Food and Cosmetic Labeling; Revocation of Certain Regulations; Opportunity for Public Comment

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

21 CFR Parts 101 and 730

[Docket No. 96N-0174]

RIN 0910-AA69

Food and Cosmetic Labeling; Revocation of Certain Regulations;

Opportunity for Public Comment

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to revoke

certain regulations that appear to be obsolete. These regulations have

been identified for revocation as a result of a page-by-page review of

the agency's regulations that FDA conducted in response to the Clinton

administration's ``Reinventing Government'' initiative, which seeks to

streamline Government to ease the burden on regulated industry and

consumers. The agency is providing an opportunity for comments on this

proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments by August 26, 1996. The agency is proposing

that any final rule that may issue based upon this proposal become

effective 75 days following date of publication of the final rule.

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: Corinne L. Howley, Center for Food

Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-24), Food and Drug Administration,

200 C St., SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-4272.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

e.

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: Corinne L. Howley, Center for Food

Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-24), Food and Drug Administration,

200 C St., SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-4272.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On March 4, 1995, President Clinton announced plans for the reform

of the Federal regulatory system as part of the administration's

``Reinventing Government'' initiative. In his March 4, 1995, directive,

the President ordered all Federal agencies to conduct a page-by-page

review of all of their regulations to ``eliminate or revise those that

are outdated or otherwise in need of reform.''

In response to this directive, FDA issued proposals to revoke a

number of regulations (see, e.g., 60 FR 53480, October 13, 1995; 60 FR

56513 and 56541, November 9, 1995) and an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM) to review standards of identity, quality, and fill

of container (60 FR 67492, December 29, 1995). The agency has completed

its review of its food and cosmetic regulations in response to the

President's initiative and as a result is publishing two documents in

this issue of the Federal Register. This document announces additional

regulations that FDA is proposing to eliminate or revise, and the

second document is an ANPRM that seeks information on other food and

cosmetic regulations that appear to be in need of revision.

II. The Proposal

A. Food Labeling Regulations

onse to the

President's initiative and as a result is publishing two documents in

this issue of the Federal Register. This document announces additional

regulations that FDA is proposing to eliminate or revise, and the

second document is an ANPRM that seeks information on other food and

cosmetic regulations that appear to be in need of revision.

II. The Proposal

A. Food Labeling Regulations

FDA has identified several food labeling regulations in part 101

(21 CFR part 101) as candidates for revocation or revision and is

seeking comments from interested parties regarding its tentative

conclusions on these matters. The following is a list of those

regulations and the agency's tentative conclusions concerning the

needed changes:

1. Section 101.2 Information panel of package form food

In Sec. 101.2, paragraph (a) defines the term ``information panel''

as it applies to packaged food, and in paragraph (b), the regulation

provides that all information required to appear on the label of any

package of food under certain referenced regulations appear either on

the principal display panel or on the information panel unless

otherwise specified in the regulations. The referenced regulations are:

Sec. 101.4 Food; designation of ingredients, Sec. 101.5 Food; name and

place of business of manufacturer, packer, or distributor), Sec. 101.8

Labeling of food with number of servings, Sec. 101.9 Nutrition labeling

of food, Sec. 101.12 Reference amounts customarily consumed per eating

occasion, Sec. 101.13 Nutrient content claims general principles,

Sec. 101.17 Food labeling warning and notice statements, Part 101--

Subpart D--Specific requirements for nutrient content claims, and Part

105--Foods for special dietary use (21 CFR 105). Paragraph (c) of

Sec. 101.2 requires that information required by the referenced

regulations be in letters or numbers of at least one-sixteenth inch in

height, unless otherwise exempted by regulation. Paragraph (c) of

Sec

od labeling warning and notice statements, Part 101--

Subpart D--Specific requirements for nutrient content claims, and Part

105--Foods for special dietary use (21 CFR 105). Paragraph (c) of

Sec. 101.2 requires that information required by the referenced

regulations be in letters or numbers of at least one-sixteenth inch in

height, unless otherwise exempted by regulation. Paragraph (c) of

Sec. 101.2 also provides exemptions to this type size requirement. FDA

tentatively concludes that certain of these exemptions are obsolete.

a. Exemptions for small packages

There are exemptions in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of

Sec. 101.2 for small packages (defined according to the surface area

available to bear labeling). These exemptions were established before

the enactment of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (the

1990 amendments) (Pub. L. 101-535). They were designed to encourage

firms to provide nutrition information in accordance with Sec. 101.9,

as well as a full list of ingredients in accordance with the

regulations in Sec. 101.4 and the agency's policy regarding declaration

of ingredients on standardized foods as set out in Sec. 101.6 (see 39

FR 15268, May 2, 1974). Before the enactment of the 1990

amendments, nutrition information was voluntary unless a nutrient was

added to the food or a claim about the nutrient content of the food was

made in its labeling. The agency also did not have authority under the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to require that all

ingredients used in standardized foods be declared on the label.

The 1990 amendments amended the act to provide for, among other

things, mandatory nutrition labeling of foods and complete ingredient

listing on all foods. As a result, FDA amended its nutrition labeling

regulations in a number of significant respects, including specifying

minimum type sizes and formats for presenting the nutrition information

on the label (Sec. 101.9)

declared on the label.

The 1990 amendments amended the act to provide for, among other

things, mandatory nutrition labeling of foods and complete ingredient

listing on all foods. As a result, FDA amended its nutrition labeling

regulations in a number of significant respects, including specifying

minimum type sizes and formats for presenting the nutrition information

on the label (Sec. 101.9). The amended nutrition labeling regulations

include exemptions from the new minimum type size requirements,

depending on the particular format being used and the label space

available to bear the information.

Also, in response to the 1990 amendments, FDA revised the

definitions and standards of identity for foods in parts 131 to 169 (21

CFR parts 131 to 169) to reflect the requirement that all food

ingredients, including the mandatory ingredients of standardized foods,

be listed on the label and Sec. 101.6 be revoked (58 FR 2850 and 2888,

January 6, 1993).

Because the purpose of Sec. 101.2(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) was to

encourage voluntary declaration of ingredients and nutrition

information on food, FDA has tentatively concluded that they are no

longer needed. Nutrition labeling is now required on most foods, and

the regulations now in effect provide for flexibility in presentation

of the information where space is limited. Declaration of all

ingredients in standardized foods is also required. Because the

exemptions in Sec. 101.2(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) are obsolete, FDA is

proposing to revoke them. If any interested person believes that there

is a need to retain any of the exemptions, he or she should submit

comments explaining that need in response to this proposal. Comments

supporting retention of any of these exemptions should include

information on specific products for which other type size exemptions

are inadequate.

b

2), and (c)(3) are obsolete, FDA is

proposing to revoke them. If any interested person believes that there

is a need to retain any of the exemptions, he or she should submit

comments explaining that need in response to this proposal. Comments

supporting retention of any of these exemptions should include

information on specific products for which other type size exemptions

are inadequate.

b. Nonretail Individual Serving Size Packages

Section 101.2(c)(5) provides that individual serving size packages

of food served with meals in restaurants, institutions, and on board

passenger carriers, and not intended for sale at retail, are exempt

from the type-size requirements of Sec. 101.2(c) under the following

conditions:

(i) The package has a total area of 3 square inches or less

available to bear labeling;

(ii) There is insufficient area on the package available to print

all required information in a type size of one-sixteenth inch in

height;

(iii) The label information includes a full list of ingredients in

accordance with regulations in part 101 and the policy expressed in

Sec. 101.6; and

(iv) The information required by Sec. 101.2 (b) appears on the

label in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, except that

the type size is not less than one thirty-second inch in height.

Because declaration of all ingredients in standardized foods is now

required, and Sec. 101.6 has been revoked, reference to Sec. 101.6 is

no longer meaningful. Therefore, FDA is proposing to delete that

reference from Sec. 101.2(c)(5). Specifically, FDA is proposing to

revoke paragraph Sec. 101.2(c)(5)(iii) and redesignate paragraph

ype size is not less than one thirty-second inch in height.

Because declaration of all ingredients in standardized foods is now

required, and Sec. 101.6 has been revoked, reference to Sec. 101.6 is

no longer meaningful. Therefore, FDA is proposing to delete that

reference from Sec. 101.2(c)(5). Specifically, FDA is proposing to

revoke paragraph Sec. 101.2(c)(5)(iii) and redesignate paragraph

(5)(iv) as (5)(iii).

2. Section 101.8 Labeling of foods with number of servings

Section 101.8(a) requires that any package of food that bears a

representation as to the number of servings contained in such package

bear in immediate conjunction with such statement, and in the same size

type as is used for such statement, a statement of the net quantity (in

terms of weight, measure, or numerical count) of each such serving.

However, such statement may be expressed in terms that differ from the

terms used in the required statement of net quantity of contents (for

example, in cups or tablespoons rather than in avoirdupois ounces) when

such differing term is common to cookery and describes a constant

quantity. This paragraph also requires that the statement not be

misleading in any particular. It goes on to state that where nutrition

labeling information is required in accordance with the provisions of

Sec. 101.9, the statement of the net quantity of each serving shall be

consistent with the requirements for serving size expression set forth

in that section (e.g., 10 1-cup (240 milliliters) servings). The

provision also states that a statement of the number of units in a

package is not in itself a statement of the number of servings.

Paragraph (b) of this regulation (Sec

the provisions of

Sec. 101.9, the statement of the net quantity of each serving shall be

consistent with the requirements for serving size expression set forth

in that section (e.g., 10 1-cup (240 milliliters) servings). The

provision also states that a statement of the number of units in a

package is not in itself a statement of the number of servings.

Paragraph (b) of this regulation (Sec. 101.8(b)) provides that, if

there exists a voluntary product standard issued by the Department of

Commerce under the procedures found in 15 CFR part 10, that

quantitatively defines the meaning of the term ``serving'' with respect

to a particular food, then any label representation as to the number of

servings in such packaged food shall correspond with such quantitative

definition. It also states that, ``Copies of published standards are

available upon request from the National Bureau of Standards,

Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20234.''

The agency has tentatively concluded, based on two factors, that

this regulation is obsolete. The first factor is that the description

of how serving size information should appear on food labels in

Sec. 101.8(a) has been obviated by the recent extensive changes in

FDA's regulations governing mandatory nutrition labeling of foods that

the agency adopted in response to the 1990 amendments. Section 101.9

requires that quantitative nutrition information be declared in

relation to a serving of the food as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of

that section. Section 101.9(b)(1) defines a ``serving'' or ``serving

size'' for the purpose of these regulations as the amount of food,

expressed in a common household measure that is appropriate for the

food, customarily consumed per eating occasion by persons 4 years of

age and older

ve nutrition information be declared in

relation to a serving of the food as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of

that section. Section 101.9(b)(1) defines a ``serving'' or ``serving

size'' for the purpose of these regulations as the amount of food,

expressed in a common household measure that is appropriate for the

food, customarily consumed per eating occasion by persons 4 years of

age and older. When the food is specially formulated or processed for

use by infants or by toddlers, a serving or serving size means an

amount of food customarily consumed per eating occasion by infants up

to 12 months of age or by children 1 through 3 years of age,

respectively. Section 101.9(b) also provides specific guidance as to

how the serving or serving size is to be determined for various food

products. Section Sec. 101.12 specifies the reference amount

customarily consumed per eating occasion for 139 food product

categories and requires the declaration of the serving in terms of

metric units and familiar household measures. Among other things, the

serving size regulation provides criteria for determining the serving

size based on the reference amount for the food category, thereby

ensuring that reasonable and uniform serving sizes will be used in

product labeling. Such uniformity in food labeling enhances consumers'

ability to make nutrition comparisons among foods. With Sec. 101.8(a),

however, there is not the same specificity for determining appropriate

serving sizes. Consequently, there is far less assurance under

Sec. 101.8(a) than under Sec. 101.9 that uniform serving sizes will

appear on similar products. Therefore, FDA is proposing to revoke

Sec. 101.8(a).

The second factor is that FDA is aware of no need to continue the

reference in Sec. 101.8(b) to ``voluntary product standards issued by

the

t have the force and effect of law. If these terms are used

in a manner that would render the product misbranded, the agency could

take action against such products under section 403(a) of the act (21

U.S.C. 343(a)). Although Sec. 101.29 could be removed without notice

and comment rulemaking, FDA is proposing to remove it in this document

to ensure that its decision is as informed as possible. The agency also

solicits comments on whether it should prepare a Compliance Policy

Guide that reflects the policy that has been codified in Sec. 101.29.

Compliance Policy Guides are used by FDA as informal guidance in

evaluating products and accompanying label statements and in

recommending regulatory actions for efficient enforcement of the act.

B. Cosmetic Regulations (Part 730--21 CFR 730)

Parts 710, 720, and 730 (21 CFR parts 710, 720, and 730) of FDA's

regulations provide for the Voluntary Cosmetic Reporting Program (VCRP)

for the voluntary submission of information relating to cosmetic

products. Part 730 of this program provides for the voluntary filing of

cosmetic product experience reports (VCPE) by the cosmetics industry.

In the Federal Register of October 17, 1973 (38 FR 28914), FDA, in

response to a petition from the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance

Association, Inc. (CTFA), issued regulations for the voluntary filing

of cosmetic product experiences. The petitioner believed that the VCPE

would serve: ``(1) To provide reliable baseline information against

which to assess or evaluate products or their ingredients, and (2)

prompt information where specific public health questions may be

presented.'' The regulation was implemented in 1974 as the Voluntary

Cosmetic Experience Program. FDA recodified these regulations in 1974

(39 FR 10054, 10062, March 15, 1974) and modified them in 1981 (46 FR

38073, July 24, 1981) and 1986 (51 FR 25687, July 16, 1986)

to assess or evaluate products or their ingredients, and (2)

prompt information where specific public health questions may be

presented.'' The regulation was implemented in 1974 as the Voluntary

Cosmetic Experience Program. FDA recodified these regulations in 1974

(39 FR 10054, 10062, March 15, 1974) and modified them in 1981 (46 FR

38073, July 24, 1981) and 1986 (51 FR 25687, July 16, 1986).

During the 23 years the CVRP has been in place, companies have

submitted information about adverse reactions that consumers have

reported to them. FDA has performed a statistical assessment of the

data to calculate the ``baseline'' adverse reactions (expected number

of reactions per million units distributed) that occur for the

different cosmetic product categories identified in the program.

While the VCPE has provided useful information regarding relative

adverse reaction baseline rates, it has suffered from some serious

limitations. Industry participation in this portion of the program has

historically been very limited and selective, the reports lack

sufficient details to be useful, and annual reports are sent in long

after the occurrence of an adverse reaction. This limited participation

has persisted even though the program has been modified several times

over the years to make it easier for companies to participate. In this

regard, the VCPE provides a false impression about the ability of the

voluntary program to ensure the safety of cosmetics. Thus, the VCPE

program no longer provides any new information about cosmetic adverse

reactions, and it no longer serves the important purpose of helping to

find harmful cosmetics and to remove them from the marketplace.

With current budgetary constraints on FDA, it is difficult to

justify the continuation of a program that does not contribute directly

to increasing the safety of cosmetics or protecting the public health

nger provides any new information about cosmetic adverse

reactions, and it no longer serves the important purpose of helping to

find harmful cosmetics and to remove them from the marketplace.

With current budgetary constraints on FDA, it is difficult to

justify the continuation of a program that does not contribute directly

to increasing the safety of cosmetics or protecting the public health.

Adding data to the information that FDA has obtained over 20 years

about baseline adverse reaction rates will be unlikely to have any

value. Thus, FDA is proposing to revoke part 730. FDA intends to

perform a thorough evaluation of information received over the years

and will prepare an in-depth report that will be useful to both the

cosmetic industry and the public in understanding adverse reaction

trends for different product categories and the baseline rates of

adverse reactions. Companies will be able to use this in-depth report

for assessing their own individual products without having to report

their information to FDA.

The agency is interested in comments on whether the VCPE should be

eliminated in its entirety, reduced in scope, or some other

alternative. For example, one alternative would be to revoke part 730

but maintain the availability of reporting forms or other means of

access ( e.g., electronic). These forms could be used for the prompt

reporting of any unusually severe adverse reactions or for reporting an

unusually high number of adverse reactions of moderate severity. In

addition to comments on the issues discussed in this proposal, FDA

requests comments on any other related matters that would assist FDA in

fulfilling its mission to protect the interests of consumers.

III. Environmental Impact

ould be used for the prompt

reporting of any unusually severe adverse reactions or for reporting an

unusually high number of adverse reactions of moderate severity. In

addition to comments on the issues discussed in this proposal, FDA

requests comments on any other related matters that would assist FDA in

fulfilling its mission to protect the interests of consumers.

III. Environmental Impact

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(a)(11) and (a)(8),

respectively, that the actions to revoke or revise several food

labeling regulations in part 101, and to eliminate or modify part 730

of the cosmetic regulations, are of a type that do not individually or

cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore,

neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact

statement is required.

IV. Economic Impact

FDA has examined the economic impact of the proposed rule as

required by 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, safety, distributive, and equity effects). The Regulatory

Flexibility Act requires analyzing options for regulatory relief for

small businesses. FDA finds that the proposed rule does not constitute

a major rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. FDA also finds that

the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on small

businesses.

The proposed rule will remove or revise several provisions in part

101 and all of part 730. The proposed removals include: (1) Certain

type-size exemptions, (2) the labeling of foods with number of servings

other than as specified in the 1990 amendments, (3) guidance on use of

the term ``kosher'',

FDA also finds that

the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on small

businesses.

The proposed rule will remove or revise several provisions in part

101 and all of part 730. The proposed removals include: (1) Certain

type-size exemptions, (2) the labeling of foods with number of servings

other than as specified in the 1990 amendments, (3) guidance on use of

the term ``kosher'',

and (4) elimination of the Voluntary Cosmetic Experience Program.

Except for the ``kosher'' guidance, all of the targeted provisions have

been rendered obsolete or counterproductive by more recent regulations

and other changes. The ``kosher'' guidance is not obsolete, but, as

mentioned earlier in this preamble, because it does not have the force

and effect of law, it is not necessary for it to be codified in Title

21.

FDA anticipates that the labeling provisions of the proposed rule

will not change the availability of health and safety information to

consumers. Although some labels may change as a result of revising

Sec. 101.2(c) and removing Sec. 101.8, the main effect of the proposal

will be to make FDA's regulations less complicated and easier to

follow. Removing the kosher labeling guidance in Sec. 101.29 should not

affect information used for religious purposes because the agency will

still be providing the same guidance but most likely in the form of an

FDA Compliance Policy Guide. Any information loss that might result

would likely arise from recognition by the affected industry that the

policy does not carry the force and effect of law. Nevertheless, such a

loss would not affect health or safety.

FDA estimates the economic effects of labeling with a general model

described in the November 27, 1991 Federal Register (56 FR 60856). The

net benefits of labeling rules are the difference between the benefits

to consumers of the information on labels and the cost to producers

(and, ultimately, to consumers) of providing that information

heless, such a

loss would not affect health or safety.

FDA estimates the economic effects of labeling with a general model

described in the November 27, 1991 Federal Register (56 FR 60856). The

net benefits of labeling rules are the difference between the benefits

to consumers of the information on labels and the cost to producers

(and, ultimately, to consumers) of providing that information. The

benefits from labeling can be estimated to be the monetary value of the

health and safety improvements that can be attributed to better-

informed consumers. The costs of labeling regulations include

administrative, analytical, printing, inventory, and product

reformulation costs. FDA believes that the proposed labeling revisions

will not reduce the nutrition and safety information available to

consumers. The health and safety benefits from the labeling rules in

part 101 therefore will not change.

The primary economic effect of the proposal will be changes in

costs. FDA expects compliance costs of labeling to decline, mainly

because the proposed rule will reduce administrative costs. The

administrative costs include interpreting labeling regulations and

determining how they apply to individual products. The more complicated

and confusing the regulations, the more costly it is to interpret them.

For example, the existence of type size exemptions in Sec. 101.2(c)

that differ from those in Sec. 101.9 forces firms to study both

sections before determining how the rules apply to their products. Even

if there were no differences in labeling requirements between sections,

firms would have to interpret both sections to assure themselves

perhaps at considerable cost, that no differences exist.

By streamlining and consolidating labeling rules, the labeling

directions in part 101 will be more user friendly, which in turn will

substantially reduce compliance costs

apply to their products. Even

if there were no differences in labeling requirements between sections,

firms would have to interpret both sections to assure themselves

perhaps at considerable cost, that no differences exist.

By streamlining and consolidating labeling rules, the labeling

directions in part 101 will be more user friendly, which in turn will

substantially reduce compliance costs. Although FDA does not possess

enough data to quantify the reduction in costs, the agency is confident

that the compliance cost of labeling regulations will indeed fall as a

result of the proposal.

Eliminating voluntary cosmetic experience reporting will generate

net benefits by reducing costs. FDA receives an average of 125

submissions annually from firms in the industry. The annual cost to FDA

of reviewing, evaluating, summarizing, and storing the experience

reports is approximately $12,000. The annual cost to participating

firms is approximately $12,000. Eliminating the program would therefore

reduce annual agency and industry costs by approximately $24,000,

without affecting public health. FDA tentatively concludes that because

it will reduce the costs but not the benefits of labeling and voluntary

reporting regulations, the proposed rule will generate positive net

benefits. FDA finds no reason to expect the proposal to impose burdens

on small businesses, whose compliance costs could fall.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no

reporting, recordkeeping, labeling or other third party disclosure

requirements. Thus there is no ``information collection'' necessitating

clearance by the Office of Management and Budget. However, to ensure

the accuracy of this tentative conclusion, FDA is asking for comment on

whether this proposed rule to revoke certain regulations that it

believes are obsolete imposes any paperwork burden.

IV. References

keeping, labeling or other third party disclosure

requirements. Thus there is no ``information collection'' necessitating

clearance by the Office of Management and Budget. However, to ensure

the accuracy of this tentative conclusion, FDA is asking for comment on

whether this proposed rule to revoke certain regulations that it

believes are obsolete imposes any paperwork burden.

IV. References

The following reference has been placed on display in the Dockets

Management Brance (HFA-305, Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23,

12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857, and may be seen by interested

persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

1. Memorandum to James Taylor, Center for Food Safety and

Applied Nutrition, FDA, from Joan Roenig, the National Institutes of

Standards and Technology, April 2, 1996.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 101

Food labeling, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

21 CFR Part 730

Cosmetics, 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 parts 101 and 730 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 101.2 Information panel of package form food is amended

by removing paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) and (c)(5)(iii); and by

redesignating paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) as paragraphs (c)(1) and

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 101.2 Information panel of package form food is amended

by removing paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) and (c)(5)(iii); and by

redesignating paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) as paragraphs (c)(1) and

(c)(2) respectively.

Sec. 101.8 [Removed]

3. Section 101.8 Labeling of food with number of servings is

removed.

Sec. 101.29 [Removed]

4. Section 101.29 Labeling kosher and kosher-style foods is

removed.

PART 730--VOLUNTARY FILING OF COSMETIC PRODUCT EXPERIENCES

Part 730 [Removed]

5. Part 730 is amended by removing it in its entirety.

Dated: May 31, 1996.

William B. Schultz,

Deputy Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 96-14887 Filed 6-10-96; 12:17 pm]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-F