Crabmeat; Amendment of Common or Usual Name Regulation

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 0.25).

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