[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 140 (Friday, July 21, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37616-37620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17919]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. 93P-0448]


Food Labeling; Serving Sizes; Reference Amount for ``Salt, Salt 
Substitutes, Seasoning Salts (e.g., Garlic Salt)''

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend 
the nutrition labeling regulations to change the reference amount 
customarily consumed per eating occasion for the food category ``salt, 
salt substitutes, seasoning salts (e.g., garlic salt)'' from a weight-
based reference amount of 1 gram (g) to a volume-based reference amount 
of 1/4 teaspoon (tsp). This action is necessary to provide consistency 
with the agency's criteria for determining volumetric versus weight-
based reference amounts for all product categories.

DATES: Written comments by October 4, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch 
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr., 
Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen M. Anderson, Center for Food

[[Page 37617]]
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-165), Food and Drug Administration, 
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-5662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background-

    In the Federal Register of July 19, 1990 (55 FR 29517 at 29532), as 
part of its effort to make the food label more useful and 
understandable to consumers, FDA proposed standard serving sizes for 
159 food product categories based on the amount of food commonly 
consumed per eating occasion by persons 4 years of age or older. For 
the category ``salt, seasoning salt (e.g., garlic salt),'' the agency 
proposed a serving size of 1 g.
    On November 8, 1990, however, before FDA could issue a final rule 
in the serving size rulemaking, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling 
and Education Act of 1990 (the 1990 amendments). This statute amended 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to require that 
virtually all foods bear nutrition information that is based on a 
serving size that reflects the amount of food that is customarily 
consumed and that is expressed in a common household measure that is 
appropriate to the food (section 403(q)(1)(A)(i) of the act (21 U.S.C. 
343(q)(1)(A)(i))). The new law also directed FDA to adopt regulations 
that establish standards to define serving sizes (section 2(b)(1)(B) of 
the 1990 amendments (21 U.S.C. 343 note)).
    In response to the new law, FDA, among other actions, issued a 
reproposal on serving sizes (56 FR 60394, November 27, 1991). In that 
reproposal, FDA carried forward the 1-g value for salt, although it 
called this amount the ``reference amount customarily consumed'' to 
reflect the requirements of the new law. FDA chose this amount based in 
part on its tentative determination to use weight-based amounts except 
in those instances in which it was demonstrably inappropriate to do so. 
The agency also included salt substitutes in the food category for salt 
and seasoning salts.
    FDA received three comments on the proposed reference amount for 
salt (58 FR 2229 at 2260, January 6, 1993). One comment agreed with the 
proposed 1-g reference amount. The second comment also agreed with this 
amount, but it requested a voluntary declaration based on 1/4 tsp. The 
third comment argued that a weight-based reference amount was 
inappropriate for salt and requested that a volume-based reference 
amount be established. However, this comment did not include any data 
to support its assertions. Thus, in its final rule on serving sizes, 
FDA concluded that, in the absence of evidence to support a different 
reference amount, 1 g was the appropriate reference amount for ``salt, 
salt substitutes, seasoning salts (e.g., garlic salt)'' (58 FR 2229 at 
2297).

II. The Petition

    On November 19, 1993, FDA received a petition from Akzo Salt, Inc., 
that requested that FDA change the reference amount for salt from 1 g 
to a density-adjusted reference amount to be listed as ``x g-1/4 tsp.'' 
In support of its petition, the petitioner submitted the results of a 
consumer study of consumption patterns for salt and low-density salt 
and analytical data comparing the physical properties (including 
density) of salt and low-density salt. The company stated that the low-
density salt product contains 33 percent less sodium by volume than 
regular table salt, that the consumer data demonstrate that equivalent 
volumes of low-density salt and regular salt are consumed, and that, 
therefore, consumers who use similar volumes of low-density and regular 
salt would consume 33 percent less sodium by using the low-density salt 
product rather than regular table salt. The company concluded that it 
should be permitted to communicate the benefits of its low-density salt 
product to consumers in a truthful manner, including making claims that 
would be prohibited under regulations established in response to the 
1990 amendments.
    On May 24, 1994, the petitioner amended its petition by submitting 
supplemental materials consisting of detailed information regarding the 
protocol, data tabulation, and results of the consumer study. The 
supplemental materials also included an independent evaluation of the 
results and conclusions of the consumer study.
    On February 2, 1994, FDA received a comment that requested that the 
agency reject the petition and take no further action with regard to 
salt and salt products. The comment stated that amending the reference 
amount as requested by the petitioner would permit a comparative claim 
that would be contrary to the letter and intent of the 1990 amendments, 
which the comment claimed was to provide for comparison of two distinct 
foods and not two versions of the same food. The comment also argued 
that the proposed change would undermine the overall structure of FDA's 
regulation of nutrient content claims by acting as an incentive for 
manufacturers to extend their products with air or other nonnutritive 
substances in order to make claims. Finally, the comment asserted that 
the consumer study data submitted in the petition were incorrect and 
insufficient. On April 14, 1994, FDA received a response by the 
petitioner to the various arguments made in this comment.
    FDA has carefully considered the information in this petition, the 
supplemental submission, and the comments. Based on its review, FDA 
finds that the petitioner has made a prima-facie case that a volume-
based reference amount of 1/4 tsp for salt is more appropriate than the 
reference amount that FDA adopted in 1993 (Ref. 1). Therefore, in 
accordance with 21 CFR 10.30(e)(2)(i), FDA is granting the petition and 
proposing to change the reference amount for ``salt, salt substitutes, 
seasoning salts (e.g., garlic salt)'' from 1 g to 1/4 tsp. A discussion 
of the basis for the agency's action on the petition and for the 
proposed change in the reference amount follows.

III. Basis for the Proposed Action

A. The Appropriateness of a Weight-Based Reference Amount

    As stated above, in the final rule on serving sizes, FDA adopted a 
weight-based reference amount of 1 g for ``salt, salt substitutes, 
seasoning salts (e.g., garlic salt)'' based on the agency's 
determination to use weight-based reference amounts unless such amounts 
were shown to be demonstrably inappropriate (58 FR 2229 at 2238) and on 
the lack of data showing that a weight-based reference amount was 
inappropriate for salt.
     In the final rule on serving sizes, however, FDA outlined the 
circumstances in which a weight-based reference amount would not 
adequately reflect the amount of food customarily consumed per eating 
occasion (see comment 20 in 58 FR 2229 at 2238). The agency stated that 
weight-based reference amounts are inappropriate when foods within a 
product category vary considerably in density, that is, there is a 
density difference of 25 percent or more among the products in the 
category (see Sec. 101.12(e) (21 CFR 101.12(e))), and the customarily 
consumed amounts for different products are more uniform when expressed 
in volume than in weight. As an example, the agency explained that, 
although the reference amount for the category ``Mixed Dishes: 
Measurable with cup, * * *'' is 1 cup, the g weights of different types 
of products within the category differ widely from about 160 g for 
seafood with vegetables without sauce to about 250 g for seafood stew. 
The use of a weight-based reference amount for this product category 
would result in serving sizes too large for some

[[Page 37618]]
products and too small for others. However, FDA found, based on 
consumption and usage data, that the volume amounts customarily 
consumed are similar for all products within this category. Thus, the 
agency concluded that a volume-based reference amount, rather than a 
weight-based reference amount, was appropriate for this class of foods.
    Similarly, FDA changed the reference amount for peanut butter from 
``30 g'' in the proposal to a volume-based amount of ``2 tbsp'' in the 
final rule in response to data demonstrating that there is a density 
variation of greater than 25 percent among peanut butters (whipped 
peanut butter is approximately 33 percent less dense than regular 
peanut butter), and that common cookbook usage of peanut butter is 
expressed by volume (e.g., tablespoon and cup) demonstrating that the 
amount customarily consumed in recipes that include peanut butter is 
measured by volume and not by weight (see comment 108 in the final rule 
for serving sizes, 58 FR 2229 at 2263). FDA concluded that the volume-
based amount more accurately reflected the amount customarily consumed 
of the various types of peanut butter.
    The agency does not agree with the comment that it received on the 
petition that a comparative claim between two versions of the same food 
(i.e., salt and low-density salt) would be contrary to the letter and 
intent of the 1990 amendments and would undermine FDA's regulation of 
nutrient content claims by encouraging the use of nonnutritive 
substances in order to make claims. In addition to providing for claims 
that compare similar kinds of foods (e.g., potato chips can serve as a 
reference food for potato chips) (see 21 CFR 101.13(j)), FDA provided 
procedures in Sec. 101.12(e) to define reference amounts for aerated 
products to permit comparison of equal volumes of the aerated and 
nonaerated versions.
    One purpose of the 1990 amendments was to help consumers maintain 
healthy dietary practices (see e.g., sections 403(q)(1) and 
(r)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the act). In comment 138, in the final rule for 
serving sizes (58 FR 2229 at 2271), FDA specifically stated:
    In light of the current dietary guidelines for reducing fat and 
calorie intakes * * *, FDA acknowledges that it is desirable to have 
a wide selection of low fat and low calorie foods available to 
consumers. Some consumers may benefit from having such aerated foods 
if they consume an equivalent volume of aerated food as they would 
have the regular food, e.g., two instead of three aerated waffles.
Similarly, given the dietary guidelines recommending that people use 
salt and sodium in moderation (Refs. 3 through 5), if consumers consume 
equivalent volumes of low-density salt and regular salt, then it would 
be beneficial for consumers to have a variety of products available 
that are permitted to compare the sodium content of different types of 
salt and salt substitute products.
    FDA has reviewed the materials in the petition and in the 
supplemental submission and comments. Based on this review, the agency 
concludes that the petitioner has made a prima-facie showing that a 
weight-based reference amount is not appropriate for salt. First, the 
density difference between low-density salt and conventional table salt 
is reported in the petition to be 33 percent, which supports that the 
densities of the foods in the salt products category vary considerably. 
Second, the consumer research data included in the supplemental 
submission provide evidence that similar volumes, rather than similar 
weights, of low- and high-density salt products are customarily 
consumed. For these reasons, FDA has tentatively determined that a 
weight-based reference amount is not appropriate for salt products. 
Therefore, FDA is proposing to make a change in the reference amount 
for salt.

B. Relief Requested of a Density-Adjusted Reference Amount

    The petition requested a density-adjusted reference amount for the 
product category ``salt, salt substitutes, seasoning salts (e.g., 
garlic salt).'' However, there are several difficulties with using a 
density-adjusted reference amount for this product category.
    FDA discussed density-adjusted reference amounts in the context of 
aerated products, specifically waffles, in comment 138 in the final 
rule on serving sizes (58 FR 2229 at 2271). In response to requests for 
a volumetric reference amount for waffles, the agency noted that the 
wide variability in size and shape of discrete products like waffles 
makes it difficult to establish a volume for the aerated version that 
would be equivalent to the reference amount of the regular counterpart. 
Consequently, FDA permitted manufacturers to use density-adjusted 
reference amounts for aerated products in discrete units that vary 
widely in size and shape. The manufacturer adjusts for the difference 
in density of the aerated food relative to the regular product. For 
example, if the density of the aerated food is 30 percent lower than 
the density of the regular product, the density-adjusted reference 
amount for the aerated food would be 30 percent less than the reference 
amount of the regular counterpart.
    FDA tentatively finds that a density-adjusted reference amount 
would not be appropriate for salt products for three reasons. First, 
unlike waffles, which are sold and consumed in discrete units, salt 
products are bulk products that are measured by volume. An aerated 
reference amount (i.e., density adjusted) is not appropriate, because 
there are no discrete units such that the regular and the aerated 
versions are ``the same in size, shape, and volume'' (see 
Sec. 101.12(e)(1)).
    Second, applying the rounding specifications for aerated reference 
amounts leads to an absurdity for products with small reference amounts 
like salt. Section 101.12(e) of FDA's regulations specifies that the 
reference amount for an aerated food ``shall be rounded to the nearest 
5-g increment.'' The current reference amount for salt is 1 g. Thus, if 
a density-adjusted reference amount were calculated for a low-density 
salt product, it would be 0.67 g. Rounding 0.67 g to the nearest 5-g 
increment gives 0 g which is an illogical and nonsensical result.
    Finally, Sec. 101.12(e) requires that the product bear a 
descriptive term indicating that air has been incorporated (e.g., 
whipped, aerated). Describing the product as ``whipped salt'' or 
``aerated salt'' is apt to be confusing to consumers given that the 
appearance and the consistency of the two salts are very similar. For 
these reasons, the concept of a density-adjusted reference amount for 
salt products is not appropriate.

C. Consideration of a Volumetric Reference Amount

    The petition and supplemental submission support a volumetric 
reference amount for salt and salt products. As noted in the petition, 
in the proposed and final serving sizes regulations (56 FR 60394 and 58 
FR 2229), FDA discussed its approach to products like salt that can 
easily be measured volumetrically. As discussed above, the agency 
considers volumetric reference amounts appropriate when three criteria 
are met: (1) The product can easily be measured volumetrically, (2) the 
densities vary widely, and (3) the amount customarily consumed is more 
uniform when expressed as a volume rather than a weight.
    First, in order for a volumetric reference amount to be 
appropriate, the product must be a bulk product that can be measured 
volumetrically, such as peanut butter or fluids (final rule for serving 
sizes, comment 20, 58 FR 2229 at 2238 and comment 108, at 2263). Salt

[[Page 37619]]
and salt products can be measured volumetrically.
    Second, there must be a significant difference in the densities 
(i.e., 25 percent or more) of the different forms of the product such 
that a range of densities are represented within the product category 
(see discussions on aerated products in Sec. 101.12(e) and peanut 
butter (58 FR 2229 at 2263)). FDA considers the 33-percent density 
difference reported for low-density salt relative to conventional table 
salt to be significant and to justify a finding that the densities of 
different products within the category vary widely.
    Third, the amount customarily consumed must be more uniform when 
expressed volumetrically than when expressed gravimetrically (56 FR 
60394 at 60406 and 58 FR 2229 at 2238). There must be some indication 
or likelihood that similar volumes, rather than similar weights, of 
both low- and high-density products within the same product category 
are customarily consumed. The evidence must show that the amount that 
people consume is more consistent when expressed in volumetric terms 
than when expressed in terms of weight.
    In the final serving sizes regulation (58 FR 2229 at 2260), FDA 
rejected a request for a volume-based reference amount for salt 
products, even though salt products are measured volumetrically. The 
agency observed that ``[t]he comment did not submit any data to support 
that regular salt and the low-density salt are consumed equally on a 
volume basis.'' FDA noted that like sugar, salt is used as a flavoring 
agent to attain a given level of saltiness. Thus, the agency stated, 
the reference amount for a salt substitute, such as a low-density salt 
product, should be the amount necessary to provide a salty taste 
equivalent to one reference amount of salt.
    In reconsidering whether the amounts consumed of the various 
products within the salt category are more similar when expressed in 
terms of volume than in terms of weight, FDA looked at the quality of 
the supporting evidence submitted, including the study design, the 
results, and the conclusions. The agency evaluated the data provided in 
the supplementary submission and determined: (1) That the consumer 
research conducted on behalf of the petitioner is a reasonably well 
controlled experiment that meets scientific standards for testing 
household salt consumption differences due to two types of salt; and 
(2) that the result supports, but does not prove, the hypothesis that 
salt is used on a volumetric rather than on a weight basis (Ref. 2). 
Thus, FDA has tentatively concluded that the data provide evidence that 
similar volumes, rather than similar weights, of low- and high-density 
products are customarily consumed.
    Section 101.12(e), which applies to discrete products like waffles, 
requires that the aerated version bear a descriptive term indicating 
that air has been incorporated (e.g., whipped, aerated). Some product 
categories that have volumetric reference amounts contain products 
whose common or usual names clearly indicate that air has been 
incorporated into the product (e.g., whipped peanut butter, whipped 
dessert topping). Some products in other product categories with 
volumetric reference amounts do not bear such descriptive terms (e.g., 
pudding, ice cream). Given these differences, FDA is requesting 
comments on whether low-density salt products should be required to 
clearly identify that they contain more air than conventional salt 
products. It is the agency's opinion that terms such as ``whipped 
salt'' or ``aerated salt'' are apt to be confusing to consumers. 
Therefore, FDA is also requesting comments on what kind of descriptive 
terms would be clear and nonmisleading for consumers.

IV. Conclusion

    FDA has determined that volumetric reference amounts are 
appropriate when: (1) Products are bulk products that can be measured 
volumetrically; (2) there are significant differences in densities 
among the products within a product category such that a range of 
densities are represented within the particular product category; and 
(3) the amount customarily consumed is more uniform when expressed 
volumetrically, that is, there is some indication or likelihood that 
similar volumes, rather than similar weights, of both low- and high-
density products within the same product category are customarily 
consumed.
    The petition and supplemental submission contain information that 
evidences that similar volumes rather than similar weights of low- and 
high-density salt products are customarily consumed. Because the 
products within the category can be measured volumetrically, and the 
density difference among products within the same product category 
appear to be significant, FDA has concluded that the petitioner has 
made a prima facie showing that it is appropriate for the reference 
amount for salt and salt products to be expressed on a volumetric 
rather than a gravimetric (i.e., weight) basis.
    FDA is proposing to change the reference amount for salt andsalt 
products from 1 g to 1/4 tsp and to solicit public comment on the 
proposed change. The agency selected 1/4 tsp because it is the 
volumetric amount that most closely reflects the amount customarily 
consumed. It is the smallest volumetric amount permitted in the 
regulations (21 CFR 101.9(b)(5)(i)). In addition, the 1/4 tsp reference 
amount will permit comparison with herbs and spices which also have a 
reference amount of 1/4 tsp.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may, on or before October 4, 1995, 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.

VI. Environmental Impact-

    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(a)(11) 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.

VII. 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 there is no cost to industry, the agency 
certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant

[[Page 37620]]
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further analysis is required.

VIII. 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) Letter from Dykstra, Gary, to Wayne H. Matelski, dated July 
11, 1995.
    (2) Brenda Derby, Consumer Studies Branch, Division of Market 
Studies, memo to file, June 20, 1994.
    (3) U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and 
Human Services (DHHS), ``Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans,'' 3d ed., U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington, DC, 1990.
    (4) DHHS, ``The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and 
Health,'' U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1988.
    (5) National Research Council, ``Diet and Health. Implications 
for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk,'' National Academy Press, 
Washington, DC, 1989.

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, it is 
proposed that 21 CFR part 101 be amended as follows:

PART 101--FOOD LABELING

    1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 101 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 6 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act 
(15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455); secs. 201, 301, 402, 403, 409, 701 of 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342, 
343, 348, 371).

    2. Section 101.12 is amended in paragraph (b), Table 2, under the 
``Miscellaneous category'' by revising the entry for ``Salt, salt 
substitutes, seasoning salts (e.g., garlic salt)'' under the headings 
``Reference amount'' and ``Label statement'' to read as follows:


Sec. 101.12   Reference amounts customarily consumed per eating 
occasion.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

       Table 2.--Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed Per Eating Occasion: General Food Supply1, 2, 3, 4      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Product category                               Reference amount                        Label statement5 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  *                    *                    *                    *                    *                    *    
                                                             *                                                  
Miscellaneous category:                                                                                         
  *                    *                    *                    *                    *                    *    
                                                             *                                                  
Salt, salt substitutes,                                                            1/4 tsp   1/4 tsp (------g); 
 seasoning salts (e.g., garlic                                                                ------ piece(s) (--
 salt).                                                                                       ----g) for        
                                                                                              discrete pieces   
                                                                                              (e.g.,            
                                                                                              individually      
                                                                                              packaged products)
  *                    *                    *                    *                    *                    *    
                                                             *                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These values represent the amount (edible portion) of food customarily consumed per eating occasion and were
  primarily derived from the 1977-1978 and the 1987-1988 Nationwide Food Consumption Surveys conducted by the   
  U.S. Department of Agriculture.                                                                               
\2\ Unless otherwise noted in the Reference Amount column, the reference amounts are for the ready-to-serve or  
  almost ready-to-serve form of the product (i.e., heat and serve, brown and serve). If not listed separately,  
  the reference amount for the unprepared form (e.g., dry mixes; concentrates; dough; batter; dry, fresh, and   
  frozen pasta) is the amount required to make the reference amount of the prepared form. Prepared means        
  prepared for consumption (e.g., cooked).                                                                      
\3\ Manufacturers are required to convert the reference amount to the label serving size in a household measure 
  most appropriate to their specific product using the procedures in 21 CFR 101.9(b).                           
\4\ Copies of the list of products for each product category are available from the Office of Food Labeling (HFS-
  150), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington,  
  DC 20204.                                                                                                     
\5\ The label statements are meant to provide guidance to manufacturers on the presentation of serving size     
  information on the label, but they are not required. The term ``piece'' is used as a generic description of a 
  discrete unit. Manufacturers should use the description of a unit that is most appropriate for the specific   
  product (e.g., sandwich for sandwiches, cookie for cookies, and bar for ice cream bars). The guidance provided
  is for the label statement of products in ready-to-serve or almost ready-to-serve form. The guidance does not 
  apply to the products which require further preparation for consumption (e.g., dry mixes, concentrates) unless
  specifically stated in the product category, reference amount, or label statement column that it is for these 
  forms of the product. For products that require further preparation, manufacturers must determine the label   
  statement following the rules in Sec.  101.9(b) using the reference amount determined according to Sec.       
  101.12(c).                                                                                                    

* * * * *

    Dated: June 26, 1995.
William B. Schultz,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 95-17919 Filed 7-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F