending machine operators stocking
glass-front machines with products that have FOP declarations in order
to satisfy vending machine labeling requirements in Sec.  101.8 must
comply with all requirements set forth in Sec.  101.8(b)(2). This means
not only complying with minimum type size requirements set forth in
this final rule, but also requirements that the prospective purchaser
can view the total number of calories for the article of food as sold
at the point of purchase. Our regulations, at Sec.  101.8(b)(2),
require that FOP calorie declarations be clear and conspicuous and able
to be easily read on the article of food in the vending machine, among
other requirements. Additionally, our regulations, at Sec.
101.8(b)(1), effectively require that the calories, serving size, and
servings per container listed in the Nutrition Facts label be visible
to prospective purchasers ``without any obstruction.'' Both Sec.
101.8(b)(1) and (2) are clear that calorie declarations on the food
label must be visible, without obstruction, such that we do not find it
necessary to further amend or add requirements in Sec.  101.8(b)
specifying how a product is to be placed in a vending machine when FOP
labeling is used to meet vending machine labeling requirements.

C. Comments on Our Proposed 150 Percent Type Size Requirement and FDA
Responses

    We proposed to require that FOP calorie information be clear and
conspicuous and able to be easily read on the article of food while in
the vending machine, in a type size at least 150 percent of the size of
the net quantity of contents declaration on the front of the package,
and with sufficient color and contrasting background to other print on
the label to permit the prospective purchaser to clearly distinguish
the information (proposed Sec.  101.8(b)(2)) (83 FR 32221 at 32226
through 32227).
    We also proposed two editorial corrections to Sec.  101.8(b)(2):
Substituting the word ``prospective'' in place of ``perspective,'' and
revising the first sentence of Sec.  [thinsp]101.8(b)(2) by inserting a
comma after the word ``minimum.''
    (Comment 3) Many comments supported a proposed type size of at
least 150 percent (one and one-half times) the minimum required size of
the net quantity of contents declaration. The comments noted that the
150 percent type size requirement gives industry flexibility, reduces
regulatory burdens, provides visible calorie information to consumers
so that they can make informed dietary choices, is easy to enforce,
allows for the continuation of voluntary FOP labeling initiatives, and
standardizes FOP calorie type size.
    (Response 3) As we noted in the preamble to the proposed rule (83
FR 32221 at 32223) and in our response to comment 1, the 50 percent
type size requirement presented significant technical challenges to the
packaged foods industry and also had the potential to significantly
disrupt voluntary FOP labeling programs. We agree that revising our
regulations to require the type size of FOP calorie declarations to be
at least 150 percent the minimum required size of the net quantity of
contents declaration will provide flexibility to industry and reduce
regulatory burden while continuing to provide visible calorie
information to consumers. We reiterate that the rule, by using the
terms ``at least 150 percent,'' creates a minimum size requirement and
that manufacturers can make the calorie disclosures on FOP labeling
even larger if they choose.
    (Comment 4) Some comments asked that we clarify our proposed

requirement to state that: (1) The type size must be 150 percent of the
size required for the net quantity of contents declaration and (2) the
type size requirement refers to the quantitative value for calories for
FOP declarations and not the word ``calories'' itself. For example, one
comment recommended the following language: ``The visible nutrition
information must be clear and conspicuous and able to be easily read on
the article of food while in the vending machine, with the numeric
value for calories appearing in a type size at least 150 percent of the
size required by section 101.7(i) of this title for the net quantity of
contents declaration on the front of the package.''
    (Response 4) We agree, in part, and disagree, in part, with the
comments.
    With respect to the comment suggesting that we clarify the rule to
require the type size to be 150 percent of the size required for the
net quantity of contents declaration, we have revised the rule to state
that type size must be ``at least 150 percent of the size required by
Sec.  101.7(i) for the net quantity of contents declaration'' on the
front of the package. By adding language to refer explicitly to our net
quantity of contents regulation at Sec.  101.7(i) (21 CFR 101.7(i)), we
establish a minimum value on which the visible nutrition information is
to be based. In other words, the size requirements set forth in Sec.
101.7(i), rather than the size of the net quantity of contents
declaration that is actually used on the package (because Sec.
101.7(i) establishes minimum size requirements rather than specific
size requirements), become the starting point for the size of the
visible nutrition information in Sec.  101.8(b)(2). We decided to
retain the words ``at least'' before ``150 percent'' so that firms can
make the visible nutrition information larger if they so choose.
    Regarding the comment asking us to clarify that the type size
requirement refers to the quantitative value for calories for FOP
declarations and not the word ``calories'' itself, we interpret
``visible nutrition information,'' which is the subject of Sec.
101.8(b)(2), to mean ``total calories in the article of food'' (79 FR
71259 at 71266 through 71267). Therefore, the numerical value
indicating the total calories, rather than the word ``calories,'' is
subject to this final rule's type size requirements.

D. Comments on Our Alternate Approaches and FDA Responses

    We invited comment on two alternate approaches in the proposed
rule's preamble: Requiring the visible nutrition information to be in a
type size that is at least 100 percent of the size of the net quantity
of contents declaration (Alternate Approach A), and not specifying any
size for the visible nutrition information (Alternate Approach B) (83
FR 32221 at 32224). Several comments addressed these alternate
approaches.
    (Comment 5) Some comments supported Alternate Approach A (requiring
the visible nutrition information to be in a type size that is at least
100 percent of the size of the net quantity of contents declaration).
One comment said that larger calorie labeling places undue importance
on calories and could give a competitive advantage to products with
fewer calories and smaller or lighter packages. Another comment said
that the approach would ensure the calorie information is visible for
consumers while creating a consistent size requirement that is not
overly burdensome on industry.
    (Response 5) The area of the principal display panel (calculated in
square inches or square centimeters) determines the minimum type size
that is permitted for the net quantity declaration, which Sec.
101.7(i) further explains. As such, both the 150 percent requirement we
are finalizing and Alternate Approach A's 100 percent requirement would
be based on the size of the principal display panel. We do not agree
that a calorie declaration size based on the overall size of the
principal display panel gives a competitive advantage to any particular
product because the minimum declaration size will be proportionate to
the package size (Sec.  101.7(i)).
    Regarding the comment suggesting that a package with a larger
calorie declaration could be at a competitive disadvantage relative to
products in smaller or lighter packages, we disagree. The calorie
disclosure applies to the food as vended; the weight of the package
does not affect the caloric value of the food itself. Furthermore, we
do not have (and the comment did not provide) evidence indicating that
the size of the calorie disclosure itself will influence a consumer's
decision to purchase a food.
    We decided not to adopt Alternate Approach A because adopting a
type size of at least 150 percent of the minimum required size of the
net quantity of contents declaration provides a larger minimum calorie
declaration type size, versus Alternate Approach A's 100 percent
minimum type size, to the purchaser when they are viewing the vended
product through the glass front of a vending machine. When a vending
machine food is in a vending machine, a prospective purchaser cannot
handle the product to make it easier for the purchaser to read the
nutrition information. Therefore, visible nutrition information on the
front of package must be large enough, and prominent enough, for
prospective purchasers to see and use the information (79 FR 71259 at
71269). We believe that the 150 percent type size requirement for FOP
calorie disclosures on foods sold from glass-front vending machines
will ensure that the declarations are visible, clear, and conspicuous
and able to be easily read by a prospective purchaser, satisfying
section 403(q)(5)(H)(viii)(I)(aa) of the FD&C Act requirements that
nutrition information be visible to a prospective purchaser at the
point of purchase.
    The 150 percent requirement also provides sufficient flexibility
and reduces the regulatory burden for industry, particularly because
many manufacturers already use this type size for calorie disclosures.
We note that industry comments, particularly comments from small- and
medium-sized vended food manufacturers, supported the 150 percent
requirement, and such support reinforces our decision to adopt the 150
percent requirement instead of Alternate Approach A.
    (Comment 6) Some comments disagreed with Alternate Approach A,
saying it would limit the visibility of calorie information. The
comments stated that calorie disclosures of this size would be
difficult for consumers to read even from a short distance,
particularly through the glass front of a vending machine. One comment
said that Alternate Approach A would make FOP calorie information
generally less prominent in vended food items, reducing the overall
efficacy of FOP labeling.
    (Response 6) We agree that Alternate Approach A would make FOP
calorie declarations less prominent on vended food items because of
Alternate Approach A's smaller minimum type size requirement, and for
the reasons stated in our response to comment 5, we decline to adopt
Alternate Approach A. The comments disagreeing with Alternate Approach
A also did not provide, and we are not aware of, data or evidence
regarding the limited visibility of calorie information, consumers'
impaired ability to read calorie disclosures, or comparative efficacy
of FOP labeling under Alternate Approach A as compared to the 150
percent minimum type size requirement.
    (Comment 7) Many comments disagreed with Alternate Approach B (FOP
calorie disclosures without a type size requirement). For example, some

comments advocated a minimum FOP calorie type size requirement that
ensures readability by consumers rather than a ``no type size''
requirement in Alternate Approach B. Other comments said that Alternate
Approach B would not help the public, with one comment saying that
Alternate Approach B would deny consumers the caloric content
transparency that is necessary to make informed decisions about their
health. Other comments said that a lack of size specifications would
introduce inconsistent labeling across brands and products.
    Some comments supported Alternate Approach B and stated that it
would provide maximum flexibility for industry.
    (Response 7) We have decided not to adopt Alternate Approach B.
Vending machine operators that choose products that have FOP labeling
must ensure that the visible nutrition information is clear and
conspicuous, as required by both section 403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the FD&C
Act and our regulations. Alternate Approach B would provide vending
machine operators with no clear standard on what type size is
sufficient to be visible, clear, and conspicuous to a prospective
purchaser, thus making it difficult for an operator to determine
whether a vended food manufacturer's FOP labeling satisfies section
403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the FD&C Act and our regulations. Conversely, a
minimum type size, such as the 150 percent standard that we are
adopting in the final rule, provides a workable type size that industry
can implement that ensures visibility to consumers.
    In addition, amending our type size requirements in Sec.
101.8(b)(2) is consistent with voluntary FOP labeling programs that
already present calorie information in type sizes of 150 percent of the
minimum size of the net quantity of contents statement on the principal
display panel.

E. Comments on the Proposed Compliance Date and FDA Responses

    We proposed that covered vending machine operators comply with any
finalized requirements from this rulemaking by January 1, 2020 (83 FR
32221 at 32224 through 32225).
    (Comment 8) Some comments noted that some products have extended
shelf lives, and those products may be in distribution or vending
machines, without updated labeling, on the final rule's compliance
date. Some comments suggested that we should enforce the final
requirements only on those products manufactured after the rule's
compliance date. Other comments supported extending the final rule's
compliance date to align with the compliance dates for the Nutrition
Facts labeling final rule. The comments noted that harmonizing the
compliance dates provides for more efficient implementation of the
final rules, so that companies must revise labels only once to comply
with all requirements.
    Conversely, other comments did not support any extension of the
final rule's compliance date. One comment stated that the final rule's
effective date should be no later than January 20, 2020, because FDA
has been working on this matter since 2011 and because the rule is
required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Pub.
L. 111-148). Another comment said that we should finalize a standard
and adhere to whatever compliance date we set.
    (Response 8) We agree that manufacturers that intend to add FOP
calorie disclosures that are consistent with this final rule should
have time to revise or update their labeling. Therefore, we have
determined that a compliance date of July 1, 2021, is appropriate. This
will give industry time to make label changes and move any existing
products through distribution chains before the compliance date. We
believe this date will have limited impact on consumers' health in the
interim because: (1) Any FOP labeling used to meet calorie disclosure
requirements must still comply with all aspects of the 2014 final rule
except the type size requirement and (2) many manufacturers already use
the 150 percent type size for calorie disclosures.
    (Comment 9) Some comments asked that we either allow alternate
calorie labeling for gums, mints, and roll candy products sold in
glass-front machines in packages that are too small to bear FOP
labeling or exercise enforcement discretion from the vending machine
calorie labeling requirements for these products.
    (Response 9) In section VI, we announce our intent to exercise
enforcement discretion regarding the calorie disclosure requirements
for gums, mints, and roll candy products sold in glass-front machines
in packages that are too small to bear FOP labeling.

F. Miscellaneous Comments and FDA Responses

    Many comments addressed aspects of vending labeling other than FOP
calorie disclosure type size. Some of these, such as comments on the
2014 final rule's effective date, impacts, and economic burdens, and
calorie units of measure, fall outside the scope of this rule and many
were addressed directly in the 2014 final rule. Other comments, such as
those pertaining to additional FOP declarations (such as information on
specific nutrients or voluntary disclosures of calories per serving)
and other activities that FDA might or should pursue in conjunction
with the rule, also are outside the scope of the rule, and we will not
address them here.
    We discuss the other miscellaneous comments in the following
paragraphs.
    (Comment 10) Some comments discussed alternate methods of providing
calorie information that would comply with the 2014 final rule's
requirements, such as on a sign posted near the vending machine. They
noted, for instance, that the placement of products within vending
machines changes frequently, and so the use of signage generally is
impracticable. Some comments said that the vending industry is largely
looking to packaged food manufacturers to provide FOP calorie labeling
to satisfy our vending machine calorie disclosure requirements.
    (Response 10) There are options other than FOP calorie labeling
that vending machine operators may choose to satisfy section
403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the FD&C Act and current vending machine labeling
requirements in Sec.  [thinsp]101.8, including allowing the prospective
purchaser to view the calories, serving size, and servings per
container listed in the Nutrition Facts label on the vending machine
food without any obstruction or using reproductions of Nutrition Facts
labels, as provided in Sec.  [thinsp]101.8(b)(1), or posting signage
with calorie declarations, in, on, or adjacent to the machine, as
provided in Sec.  [thinsp]101.8(c). To the extent a vending machine
operator provides calorie information for a vending machine food in
such an alternate way and otherwise meets the requirements of Sec.
[thinsp]101.8, the vending machine operator would be in compliance with
our calorie disclosure requirements.
    (Comment 11) Some comments questioned who is subject to the 2014
final rule's requirements, and, by extension, this rule's requirements.
One comment asked for clarification on the respective responsibilities
of food manufacturers and vending machine companies in complying with
this rule; other comments implied that this final rule imposes
requirements on manufacturers of food sold from vending machines.
Another comment encouraged us to apply our vending labeling
requirements to all vending machine operators, regardless of the number
of machines they operate.
    (Response 11) We stated in the 2014 final rule that section
403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the FD&C Act and the 2014 final rule

do not apply to suppliers of vending machine food; instead, section
403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the FD&C Act and the 2014 final rule establish
requirements for certain vending machine operators (79 FR 71259 at
71284). The type size requirement in this final rule therefore also
establishes requirements for certain vending machine operators and does
not apply to suppliers of vending machine food. We recognize that a
manufacturer of covered vending machine food may provide calorie
information via FOP labeling on their product label and such calorie
information may constitute visible nutrition information in accordance
with section 403(q)(5)(H)(viii)(I)(aa) of the FD&C Act, provided that
the applicable requirements of Sec.  101.8(b) are satisfied. However,
section 403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the FD&C Act, the 2014 final rule, and
this final rule do not require manufacturers to provide such
information. As such, the 2014 final rule and this final rule do not
impose requirements on suppliers of vending machine food.
    Section 403(q)(5)(H)(viii)(I)(bb) of the FD&C Act states that an
article of food requires a calorie declaration if it is from a vending
machine that, among other things, is operated by a person who is
engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more vending
machines. Accordingly, our vending calorie disclosure regulations only
apply to food sold from vending machines operated by a person: (1)
Engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more vending
machines subject to the requirements of section 403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of
the FD&C Act or (2) not subject to the requirements of section
403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the FD&C Act who voluntarily elects to be subject
to those requirements by registering biannually under section
403(q)(5)(H)(ix) of the FD&C Act.
    (Comment 12) One comment expressed concern that allowing voluntary
display of calories per serving, along with the required display of
calories per package, on vended foods could allow vending machine
operators and food manufacturers to bypass the requirement that total
caloric contents of the package be clearly labeled in such terms as to
render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual
under customary conditions of purchase and use. The comment recommended
that we amend Sec.  101.8(c)(2)(i)(C) to include the following
sentence: ``If voluntarily disclosed, the calories per serving label
shall appear on the food packaging separately and distinctly from the
calories per package label such that a prospective purchaser may
readily and easily discern between the two.''
    (Response 12) As explained in the preamble to the 2014 final rule,
our requirements regarding calorie declarations for covered vending
machine food mandate declaration of the total calories (79 FR 71259 at
71276). It does not allow vending machine operators to bypass the
requirement that total caloric contents of the package be clearly
labeled in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood
by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and
use.
    However, as noted in the preamble to the 2014 final rule, we would
not object to food manufacturers or vending machine operators
voluntarily providing information in addition to total calories to
consumers at the point of purchase, provided that such information is
truthful and not misleading and otherwise complies with the FD&C Act
and FDA regulations (79 FR 71259 at 71267).

V. Description of the Final Rule

    The final rule amends our vending machine labeling regulations in
part 101 by revising the type size requirement in Sec.  101.8(b)(2)
when FOP labeling is used to meet the calorie declaration requirements
for articles of food sold from glass-front vending machines. The final
rule requires that the FOP calorie declaration type size be at least
150 percent (one and one-half times) the minimum required size of the
net quantity of contents (i.e., net weight) declaration on the package
of the vended food.

VI. Effective and Compliance Dates

    This final rule is effective November 27, 2019. The compliance date
for type size FOP labeling requirements (Sec.  101.8(b)(2)) for
articles of food sold from glass-front vending machines is July 1,
2021. We are finalizing this compliance date to provide sufficient time
for the packaged food industry to revise their labels, as appropriate,
consistent with the new requirements.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, we announced our intent to
exercise enforcement discretion, at least until January 1, 2020, with
respect to gums, mints, and roll candy products sold in glass-front
machines in packages that are too small to bear FOP labeling (83 FR
32221 at 32225). Although the calorie disclosure requirements in Sec.
101.8(c)(2) cover these products, we advise manufacturers of these
products and operators of vending machines containing these products of
our intent to exercise enforcement discretion beyond January 1, 2020,
with respect to compliance with the 2014 final rule's calorie
disclosure requirements. We are continuing our enforcement discretion
policy for these products because we recognize the challenges of adding
compliant calorie information on packages that are too small to bear
FOP labeling. As we previously stated, we acknowledge that these
products tend to be sold in small packages that do not lend themselves
to FOP labeling and are often located or placed in a small space in
glass-front machines that may make it difficult to add calorie
disclosure signage. For example, we are aware that some glass-front
vending machines have trays that are different sizes; the tray width
for bags of potato chips is larger than the tray width for a roll of
mints or hard candies or for a small package of gum that can make it
difficult to add calorie information (81 FR 50303 at 50305). Because we
are continuing our enforcement discretion policy for these products,
this means that we do not currently intend to pursue actions against
vending machine operators that sell gums, mints, and roll candy
products that do not meet the calorie disclosure requirements of the
2014 final rule.

VII. Economic Analysis of Impacts

    We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13771, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 direct us to assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13771
requires that the costs associated with significant new regulations
``shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination
of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.''
This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866. This rule is an Executive Order 13771
deregulatory action.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small
entities. The 2014 final rule does not impose burdens on the suppliers
of vending machine foods. While suppliers are not obliged to engage in
FOP calorie labeling, this rule

will allow for greater flexibility for the use of FOP calorie labeling
in glass-front vending machines than our previous requirements,
potentially reducing the burden on covered vending machine operators of
providing additional calorie labeling. Thus, we certify that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires
us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing ``any rule that includes
any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $154
million, using the most current (2018) Implicit Price Deflator for the
Gross Domestic Product. This final rule will not result in an
expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
    In response to requests from the vending and the packaged foods
industries to reduce regulatory burden and increase flexibility, we are
revising the existing type size requirements when FOP labeling is used
to meet the calorie declaration requirements for articles of food sold
from glass-front vending machines. The final regulatory impact analysis
qualitatively discusses the economic impacts of this final rule,
including potential costs, cost savings, and benefits.
    Because this final rule only requires minor revisions to FOP
calorie labeling type size when FOP labeling is used to meet the
calorie declaration requirements for articles of food sold from glass-
front vending machines, we estimate there are no costs to vending
machine operators and potential cost savings to vending machine
operators and packaged food manufacturers. We expect the cost savings
of this revision to outweigh the costs, with no significant effect on
consumer behavior or health. We have developed a comprehensive Economic
Analysis of Impacts that assesses the impacts of the final rule. The
full analysis of economic impacts is available in the docket for this
final rule (Ref. 1) and at https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.

VIII. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(k) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final rule contains no new collection of information beyond
what was described in the December 2014 final rule and is now approved
under OMB control number 0910-0782. Therefore, clearance by the Office
of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is
not required.

X. Federalism

    We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. Section 4(a) of the Executive Order
requires Agencies to construe a Federal statute to preempt State law
only where the statute contains an express preemption provision or
there is some other clear evidence that the Congress intended
preemption of State law, or where the exercise of State authority
conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal
statute. Federal law includes an express preemption provision that
preempts any nutrition labeling requirement of food that is not
identical to the requirement of section 403(q) of the FD&C Act, except
that this provision does not apply to food that is offered for sale in
a restaurant or similar retail food establishment that is not part of a
chain with 20 or more locations doing business under the same name and
offering for sale substantially the same menu items unless such
restaurant or similar retail food establishment elects to comply
voluntarily with the nutrition information requirements under section
403(q)(5)(H)(ix) of the FD&C Act. This final rule creates requirements
for nutrition labeling of food under section 403(q) of the FD&C Act
that preempts certain non-identical State and local nutrition labeling
requirements.
    Section 4205 of the ACA (124 Stat. 119, 576), which amended the
FD&C Act to require certain vending machine operators to provide
calorie declarations for certain articles of food sold from vending
machines, also included a Rule of Construction providing that nothing
in the amendments made by section 4205 of the ACA shall be construed:
(1) To preempt any provision of State or local law, unless such
provision establishes or continues into effect nutrient content
disclosures of the type required under section 403(q)(5)(H) of the FD&C
Act and is expressly preempted under subsection (a)(4) of such section;
(2) to apply to any State or local requirement respecting a statement
in the labeling of food that provides for a warning concerning the
safety of the food or component of the food; or (3) except as provided
in section 403(q)(5)(H)(ix) of the FD&C Act, to apply to any restaurant
or similar retail food establishment other than a restaurant or similar
retail food establishment described in section 403(q)(5)(H)(i) of the
FD&C Act.
    We interpret the provisions of section 4205 of the ACA related to
preemption to mean that States and local governments may not impose
nutrition labeling requirements for food sold from vending machines
that must comply with the Federal requirements of section 403(q)(5)(H)
of the FD&C Act, unless the State or local requirements are identical
to the Federal requirements. In other words, States and localities
cannot have additional or different nutrition labeling requirements for
food sold either: (1) From vending machines that are operated by a
person engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more
vending machines subject to the requirements of section
403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the FD&C Act or (2) from vending machines
operated by a person not subject to the requirements of section
403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the FD&C Act who voluntarily elects to be subject
to those requirements by registering biannually under section
403(q)(5)(H)(ix) of the FD&C Act.
    Otherwise, for food sold from vending machines not subject to the
nutrition labeling requirements of section 403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the
FD&C Act, States and localities may impose nutrition labeling
requirements. Under our interpretation of section 4205(d)(1) of the
ACA, nutrition labeling for food sold from these vending machines is
not nutrient content disclosures of the type required under section
403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the FD&C Act and, therefore, is not preempted.
Under this interpretation, States and localities can continue to
require nutrition labeling for food sold from vending machines that are
exempt from nutrition labeling under section 403(q)(5) of the FD&C Act.
This interpretation is consistent with the fact that Congress included
vending machine operators in the voluntary registration provision of
section 403(q)(5)(H)(ix) of the FD&C Act. There would have been no need
to include vending machine operators in the provision that allows
opting into the Federal requirements if States and localities could not
otherwise require non-identical nutrition labeling for food sold from
any vending machines.
    In addition, the express preemption provisions of 21 U.S.C. 343-
1(a)(4) do not preempt any State or local

requirement respecting a statement in the labeling of food that
provides for a warning concerning the safety of the food or component
of the food. This is clear from both the literal language of 21 U.S.C.
343-1(a)(4) with respect to the scope of preemption and from the Rule
of Construction at section 4205(d)(2) of the ACA.

XI. Reference

    The following reference is on display at the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes
in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

1. FDA, ``Food Labeling: Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food Sold
from Certain Vending Machines; Front of Package Type Size, Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
Final Small Entity Analysis,'' dated June 2018. Also available at:
https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 101

    Food labeling, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
101 is amended as follows:

PART 101--FOOD LABELING

0
1. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342,
343, 348, 371; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

0
2. Revise Sec.  101.8(b)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  101.8   Vending machines.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The prospective purchaser can otherwise view visible nutrition
information, including, at a minimum, the total number of calories for
the article of food as sold at the point of purchase. This visible
nutrition information must appear on the food label itself. The visible
nutrition information must be clear and conspicuous and able to be
easily read on the article of food while in the vending machine, in a
type size at least 150 percent of the size required by Sec.  101.7(i)
for the net quantity of contents declaration on the front of the
package, and with sufficient color and contrasting background to other
print on the label to permit the prospective purchaser to clearly
distinguish the information.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 30, 2019.
Norman E. Sharpless,
Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
    Dated: October 7, 2019.
Eric D. Hargan,
Deputy Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2019-23276 Filed 10-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


1 OSWER and INDA/ SMART Meeting Notes March 30, 2006 On Thursday, March 30, representatives of INDA, SMART, Kimberly Clark, ERC Wiping Products, and the Beveridge & Diamond Law Firm met with the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Assistant Administrator, Susan Bodine and other EPA staff.

Peter Mayberry, INDA explained the purpose of the meeting. In 2003, EPA proposed a rule to remove many of the regulatory requirements for disposed and laundered shop towels, wipes and rags. Peter explained that there are three categories of wipes: laundered shop towels, non woven towels and rags. The members of SMART generally use rags. Shop towels are used in the automotive industry and others. These towels are washed at an industrial laundry and then returned to the customer. Nonwovens are used by many different industries. The reality of non wovens is that they can now be used several times before they are disposed/ discarded. They are used in everyday applications. Towel usage depends on what the facility does.

According to EPA's mixture and derived from rule, if one drop of solvent is on the wipe, it is a hazardous waste and must be managed as such. However, laundered towels are regulated by Publicly Owned Treatment Works and do not have the same restrictions. EPA's Office of Water ( OW) proposed pretreatment standards for laundries. In 1999, OW elected to withdraw its proposal because the Office of Solid Waste was contemplating a rule. This is the one that was released in 2003.

The 2003 rule said it was focusing on the solvent rather than the wipes. The rule should provide equal treatment for laundered wipes and disposed wipes since the same solvents are used and the wipes are used in the same manner. The Resource Conservation Challenge's goal is recycling. It was designed to reduce or stop burning and landfilling of hazardous materials.

The message to Susan: Get this rule out before this Administration leaves office.

A second concern for the industry are the small business. The rule is complex and not easily implemented and unfairly regulates disposed wipes more stringently.

Karl Bourdeau Beveridge & Diamond Mr. Bourdeau believes the rule falls short of its goal. That goal being the solvent in the wipes, not the wipe itself. The proposed rule listed several damage cases of fire and human health issues caused by wipes. The rule endorses management practices, but does not require solvent reclamation. There is a disconnect between storage/ accumulation and transportation. The rule has more stringent requirements for storage than for transportation. Containers used for storage must be non leaking and covered. Wipes sent offsite should be in containers that are designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment. Mr. Bourdeau was surprised that the proposed rule did not require solvent reclamation, especially since that was the original purpose of the OW's proposed rule. 2 The second goal, as listed in the proposed rule, was to foster pollution prevention and recycle solvents. This EPA failed to do, since EPA did not even require solvent extraction. EPA did not achieve its goal. Simple hand wringing could remove 40% of the solvent.

Larry Groipen ERC Wiping Products, Inc. My life is wipes. I have an example. If I take 5 grams of liquid and place it on a paper wipe, it would look like this. If I take 70 grams of liquid and place it on a cloth shop towel, it would look like this. If I then wring the cloth towel out, I can remove 20 grams of liquid. The 5 grams is the limit EPA proposed for non woven towels. For laundered shop towels all that is required is that the wipe not drip. Mr. Groipen's customers use the wipes to clean not clean up spills. Most of the time, the wipes do not have much solvent on them.

Bourdeau Wipes should be wrung out to maximum extent possible. MA has had a program for 10 years requiring wringing for disposed towels. MA allows the wipes to go to a landfill if the wipe does not drip after hand wringing. MA has not noticed substantial risk to the environment from its policy. Surveyed the states for programs on laundered wipes and found that at least half have some type of wringing requirement. Wringing of the wipes would result in more generation of liquid hazardous waste. This would provide an incentive for the generators to look for substitutes and to use less solvent.

The third goal of the proposed rule was to simplify the state requirements. The rule doesn't accomplish that. There are four sets of requirements: laundry, landfills, incinerator, and handlers. Many of the wipe users don't know where the wipe will end up until it is collected for disposal. The current regulations give an unfair advantage for the laundries. Additionally, the proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste is unlawful. The legal basis used was the commodity likeness of the laundered wipe. This goes against every single exclusion to date that EPA has given. EPA has always required substantial treatment to meet the commodity like condition. The propose rule is granting a recycling condition in spite of no solvent being recycled. This raises two issues. One, have we gone through years just to have the rule dead on arrival and two, what is the precedent that is being set for recycling a non hazardous waste and allowing the hazardous waste to be disposed.

This rule has been in progress for years. It has been 21 years since the original petition. We want to encourage you to find the resources to get this done. We would like to see it promulgated as soon as possible but at least before the end of this administration.

There are three changes we think are necessary. 1) Replace the 5 grams with no free liquids accomplished by hand wringing. 2) Require the same labeling, training, storage conditions for both types of wipes. 3) The exclusion for all wipes should be from the definition of hazardous waste.

During a presentation that Susan gave at the RCRA National Meeting, she challenged OSW on its goals. This would be a good rule for that.

Susan asked Karl if controls are necessary for solvent contaminated wipes going to laundries or landfills in order to protect human health and the environment. Mr. Bourdeau believes hand wringing would make the wipes less risky. Susan asked if this would rise to a level of concern. 3 Mr. Bourdeau stated that wringing wipes would be comparable to EPA's empty drum regulations. It is very similar the maximum amount of solvent is removed from the wipe and any remaining solvent on the wipe would be de minimus.

Brad Reynolds Kimberly Clark There is a misconception that laundered wipes are more environmentally friendly. That is not necessarily true. Many times the wipes have toxics along for the ride and the sludge is aqueous. In addition, more laundry sludge goes to landfills.

Mr. Groipen wanted to know what it would make this rule a priority. Susan said she will review the rule and the information provided. 4 Attendees:

Brad Reynolds Kimberly Clark 770 587 8443 breynold@ kkc. com Dave Kovitz Kimberly Clark 770 587 7319 dkovitz@ kkc. com Larry Groipen ERC Wiping Products, Inc. 781 593 4000 larry@ ercwip. com Peter Mayberry INDA 703 538 8805 pgmayberry@ aol. com Bernard Brill SMART 301 656 1077x101 bernie@ smartasn. org Karl Bourdeau Beveridge & Diamond 202 789 6019 kbourdeau@ bdlaw. com John Michaud EPA/ OGC 202 564 5518 michaud. john@ epa. gov Carolyn Hoskinson EPA/ OSWER 202 566 0190 hoskinson. carolyn@ epa. gov Susan Bodine EPA/ OSWER 202 566 0200 bodine. susan@ epa. gov Matt Hale EPA/ OSW 703 308 0635 hale. matt@ epa. gov Teena Wooten EPA/ OSW 703 308 8751 wooten. teena@ epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 6778]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

February 01, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1232-003.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.203: 01/31/11 NAESB filing to retract index-based
capacity releases to be effective 2/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110131-5264.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1136-002.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
154.203: Include Section numbers in Tariff Record Files to be effective
8/31/2010.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110201-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: CP05-92-008.
    Applicants: Liberty Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing of Liberty Gas Storage, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101206-5106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 7, 2011.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2708 Filed 2-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P