[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17289]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 15, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 102

[Docket No. 92P-0476]

 

Crabmeat; Amendment of Common or Usual Name Regulation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend 
the common or usual name regulation for crabmeat by adding the species 
Lithodes aequispina to those listed in this regulation and by providing 
that the common or usual name of crabmeat derived from this species is 
``Brown King crabmeat.'' This proposal is in response to a citizen 
petition submitted by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI).

DATES: Written comments by September 13, 1994. The agency proposes that 
any final rule that may issue based on this proposal become effective 
30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to the Dockets Management 
Branch (HFA-05), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-3, 12420 Parklawn 
Dr., Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary I. Snyder, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-16), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. 
SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-254-3888.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Crabmeat Labeling

    The Shellfish Promotion Committee of ASMI, 1011 Western Ave., suite 
603, Seattle, WA 98104, filed a petition on December 17, 1992, to amend 
the common or usual name regulation for crabmeat (Sec. 102.50 (21 CFR 
102.50)) to provide that the common or usual name of crabmeat derived 
from the species L. aequispina is ``Brown King crabmeat.''
    Section 102.50 lists the following genera and species and the 
associated common or usual name of their crabmeat: Paralithodes 
camtschatica and P. platypus as King crabmeat; P. brevipes as King 
crabmeat or Hanasaki crabmeat; Erimacrus isenbeckii as Korean variety 
crabmeat or Kegani crabmeat; and Chionoecetes opilio, Chionoecetes 
tanneri, Chionoecetes bairdii, and Chionoecetes angulatus as Snow 
crabmeat. Thus, Sec. 102.50 provides that only the crabmeat from three 
species of the genus Paralithodes may be called ``King crabmeat.''
    FDA has been dealing with common or usual name issues involving 
crabmeat since 1954. In the Federal Register of April 8, 1954 (19 FR 
2013), FDA announced its policy for the appropriate labeling of 
imported canned crabmeat. FDA stated that the term ``King crabmeat'' is 
an acceptable common name for the product prepared from any one of the 
above three Paralithodes species, and that ``Hanasaki crabmeat'' was an 
acceptable alternative common name for a product prepared from P. 
brevipes. FDA later codified these and the other common or usual names 
for crabmeat in Sec. 102.7 when it promulgated 21 CFR part 102 in 1973 
(38 FR 6964 at 6966, March 14, 1973). (Section 102.7 was later 
redesignated as Sec. 102.50 (42 FR 14322, March 15, 1977)).
    FDA's policy on the labeling of the crabmeat of species not listed 
in Sec. 102.50 is set forth in the agency's Compliance Policy Guide 
(CPG 7108.04). Under this policy, products derived from domestic 
sources that are labeled as ``crabmeat,'' without qualification, are 
generally accepted to have been derived from Callinectes sapidus (blue 
crab). In other cases, the agency encourages the use of a prefix that 
identifies the country where the crab was caught (e.g., ``Taiwan 
Crabmeat'').

B. Common or Usual Name Provisions

    The common or usual name of a food is the prevalent and meaningful 
name by which consumers ordinarily identify a specific food. This 
vernacular name may lack the specificity of the scientific or technical 
name of a food, but an appropriate common or usual name permits the 
public to unambiguously distinguish between similar foods that are 
available in the marketplace. The common or usual name of a food may be 
established by a history of common usage or by regulation. Section 
102.5 requires that the common or usual name of a food accurately 
identify, in simple and direct terms, the basic nature of the food and 
its characterizing properties. The name must be uniform among all 
identical or similar products. In fact, under Sec. 101.3(b)(1), a food 
with a common or usual name that has been established by regulation is 
misbranded if it is not identified by that name.
    Before establishing a common or usual name by regulation, FDA must 
conclude that the proposed name is not false or misleading within the 
meaning of section 403(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(the act) (21 U.S.C. 343(a)) and that the name for the food conforms 
with the provisions of Sec. 102.5. Moreover, to prevent confusion and 
deceptive economic practices, the agency must ensure that a proposed 
common or usual name is not inappropriately similar to one that has 
already been established by regulation. Therefore, suitable identifying 
terms in the proposed name are necessary to ensure that consumers can 
distinguish one product from another similar product (28 FR 10900, 
October 11, 1963).
    In the case of crabmeat, the common or usual name ``King crabmeat'' 
identifies a food with the common characterizing properties that 
consumers in the United States associate with the meat of the large 
spider crabs found in the waters of the North Pacific. These King 
crabs, also known as ``Alaskan King Crabs,'' are characterized by a 
spiny shell, six long spidery legs, a large and a small claw, and a 
typical weight of about 4\1/2\ Kilograms (kg) (10 pounds (lb)) (Refs. 1 
and 2). Thus, the common name ``King crabmeat'' applies to the meat 
derived from any of three scientifically different crab species whose 
meats are sufficiently similar that consumers accept them as being 
interchangeable.
    This proposal, if finalized, will establish a new common or usual 
name that is similar to ``King crabmeat.'' FDA tentatively finds, 
however, that the similarity in names will not be deceptive because the 
ASMI petition includes data that show that the meat of L. aequispina 
and P. camtschatica (King crabmeat) are similar. Moreover, inclusion of 
the qualifying prefix ``brown'' in the proposed common or usual name 
for the meat of L. aequispina will help consumers to distinguish that 
crabmeat from that of the Paralithodes spp. Finally, data in the ASMI 
petition also show that ``Brown King crabmeat'' is the commonly 
accepted name for L. aequispina.

C. Previous King Crabmeat Petitions

    FDA has previously denied petitions to amend Sec. 102.50 to permit 
the use either of the term ``King crabmeat'' or a qualified version of 
that name as the common or usual name of crabmeat from either L. 
aequispina or L. antarctica (Docket Nos. 76P-182, 81P 0327/CP, and 84P-
046). In each instance, the agency concluded that the petitioner had 
not presented sufficient evidence of the comparability of the meats of 
the Lithodes spp. with the King crabmeat of the Paralithodes spp. to 
support the requested amendment (Refs. 3, 4, 5, and 6). In these 
denials the agency held that a petitioner must demonstrate that each of 
the significant characteristics of King crabmeat that are valued by 
consumers is present in the new species before the agency will permit 
meat from that species to be identified in Sec. 102.50 as ``King 
crabmeat.''
    The petition that FDA denied in 1978 (Docket No. 76P-182) requested 
that the common or usual name ``King crabmeat'' be established for L. 
aequispina. The agency denied the petition primarily because it found 
that, based on the limited numbers of L. aequispina marketed at that 
time, there was not a sufficient basis to find that there was a common 
or usual name for the species (Ref. 6). The available information on 
the name by which this species was commonly known within the industry 
showed that it was referred to by various names, including ``brown 
crab'' and ``golden crab,'' as well as ``King crab'' and ``golden King 
crab.''

II. Grounds for the Petition

A. Introduction

    The ASMI petition requests that FDA amend Sec. 102.50 to include 
the species L. aequispina and provide for the use of ``Brown King 
crabmeat'' as the common or usual name of its crabmeat. In support of 
the amendment, the petition provides: (1) Data and results of tests 
that compare L. aequispina with P. camtschatica. The tests scored the 
preferences of a consumer panel for the taste, texture, appearance, and 
appropriateness of labeling each species as King crabmeat; (2) 
photographs that compare the size and color of the cooked legs and 
claws of these species; (3) literature bearing on crab fishery 
practices, marketing, and the nomenclature and comparative morphology 
of L. aequispina and other crab species; (4) a compilation of the 
average measurements of the shoulder, merus, carpus, and propodus for 
the crab legs used in the consumer panel visual display to determine 
preference for ``King crab'' labeling; and (5) ten letters from major 
processors of Alaska King crab and a letter from the National Fisheries 
Institute endorsing the petition and attesting that consumers and the 
industry accept L. aequispina (``Alaska golden or brown crab'') as King 
crab.

B. Brown or Golden King Crab

1. Market Acceptance as King Crabmeat
    The ASMI states that L. aequispina has been commonly identified, 
marketed, and accepted as ``Gold,'' ``Golden,'' or ``Brown King crab'' 
since the early 1980's, when its fishery began to develop. The ASMI 
also states that no resistance or confusion has arisen from the general 
buying public concerning the use of the term ``King crab'' to describe 
the product. The petitioner further states that increased demand and 
recent developments in deep water harvesting technology have resulted 
in a significant commercial fishery for L. aequispina, and that, over 
the last decade, as the availability of P. camtschatica and P. platypus 
has decreased, the demand for and supply of L. aequispina has grown. 
The petition states that as a result of these factors, L. aequispina 
has become a major source of King crabmeat in the United States, 
whereas the supply of crabmeat from P. camtschatica and P. platypus has 
been greatly reduced and is often limited to a few market areas.
    As discussed above, FDA concluded in 1978 that the use of the term 
``golden'' or ``brown crab'' for L. aequispina was not sufficiently 
common in U.S. markets to be established as the common or usual name 
for this food. However, the available evidence shows that, beginning in 
the 1980's, the size of the commercial catch of L. aequispina has 
increased to a large fraction of what the industry has called the 
``total King crab harvest.'' For example, from 1981 to 1982, L. 
aequispina represented 1.4 percent of the total Alaskan King crab catch 
(Paralithodes spp. plus L. aequispina) in the western region. From 1983 
to 1984, it represented 21.7 percent of the total catch (see Docket No. 
84P-0046).
    In addition to the information in the petition, FDA has sought to 
corroborate the general acceptance of L. aequispina as a King crab, and 
that it is commonly known as ``brown'' King crab, by consulting 
authoritative references on nomenclature for aquatic species, as well 
as the scientific and trade literature. All of these sources commonly 
refer to L. aequispina as either ``golden King crab'' or ``brown King 
crab'' (Refs. 2 and 7 through 12).
    FDA relied in part on publications of the American Fisheries 
Society (``List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the 
United States and Canada'') in preparing a guide to acceptable common 
and market names for the species of food fish sold in U.S. interstate 
commerce that do not have common or usual names established by 
regulation (54 FR 12284, March 24, 1989). The American Fisheries 
Society Special Publication 17, ``Common and Scientific Names of 
Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Decapod 
Crustaceans,'' addresses adherence to uniform scientific and common 
nomenclature of aquatic invertebrates (Ref. 9). L. aequispina is among 
the species recognized in this compilation under the family heading 
``Lithodidae-stone and King crabs.'' This compilation also identifies 
this species with the common name ``golden King crab.''
    Similarly, a compilation that focuses on the fishery region of 
interest, ``Alaska's Saltwater Fishes and Other Sea Life, A Field 
Guide'', prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, identifies L. aequispina as ``Golden King Crab, Brown King 
Crab, or Deep Water Crab'' (Ref. 7). This source also presents 
illustrations and the dimensions of the species listed.
    A nomenclature reference with an international perspective, ``Fish: 
Five-Language Dictionary of Fish, Crustaceans and Molluscs,'' lists L. 
aequispina as ``golden King crab'' (Ref. 10).
    Literature unrelated to species identification or nomenclature also 
distinguishes L. aequispina as a King crab. For example, a treatise 
dealing with the diseases of aquatic species, ``Principal Diseases of 
Marine Fish and Shellfish,'' refers to this species as ``golden king 
crabs'' (Ref. 11). Similarly, an article reporting a joint government/
industry ocean survey to gather information on the size of L. 
aequispina at maturity is entitled ``Brown King Crab'' (Ref. 8), and 
regulations of the Alaska Board of Fisheries for Commercial Fishing in 
Alaska identify the species as ``brown king crab'' (Ref. 15).
    Correspondingly, trade periodicals dealing with the market price 
and availability of King crab consistently classify or refer to L. 
aequispina as a King crab (prefaced by either ``golden'' or ``brown'') 
and commonly regard it as an Alaskan King crab (Refs. 2, 12, and 13). 
Thus, the agency tentatively finds that these names for L. aequispina 
have been commonly used in the United States for about a decade, and 
that this usage, in contrast with the situation in 1978, supports the 
requested amendment of Sec. 102.50.
    In addressing the similarities between L. aequispina and P. 
camtschatica, the petition does not address the value that the 
marketplace ascribes to each species, as reflected by the market prices 
they command. Nor does the petition address whether establishing the 
proposed common or usual name for L. aequispina will affect the price 
of its meat. FDA believes that in the case of unprocessed raw products 
such as crabs, consumers and crabmeat processors will normally pay a 
comparable price for similar products that are equally desirable. For 
example, from January 1990 to January 1992, prices for ``King'' crab 
legs and claws (12/14 count) were reported to have varied from $2.10 to 
$3.85 more per pound than those of ``Brown King'' (21/24 count) (Ref. 
12). In 1988, graded sections of P. camtschatica were $1.75 to $2.00 
more per pound than those of Brown King crab (Ref. 13). Thus, although 
L. aequispina is classified and sold as a King crab, the substantial 
price difference between these species means that they are not 
typically regarded as interchangeable foods by the marketplace.
    A certain amount of the price differential between these species 
may be attributable to the current scarcity of the Paralithodes spp. 
However, FDA believes that most of the difference in price is a result 
of the disparity in size. The agency recognizes that one of the primary 
distinguishing and valued features of Paralithodes spp. is their large 
size relative to other crabs. Therefore, fair dealing and the interest 
of the consumer require that, among other considerations, any crabmeat 
that is labeled either as ``King crabmeat'' or as a variety of King 
crabmeat (e.g., Brown King crabmeat) should be derived from a species 
of crab that has dimensions that are similar to those which consumers 
associate with King crab (Paralithodes spp.).
    Literature in the petition (Ref. 7) shows that the length of L. 
aequispina (listed as ``Golden King Crab,'' ``Brown King Crab,'' or 
``Deep Water Crab''), measured across the body shell (carapace), is 23 
centimeters (cm) (9 inches (in)), and that its width is up to 23 cm (9 
in). The respective carapace dimensions for P. camtschatica and P. 
platypus are given as: 23 cm (9 in) and up to 28 cm (11 in) across the 
carapace; 20 cm (8 in) and up to 25 cm (10 in) in width.
    These dimensions show that while L. aequispina is not as large as 
the two Paralithodes spp., selected examples of the three species can 
be comparable in overall body size. The actual sizes of the crabs 
generally available to the consumer or crabmeat processor, however, are 
governed by the size of the crabs customarily found in the commercial 
catch. This size, in turn, may be determined more by the minimum 
harvestable size imposed for a specific harvesting area or fishery, 
than by the larger sizes that are known to exist but are not caught in 
significant numbers.
    The larger sizes of L. aequispina apparently are not caught in 
significant numbers (Ref. 8). As a consequence, the minimum legal size 
limit for harvest in some fishery areas might be reduced to crabs as 
small as 13.75 cm (5\1/2\ in) in carapace width, to make the fishery 
commercially viable for L. aequispina (Ref. 8). The agency believes 
that these factors may result in crab parts and crabmeat chunks that 
typically are somewhat smaller than those of the Paralithodes spp.
    The petition states that because each of the species is harvested 
from widespread areas in Alaskan waters, the size of the crabs has 
always varied. To compensate for this variation, the legs and claws are 
repacked to provide uniform counts per 4\1/2\-kg (10-lb) unit. Thus, 
the petitioner contends that the retailer and the consumer will get a 
uniform range of sizing regardless of which species of Lithodes or 
Paralithodes is purchased as ``King crab.'' However, as described 
above, the generally lower market price of L. aequispina indicates that 
providing uniform counts per unit weight does not cause processors and 
consumers to accept its meat as interchangeable with that of the 
Paralithodes spp.
2. Comparative Sensory Testing
    The petitioner states that in establishing an appropriate common or 
usual name, consumers must be protected from deceptive practices, but 
that the proposed name is justified because there are more similarities 
than differences between L. aequispina crabmeat and that of the three 
species of Paralithodes listed in Sec. 102.50. The petition states that 
the crabmeat from all four species is nearly identical in flavor, 
texture, and color. The petition describes a slight variation in the 
reddish hue of the carotenoid layer surrounding the white meat of each 
leg segment of L. aequispina but states that there is a range of the 
reddish hue in the meat between samples of any one species. Photographs 
comparing the cooked legs and claws of L. aequispina and P. 
camtschatica demonstrate that these pieces share a similar color and 
morphology.
    Consumer acceptance studies were conducted with a total of 158 
individuals tested in three geographic areas (Chicago, Los Angeles, and 
New York City). The tests compared L. aequispina with P. camtschatica 
by rating consumer preference, in terms of degree of ``liking,'' based 
on the appearance of previously frozen crab legs and the taste and 
texture of their crabmeat, presented as precooked split merus (the 
section of the leg of a king crab which is closest to the shoulder 
(Ref. 16)) portions in the shell. The test panel also rated the 
appropriateness of labeling each species' crabmeat as ``King crab,'' 
based on a display of cooked, whole crab legs. All products were from 
crab legs sized 16/20 pieces per 4\1/2\ kg (10 lb).
    The sensory characteristics of the samples were evaluated on a 
hedonic scale, ranging from 9 for ``like extremely'' to 1 for ``dislike 
extremely.'' The reported average scores in each of the four rated 
categories of ``liking'' (overall degree of liking, appearance, flavor, 
and texture) for each species were not statistically different at the 
90 percent confidence level, and these average scores were 
approximately 7 on the hedonic scale (like moderately) for each 
category. The averaged results thus indicate that the panel members 
found no significant differences between the crabmeats of the two 
species. However, a slightly greater number of responses in the top 
degrees of liking (extremely and very much) indicated a consistent 
margin of preference for P. camtschatica across these four categories.
    Analysis of the data by FDA confirmed the reported results but 
found that the results for all of the categories evaluated were 
dependent on the order in which the species were presented (Ref. 14). 
The ratings for ``appearance'' showed that the respondents that were 
given the P. camtschatica crabmeat first rated it significantly higher 
(p <0.01) than they rated L. aequispina. When the species were 
presented to other respondents in the reverse order, L. aequispina was 
rated significantly higher (p < 0.01). Similarly, when rated for 
``flavor,'' P. camtschatica meat scored significantly higher (p < 0.01) 
if presented first, while the reverse order of presentation resulted in 
flavor ratings that were about the same on average (p <0.15). In the 
case of the rating for ``overall'' acceptance, respondents that were 
given P. camtschatica crabmeat first rated it significantly higher (p 
<0.001) than L. aequispina, while those presented with the products in 
the reverse order rated the two products about the same on average (p 
<0.15). A similar pattern was found for the ``texture'' ratings.
    The ratings for the appropriateness of labeling either crab as 
``King crab,'' based on the appearance of the whole crab legs, resulted 
in a statistically significant higher mean score for L. aequispina. 
However, the petition does not state to what degree the display 
represented the most commonly available leg sizes of each species. 
Again, however, FDA analysis of the data indicated that the order of 
presentation appeared to affect the results. Respondents observing P. 
camtschatica legs first rated L. aequispina significantly higher (p 
<0.001) than P. camtschatica. When given in the reverse order, the two 
products were rated about the same on average (p >0.25).
    The apparent dependence of the preferences expressed by the panel 
on the order of species presentation raises questions about the 
adequacy of the statistical design of the study. However, FDA does not 
believe that the effects observed from the order of species 
presentation are of a type or an extent that invalidates the overall 
test panel results, which show that the crabmeats are similar. For 
example, in four of the five categories evaluated, reversing the order 
in which the crabmeat was presented (e.g., L. aequispina before P. 
camtschatica) did not result in L. aequispina being favored over P. 
camtschatica, as might be expected if there was a meaningful 
correlation between preference and order of presentation. Instead, 
those served L. aequispina first rated the two crabmeats about the same 
on average, suggesting that any bias introduced by the order of 
crabmeat presentation was not a determining factor in the overall panel 
ratings. Therefore, FDA tentatively concludes that the approximately 
equivalent average scores for each species in each of the four sensory 
categories compared are valid findings, and that they are sufficient to 
demonstrate that the test panels found that the two crabmeats are 
similar foods when compared for flavor, texture, appearance, and 
overall degree of liking.
    Thus, with respect to these sensory attributes, the results are 
consistent with the conclusion that the use of the terms ``King 
crabmeat'' in the common or usual name of L. aequispina is not 
misleading. Inasmuch as the proposed amendment will establish a common 
name for a similar but separate type of ``King crabmeat,'' FDA 
tentatively finds that tests showing that consumers accept the meat of 
L. aequispina as identical to, or interchangeable with, that of the 
three Paralithodes species are not necessary.

III. The Proposed Regulation

    While the petition seeks to demonstrate the similarity between the 
important characteristics of L. aequispina meat and that of the largest 
of the Paralithodes crabs, the petitioner's proposed amendment requests 
the use of a common or usual name other than ``King crabmeat.''
    FDA believes that the data and information submitted in the 
petition, as well as other information available to the agency, support 
a tentative conclusion that L. aequispina is now widely accepted in the 
United States as a bonafide King crab. This tentative conclusion is 
based primarily on the use of the term ``King crab'' in the names 
commonly used to identify it in the scientific and trade literature 
(i.e., golden, gold, brown, and deep water King crab), as well as its 
relative size and a decade of substantial sales and acceptance in the 
United States as a type of King crab.
    However, the agency also recognizes that L. aequispina is a 
different genus than the species commonly known as ``King crab'' in the 
United States, and that its somewhat smaller size and lower market 
value clearly differentiate it from traditional King crab of the genus 
Paralithodes. Consequently, FDA agrees with the petitioner, and one of 
the processors that endorsed the petition by letter, that the crabmeat 
of L. aequispina should be identified by a qualifying prefix that will 
make consumers aware that it is not identical to the King crabmeat of 
the three Paralithodes species listed in Sec. 102.50. Therefore, 
because the requested name is a modified form of an established common 
name for a similar food, FDA tentatively concludes that the proposed 
name will not confuse or mislead consumers. FDA has tentatively 
concluded the modified name ``Brown King crabmeat'' appropriately sets 
this product apart from ``King crabmeat,'' and that ``Brown'' suitably 
serves to identify and distinguish this similar but specific type of 
crabmeat. Moreover, the name ``Brown King crabmeat'' has the benefit of 
a history of common use that should augment the recognition among 
consumers of the differences between these two foods.
    The agency is aware that L. aequispina also has been commonly 
referred to as ``Golden King crab.'' Nonetheless, FDA discourages the 
use of the name ``Golden King crabmeat,'' because its use as a 
statement of identity on food labels could mislead consumers. FDA 
believes that the use of the prefix ``golden'' connotes a superior 
quality or premium grade of crabmeat and thereby could unfairly affect 
the price that consumers are willing to pay for the product. 
Conversely, the agency tentatively concludes that the common or usual 
name ``Brown King crabmeat'' does not convey similar ambiguous 
implications about the nature or value of the crabmeat. FDA tentatively 
finds that this name is consistent with fair dealing and the interest 
of the consumer and should not unfairly affect the price of L. 
aequispina crabmeat.
    As provided by Sec. 101.3(b)(1), adoption by FDA of the proposed 
amendment will require that the meat of L. aequispina be labeled as 
``Brown King crabmeat.'' The agency tentatively finds that the 
consistent use of this term will benefit consumers by providing a 
consistent statement of identity, thereby precluding the use of various 
potentially misleading names in or on labels and labeling pertaining to 
this food.
    The common or usual name ``Brown King crabmeat'' will provide 
consumers with a common or usual name for L. aequispina crabmeat that 
not only accurately identifies the basic nature of the food in simple 
and direct terms as a meat derived from a King crab, but also provides 
consumers with added characterizing information that will enable them 
to distinguish it from traditional ``King crabmeat.''
    Therefore, after a careful review of the petition and consideration 
of all of the available information, FDA is proposing to amend 
Sec. 102.50, by adding the crabmeat of the species L. aequispina, 
identified by the common or usual name ``Brown King crabmeat.'' This 
proposal is based in part on the acceptance of L. aequispina as a 
``Brown King crab'' by the fishery industry and in the marketplace and 
in part on the similarity of its meat in taste, texture, and appearance 
with King crabmeat, as demonstrated by consumer acceptance studies.

IV. Analysis of Impacts

    FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive 
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354). 
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies 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). The agency believes that 
this proposed rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and 
principles identified in the Executive Order. In addition, the proposed 
rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive 
Order and so is not subject to review under the Executive Order.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze 
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule 
on small entities. Because L. aequispina has been marketed for 10 years 
as golden or brown King crab, FDA estimates that there are no costs of 
the proposed rule from labeling changes or for any other reason, the 
agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further analysis is required.

V. Environmental Impact

    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(b)(1) 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.

VI. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets 
Management Branch (address above) and may be seen by interested persons 
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    1. ``The Seafood Handbook, Seafood Standards, Establishing 
Guidelines for Quality,'' published by Seafood Business Magazine, 
Rockland, ME, Journal Publications, 1991.
    2. Miller, R.J., ``North American Crab Fisheries: Regulations 
and Their Rationales,'' Fisheries Bulletin, 74 (3):623, 1976.
    3. Letter to Arne L. Abrams, Wendt International, Inc., from 
Joseph P. Hile, FDA, April 12, 1982.
    4. Letter to Patrick J. Ricci, Seven Seas, Inc., from Joseph P. 
Hile, FDA, April 30, 1984.
    5. Letter to Raquel B. Flisfisch, Embassy of Chile, ProChile 
Chilean Government Trade Bureau, from Joseph P. Hile, FDA, September 
28, 1984.
    6. Letter to Charles O. Perkins, Technical Services, New England 
Fish Company, from Joseph P. Hile, FDA, September 11, 1978.
    7. Kessler, Doyne W., ``Alaska's Saltwater Fishes and Other Sea 
Life, A Field Guide,'' The National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska 
Northwest Publishing Co., Anchorage, AK, p. 27, 1985.
    8. Benveniste, K., ``Brown King Crab,'' Pacific Fishing, p. 44, 
October 1983.
    9. Williams, Austin B., Lawrence G. Abele, et al., ``Common and 
Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and 
Canada: Decapod Crustaceans,'' American Fisheries Society Special 
Publication 17, p. 33, 1989.
    10. Krane, W., ``Fish: Five-Language Dictionary of Fish, 
Crustaceans and Molluscs,'' Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 96, 1986.
    11. Sindermann, C. J., ``Principal Diseases of Marine Fish and 
Shellfish,'' vol. 2, 2d ed., Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, p. 
193, 1990.
    12. ``North Pacific Crab,'' Seafood Leader, 12(2):213, 1992.
    13. ``Buyer's Guide,'' Seafood Leader, 8:275, 1988.
    14. Memorandum from Foster D. McClure, Statistical Analysis 
Branch, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, to Spring 
C. Randolph, Office of Seafood, FDA, November 1, 1993.
    15. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Regulations of the 
Alaska Board of Fisheries and Commercial Fishing in Alaska, p. 128, 
1990.
    16. Dore, Ian, ``Fresh Seafood,'' The Commercial Buyers Guide, 
Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 210, 1984.

VII. Comments

    Interested persons may, on or before September 13, 1994, submit to 
the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments 
regarding this proposal. Two copies of any comments are to be 
submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to 
be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading 
of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office above 
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 102

    Beverages, Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Frozen foods, 
Oils and fats, Onions, Potatoes, Seafood.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs , it is 
proposed that 21 CFR part 102 be amended as follows:

PART 102--COMMON OR USUAL NAME FOR NONSTANDARDIZED FOODS

    1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 102 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 201, 403, 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 343, 371).

    2. Section 102.50 is amended by revising the table to read as 
follows:


Sec. 102.50    Crabmeat.

* * * * * 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Scientific name of crab          Common or usual name of crabmeat 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chionoecetes opilio, Chionoecetes    Snow crabmeat.                     
 tanneri, Chionoecetes bairdii, and                                     
 Chionoecetes angulatus.                                                
Erimacrus isenbeckii...............  Korean variety crabmeat or Kegani  
                                      crabmeat.                         
Lithodes aequispina................  Brown King crabmeat.               
Paralithodes brevipes..............  King crabmeat or Hanasaki crabmeat.
Paralithodes camtschatica and        King crabmeat.                     
 Paralithodes platypus.                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: June 30, 1994.
Michael R. Taylor,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 94-17289 Filed 7-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P