94-17289. Crabmeat; Amendment of Common or Usual Name Regulation  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-17289]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: July 15, 1994]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
    
    Food and Drug Administration
    
    21 CFR Part 102
    
    [Docket No. 92P-0476]
    
     
    
    Crabmeat; Amendment of Common or Usual Name Regulation
    
    AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend 
    the common or usual name regulation for crabmeat by adding the species 
    Lithodes aequispina to those listed in this regulation and by providing 
    that the common or usual name of crabmeat derived from this species is 
    ``Brown King crabmeat.'' This proposal is in response to a citizen 
    petition submitted by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI).
    
    DATES: Written comments by September 13, 1994. The agency proposes that 
    any final rule that may issue based on this proposal become effective 
    30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.
    
    ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to the Dockets Management 
    Branch (HFA-05), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-3, 12420 Parklawn 
    Dr., Rockville, MD 20857.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary I. Snyder, Center for Food Safety 
    and Applied Nutrition (HFS-16), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. 
    SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-254-3888.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background
    
    A. Crabmeat Labeling
    
        The Shellfish Promotion Committee of ASMI, 1011 Western Ave., suite 
    603, Seattle, WA 98104, filed a petition on December 17, 1992, to amend 
    the common or usual name regulation for crabmeat (Sec. 102.50 (21 CFR 
    102.50)) to provide that the common or usual name of crabmeat derived 
    from the species L. aequispina is ``Brown King crabmeat.''
        Section 102.50 lists the following genera and species and the 
    associated common or usual name of their crabmeat: Paralithodes 
    camtschatica and P. platypus as King crabmeat; P. brevipes as King 
    crabmeat or Hanasaki crabmeat; Erimacrus isenbeckii as Korean variety 
    crabmeat or Kegani crabmeat; and Chionoecetes opilio, Chionoecetes 
    tanneri, Chionoecetes bairdii, and Chionoecetes angulatus as Snow 
    crabmeat. Thus, Sec. 102.50 provides that only the crabmeat from three 
    species of the genus Paralithodes may be called ``King crabmeat.''
        FDA has been dealing with common or usual name issues involving 
    crabmeat since 1954. In the Federal Register of April 8, 1954 (19 FR 
    2013), FDA announced its policy for the appropriate labeling of 
    imported canned crabmeat. FDA stated that the term ``King crabmeat'' is 
    an acceptable common name for the product prepared from any one of the 
    above three Paralithodes species, and that ``Hanasaki crabmeat'' was an 
    acceptable alternative common name for a product prepared from P. 
    brevipes. FDA later codified these and the other common or usual names 
    for crabmeat in Sec. 102.7 when it promulgated 21 CFR part 102 in 1973 
    (38 FR 6964 at 6966, March 14, 1973). (Section 102.7 was later 
    redesignated as Sec. 102.50 (42 FR 14322, March 15, 1977)).
        FDA's policy on the labeling of the crabmeat of species not listed 
    in Sec. 102.50 is set forth in the agency's Compliance Policy Guide 
    (CPG 7108.04). Under this policy, products derived from domestic 
    sources that are labeled as ``crabmeat,'' without qualification, are 
    generally accepted to have been derived from Callinectes sapidus (blue 
    crab). In other cases, the agency encourages the use of a prefix that 
    identifies the country where the crab was caught (e.g., ``Taiwan 
    Crabmeat'').
    
    B. Common or Usual Name Provisions
    
        The common or usual name of a food is the prevalent and meaningful 
    name by which consumers ordinarily identify a specific food. This 
    vernacular name may lack the specificity of the scientific or technical 
    name of a food, but an appropriate common or usual name permits the 
    public to unambiguously distinguish between similar foods that are 
    available in the marketplace. The common or usual name of a food may be 
    established by a history of common usage or by regulation. Section 
    102.5 requires that the common or usual name of a food accurately 
    identify, in simple and direct terms, the basic nature of the food and 
    its characterizing properties. The name must be uniform among all 
    identical or similar products. In fact, under Sec. 101.3(b)(1), a food 
    with a common or usual name that has been established by regulation is 
    misbranded if it is not identified by that name.
        Before establishing a common or usual name by regulation, FDA must 
    conclude that the proposed name is not false or misleading within the 
    meaning of section 403(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
    (the act) (21 U.S.C. 343(a)) and that the name for the food conforms 
    with the provisions of Sec. 102.5. Moreover, to prevent confusion and 
    deceptive economic practices, the agency must ensure that a proposed 
    common or usual name is not inappropriately similar to one that has 
    already been established by regulation. Therefore, suitable identifying 
    terms in the proposed name are necessary to ensure that consumers can 
    distinguish one product from another similar product (28 FR 10900, 
    October 11, 1963).
        In the case of crabmeat, the common or usual name ``King crabmeat'' 
    identifies a food with the common characterizing properties that 
    consumers in the United States associate with the meat of the large 
    spider crabs found in the waters of the North Pacific. These King 
    crabs, also known as ``Alaskan King Crabs,'' are characterized by a 
    spiny shell, six long spidery legs, a large and a small claw, and a 
    typical weight of about 4\1/2\ Kilograms (kg) (10 pounds (lb)) (Refs. 1 
    and 2). Thus, the common name ``King crabmeat'' applies to the meat 
    derived from any of three scientifically different crab species whose 
    meats are sufficiently similar that consumers accept them as being 
    interchangeable.
        This proposal, if finalized, will establish a new common or usual 
    name that is similar to ``King crabmeat.'' FDA tentatively finds, 
    however, that the similarity in names will not be deceptive because the 
    ASMI petition includes data that show that the meat of L. aequispina 
    and P. camtschatica (King crabmeat) are similar. Moreover, inclusion of 
    the qualifying prefix ``brown'' in the proposed common or usual name 
    for the meat of L. aequispina will help consumers to distinguish that 
    crabmeat from that of the Paralithodes spp. Finally, data in the ASMI 
    petition also show that ``Brown King crabmeat'' is the commonly 
    accepted name for L. aequispina.
    
    C. Previous King Crabmeat Petitions
    
        FDA has previously denied petitions to amend Sec. 102.50 to permit 
    the use either of the term ``King crabmeat'' or a qualified version of 
    that name as the common or usual name of crabmeat from either L. 
    aequispina or L. antarctica (Docket Nos. 76P-182, 81P 0327/CP, and 84P-
    046). In each instance, the agency concluded that the petitioner had 
    not presented sufficient evidence of the comparability of the meats of 
    the Lithodes spp. with the King crabmeat of the Paralithodes spp. to 
    support the requested amendment (Refs. 3, 4, 5, and 6). In these 
    denials the agency held that a petitioner must demonstrate that each of 
    the significant characteristics of King crabmeat that are valued by 
    consumers is present in the new species before the agency will permit 
    meat from that species to be identified in Sec. 102.50 as ``King 
    crabmeat.''
        The petition that FDA denied in 1978 (Docket No. 76P-182) requested 
    that the common or usual name ``King crabmeat'' be established for L. 
    aequispina. The agency denied the petition primarily because it found 
    that, based on the limited numbers of L. aequispina marketed at that 
    time, there was not a sufficient basis to find that there was a common 
    or usual name for the species (Ref. 6). The available information on 
    the name by which this species was commonly known within the industry 
    showed that it was referred to by various names, including ``brown 
    crab'' and ``golden crab,'' as well as ``King crab'' and ``golden King 
    crab.''
    
    II. Grounds for the Petition
    
    A. Introduction
    
        The ASMI petition requests that FDA amend Sec. 102.50 to include 
    the species L. aequispina and provide for the use of ``Brown King 
    crabmeat'' as the common or usual name of its crabmeat. In support of 
    the amendment, the petition provides: (1) Data and results of tests 
    that compare L. aequispina with P. camtschatica. The tests scored the 
    preferences of a consumer panel for the taste, texture, appearance, and 
    appropriateness of labeling each species as King crabmeat; (2) 
    photographs that compare the size and color of the cooked legs and 
    claws of these species; (3) literature bearing on crab fishery 
    practices, marketing, and the nomenclature and comparative morphology 
    of L. aequispina and other crab species; (4) a compilation of the 
    average measurements of the shoulder, merus, carpus, and propodus for 
    the crab legs used in the consumer panel visual display to determine 
    preference for ``King crab'' labeling; and (5) ten letters from major 
    processors of Alaska King crab and a letter from the National Fisheries 
    Institute endorsing the petition and attesting that consumers and the 
    industry accept L. aequispina (``Alaska golden or brown crab'') as King 
    crab.
    
    B. Brown or Golden King Crab
    
    1. Market Acceptance as King Crabmeat
        The ASMI states that L. aequispina has been commonly identified, 
    marketed, and accepted as ``Gold,'' ``Golden,'' or ``Brown King crab'' 
    since the early 1980's, when its fishery began to develop. The ASMI 
    also states that no resistance or confusion has arisen from the general 
    buying public concerning the use of the term ``King crab'' to describe 
    the product. The petitioner further states that increased demand and 
    recent developments in deep water harvesting technology have resulted 
    in a significant commercial fishery for L. aequispina, and that, over 
    the last decade, as the availability of P. camtschatica and P. platypus 
    has decreased, the demand for and supply of L. aequispina has grown. 
    The petition states that as a result of these factors, L. aequispina 
    has become a major source of King crabmeat in the United States, 
    whereas the supply of crabmeat from P. camtschatica and P. platypus has 
    been greatly reduced and is often limited to a few market areas.
        As discussed above, FDA concluded in 1978 that the use of the term 
    ``golden'' or ``brown crab'' for L. aequispina was not sufficiently 
    common in U.S. markets to be established as the common or usual name 
    for this food. However, the available evidence shows that, beginning in 
    the 1980's, the size of the commercial catch of L. aequispina has 
    increased to a large fraction of what the industry has called the 
    ``total King crab harvest.'' For example, from 1981 to 1982, L. 
    aequispina represented 1.4 percent of the total Alaskan King crab catch 
    (Paralithodes spp. plus L. aequispina) in the western region. From 1983 
    to 1984, it represented 21.7 percent of the total catch (see Docket No. 
    84P-0046).
        In addition to the information in the petition, FDA has sought to 
    corroborate the general acceptance of L. aequispina as a King crab, and 
    that it is commonly known as ``brown'' King crab, by consulting 
    authoritative references on nomenclature for aquatic species, as well 
    as the scientific and trade literature. All of these sources commonly 
    refer to L. aequispina as either ``golden King crab'' or ``brown King 
    crab'' (Refs. 2 and 7 through 12).
        FDA relied in part on publications of the American Fisheries 
    Society (``List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the 
    United States and Canada'') in preparing a guide to acceptable common 
    and market names for the species of food fish sold in U.S. interstate 
    commerce that do not have common or usual names established by 
    regulation (54 FR 12284, March 24, 1989). The American Fisheries 
    Society Special Publication 17, ``Common and Scientific Names of 
    Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Decapod 
    Crustaceans,'' addresses adherence to uniform scientific and common 
    nomenclature of aquatic invertebrates (Ref. 9). L. aequispina is among 
    the species recognized in this compilation under the family heading 
    ``Lithodidae-stone and King crabs.'' This compilation also identifies 
    this species with the common name ``golden King crab.''
        Similarly, a compilation that focuses on the fishery region of 
    interest, ``Alaska's Saltwater Fishes and Other Sea Life, A Field 
    Guide'', prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the 
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of 
    Commerce, identifies L. aequispina as ``Golden King Crab, Brown King 
    Crab, or Deep Water Crab'' (Ref. 7). This source also presents 
    illustrations and the dimensions of the species listed.
        A nomenclature reference with an international perspective, ``Fish: 
    Five-Language Dictionary of Fish, Crustaceans and Molluscs,'' lists L. 
    aequispina as ``golden King crab'' (Ref. 10).
        Literature unrelated to species identification or nomenclature also 
    distinguishes L. aequispina as a King crab. For example, a treatise 
    dealing with the diseases of aquatic species, ``Principal Diseases of 
    Marine Fish and Shellfish,'' refers to this species as ``golden king 
    crabs'' (Ref. 11). Similarly, an article reporting a joint government/
    industry ocean survey to gather information on the size of L. 
    aequispina at maturity is entitled ``Brown King Crab'' (Ref. 8), and 
    regulations of the Alaska Board of Fisheries for Commercial Fishing in 
    Alaska identify the species as ``brown king crab'' (Ref. 15).
        Correspondingly, trade periodicals dealing with the market price 
    and availability of King crab consistently classify or refer to L. 
    aequispina as a King crab (prefaced by either ``golden'' or ``brown'') 
    and commonly regard it as an Alaskan King crab (Refs. 2, 12, and 13). 
    Thus, the agency tentatively finds that these names for L. aequispina 
    have been commonly used in the United States for about a decade, and 
    that this usage, in contrast with the situation in 1978, supports the 
    requested amendment of Sec. 102.50.
        In addressing the similarities between L. aequispina and P. 
    camtschatica, the petition does not address the value that the 
    marketplace ascribes to each species, as reflected by the market prices 
    they command. Nor does the petition address whether establishing the 
    proposed common or usual name for L. aequispina will affect the price 
    of its meat. FDA believes that in the case of unprocessed raw products 
    such as crabs, consumers and crabmeat processors will normally pay a 
    comparable price for similar products that are equally desirable. For 
    example, from January 1990 to January 1992, prices for ``King'' crab 
    legs and claws (12/14 count) were reported to have varied from $2.10 to 
    $3.85 more per pound than those of ``Brown King'' (21/24 count) (Ref. 
    12). In 1988, graded sections of P. camtschatica were $1.75 to $2.00 
    more per pound than those of Brown King crab (Ref. 13). Thus, although 
    L. aequispina is classified and sold as a King crab, the substantial 
    price difference between these species means that they are not 
    typically regarded as interchangeable foods by the marketplace.
        A certain amount of the price differential between these species 
    may be attributable to the current scarcity of the Paralithodes spp. 
    However, FDA believes that most of the difference in price is a result 
    of the disparity in size. The agency recognizes that one of the primary 
    distinguishing and valued features of Paralithodes spp. is their large 
    size relative to other crabs. Therefore, fair dealing and the interest 
    of the consumer require that, among other considerations, any crabmeat 
    that is labeled either as ``King crabmeat'' or as a variety of King 
    crabmeat (e.g., Brown King crabmeat) should be derived from a species 
    of crab that has dimensions that are similar to those which consumers 
    associate with King crab (Paralithodes spp.).
        Literature in the petition (Ref. 7) shows that the length of L. 
    aequispina (listed as ``Golden King Crab,'' ``Brown King Crab,'' or 
    ``Deep Water Crab''), measured across the body shell (carapace), is 23 
    centimeters (cm) (9 inches (in)), and that its width is up to 23 cm (9 
    in). The respective carapace dimensions for P. camtschatica and P. 
    platypus are given as: 23 cm (9 in) and up to 28 cm (11 in) across the 
    carapace; 20 cm (8 in) and up to 25 cm (10 in) in width.
        These dimensions show that while L. aequispina is not as large as 
    the two Paralithodes spp., selected examples of the three species can 
    be comparable in overall body size. The actual sizes of the crabs 
    generally available to the consumer or crabmeat processor, however, are 
    governed by the size of the crabs customarily found in the commercial 
    catch. This size, in turn, may be determined more by the minimum 
    harvestable size imposed for a specific harvesting area or fishery, 
    than by the larger sizes that are known to exist but are not caught in 
    significant numbers.
        The larger sizes of L. aequispina apparently are not caught in 
    significant numbers (Ref. 8). As a consequence, the minimum legal size 
    limit for harvest in some fishery areas might be reduced to crabs as 
    small as 13.75 cm (5\1/2\ in) in carapace width, to make the fishery 
    commercially viable for L. aequispina (Ref. 8). The agency believes 
    that these factors may result in crab parts and crabmeat chunks that 
    typically are somewhat smaller than those of the Paralithodes spp.
        The petition states that because each of the species is harvested 
    from widespread areas in Alaskan waters, the size of the crabs has 
    always varied. To compensate for this variation, the legs and claws are 
    repacked to provide uniform counts per 4\1/2\-kg (10-lb) unit. Thus, 
    the petitioner contends that the retailer and the consumer will get a 
    uniform range of sizing regardless of which species of Lithodes or 
    Paralithodes is purchased as ``King crab.'' However, as described 
    above, the generally lower market price of L. aequispina indicates that 
    providing uniform counts per unit weight does not cause processors and 
    consumers to accept its meat as interchangeable with that of the 
    Paralithodes spp.
    2. Comparative Sensory Testing
        The petitioner states that in establishing an appropriate common or 
    usual name, consumers must be protected from deceptive practices, but 
    that the proposed name is justified because there are more similarities 
    than differences between L. aequispina crabmeat and that of the three 
    species of Paralithodes listed in Sec. 102.50. The petition states that 
    the crabmeat from all four species is nearly identical in flavor, 
    texture, and color. The petition describes a slight variation in the 
    reddish hue of the carotenoid layer surrounding the white meat of each 
    leg segment of L. aequispina but states that there is a range of the 
    reddish hue in the meat between samples of any one species. Photographs 
    comparing the cooked legs and claws of L. aequispina and P. 
    camtschatica demonstrate that these pieces share a similar color and 
    morphology.
        Consumer acceptance studies were conducted with a total of 158 
    individuals tested in three geographic areas (Chicago, Los Angeles, and 
    New York City). The tests compared L. aequispina with P. camtschatica 
    by rating consumer preference, in terms of degree of ``liking,'' based 
    on the appearance of previously frozen crab legs and the taste and 
    texture of their crabmeat, presented as precooked split merus (the 
    section of the leg of a king crab which is closest to the shoulder 
    (Ref. 16)) portions in the shell. The test panel also rated the 
    appropriateness of labeling each species' crabmeat as ``King crab,'' 
    based on a display of cooked, whole crab legs. All products were from 
    crab legs sized 16/20 pieces per 4\1/2\ kg (10 lb).
        The sensory characteristics of the samples were evaluated on a 
    hedonic scale, ranging from 9 for ``like extremely'' to 1 for ``dislike 
    extremely.'' The reported average scores in each of the four rated 
    categories of ``liking'' (overall degree of liking, appearance, flavor, 
    and texture) for each species were not statistically different at the 
    90 percent confidence level, and these average scores were 
    approximately 7 on the hedonic scale (like moderately) for each 
    category. The averaged results thus indicate that the panel members 
    found no significant differences between the crabmeats of the two 
    species. However, a slightly greater number of responses in the top 
    degrees of liking (extremely and very much) indicated a consistent 
    margin of preference for P. camtschatica across these four categories.
        Analysis of the data by FDA confirmed the reported results but 
    found that the results for all of the categories evaluated were 
    dependent on the order in which the species were presented (Ref. 14). 
    The ratings for ``appearance'' showed that the respondents that were 
    given the P. camtschatica crabmeat first rated it significantly higher 
    (p <0.01) than="" they="" rated="" l.="" aequispina.="" when="" the="" species="" were="" presented="" to="" other="" respondents="" in="" the="" reverse="" order,="" l.="" aequispina="" was="" rated="" significantly="" higher="" (p="">< 0.01).="" similarly,="" when="" rated="" for="" ``flavor,''="" p.="" camtschatica="" meat="" scored="" significantly="" higher="" (p="">< 0.01)="" if="" presented="" first,="" while="" the="" reverse="" order="" of="" presentation="" resulted="" in="" flavor="" ratings="" that="" were="" about="" the="" same="" on="" average="" (p=""><0.15). in="" the="" case="" of="" the="" rating="" for="" ``overall''="" acceptance,="" respondents="" that="" were="" given="" p.="" camtschatica="" crabmeat="" first="" rated="" it="" significantly="" higher="" (p=""><0.001) than="" l.="" aequispina,="" while="" those="" presented="" with="" the="" products="" in="" the="" reverse="" order="" rated="" the="" two="" products="" about="" the="" same="" on="" average="" (p=""><0.15). a="" similar="" pattern="" was="" found="" for="" the="" ``texture''="" ratings.="" the="" ratings="" for="" the="" appropriateness="" of="" labeling="" either="" crab="" as="" ``king="" crab,''="" based="" on="" the="" appearance="" of="" the="" whole="" crab="" legs,="" resulted="" in="" a="" statistically="" significant="" higher="" mean="" score="" for="" l.="" aequispina.="" however,="" the="" petition="" does="" not="" state="" to="" what="" degree="" the="" display="" represented="" the="" most="" commonly="" available="" leg="" sizes="" of="" each="" species.="" again,="" however,="" fda="" analysis="" of="" the="" data="" indicated="" that="" the="" order="" of="" presentation="" appeared="" to="" affect="" the="" results.="" respondents="" observing="" p.="" camtschatica="" legs="" first="" rated="" l.="" aequispina="" significantly="" higher="" (p=""><0.001) than="" p.="" camtschatica.="" when="" given="" in="" the="" reverse="" order,="" the="" two="" products="" were="" rated="" about="" the="" same="" on="" average="" (p="">0.25).
        The apparent dependence of the preferences expressed by the panel 
    on the order of species presentation raises questions about the 
    adequacy of the statistical design of the study. However, FDA does not 
    believe that the effects observed from the order of species 
    presentation are of a type or an extent that invalidates the overall 
    test panel results, which show that the crabmeats are similar. For 
    example, in four of the five categories evaluated, reversing the order 
    in which the crabmeat was presented (e.g., L. aequispina before P. 
    camtschatica) did not result in L. aequispina being favored over P. 
    camtschatica, as might be expected if there was a meaningful 
    correlation between preference and order of presentation. Instead, 
    those served L. aequispina first rated the two crabmeats about the same 
    on average, suggesting that any bias introduced by the order of 
    crabmeat presentation was not a determining factor in the overall panel 
    ratings. Therefore, FDA tentatively concludes that the approximately 
    equivalent average scores for each species in each of the four sensory 
    categories compared are valid findings, and that they are sufficient to 
    demonstrate that the test panels found that the two crabmeats are 
    similar foods when compared for flavor, texture, appearance, and 
    overall degree of liking.
        Thus, with respect to these sensory attributes, the results are 
    consistent with the conclusion that the use of the terms ``King 
    crabmeat'' in the common or usual name of L. aequispina is not 
    misleading. Inasmuch as the proposed amendment will establish a common 
    name for a similar but separate type of ``King crabmeat,'' FDA 
    tentatively finds that tests showing that consumers accept the meat of 
    L. aequispina as identical to, or interchangeable with, that of the 
    three Paralithodes species are not necessary.
    
    III. The Proposed Regulation
    
        While the petition seeks to demonstrate the similarity between the 
    important characteristics of L. aequispina meat and that of the largest 
    of the Paralithodes crabs, the petitioner's proposed amendment requests 
    the use of a common or usual name other than ``King crabmeat.''
        FDA believes that the data and information submitted in the 
    petition, as well as other information available to the agency, support 
    a tentative conclusion that L. aequispina is now widely accepted in the 
    United States as a bonafide King crab. This tentative conclusion is 
    based primarily on the use of the term ``King crab'' in the names 
    commonly used to identify it in the scientific and trade literature 
    (i.e., golden, gold, brown, and deep water King crab), as well as its 
    relative size and a decade of substantial sales and acceptance in the 
    United States as a type of King crab.
        However, the agency also recognizes that L. aequispina is a 
    different genus than the species commonly known as ``King crab'' in the 
    United States, and that its somewhat smaller size and lower market 
    value clearly differentiate it from traditional King crab of the genus 
    Paralithodes. Consequently, FDA agrees with the petitioner, and one of 
    the processors that endorsed the petition by letter, that the crabmeat 
    of L. aequispina should be identified by a qualifying prefix that will 
    make consumers aware that it is not identical to the King crabmeat of 
    the three Paralithodes species listed in Sec. 102.50. Therefore, 
    because the requested name is a modified form of an established common 
    name for a similar food, FDA tentatively concludes that the proposed 
    name will not confuse or mislead consumers. FDA has tentatively 
    concluded the modified name ``Brown King crabmeat'' appropriately sets 
    this product apart from ``King crabmeat,'' and that ``Brown'' suitably 
    serves to identify and distinguish this similar but specific type of 
    crabmeat. Moreover, the name ``Brown King crabmeat'' has the benefit of 
    a history of common use that should augment the recognition among 
    consumers of the differences between these two foods.
        The agency is aware that L. aequispina also has been commonly 
    referred to as ``Golden King crab.'' Nonetheless, FDA discourages the 
    use of the name ``Golden King crabmeat,'' because its use as a 
    statement of identity on food labels could mislead consumers. FDA 
    believes that the use of the prefix ``golden'' connotes a superior 
    quality or premium grade of crabmeat and thereby could unfairly affect 
    the price that consumers are willing to pay for the product. 
    Conversely, the agency tentatively concludes that the common or usual 
    name ``Brown King crabmeat'' does not convey similar ambiguous 
    implications about the nature or value of the crabmeat. FDA tentatively 
    finds that this name is consistent with fair dealing and the interest 
    of the consumer and should not unfairly affect the price of L. 
    aequispina crabmeat.
        As provided by Sec. 101.3(b)(1), adoption by FDA of the proposed 
    amendment will require that the meat of L. aequispina be labeled as 
    ``Brown King crabmeat.'' The agency tentatively finds that the 
    consistent use of this term will benefit consumers by providing a 
    consistent statement of identity, thereby precluding the use of various 
    potentially misleading names in or on labels and labeling pertaining to 
    this food.
        The common or usual name ``Brown King crabmeat'' will provide 
    consumers with a common or usual name for L. aequispina crabmeat that 
    not only accurately identifies the basic nature of the food in simple 
    and direct terms as a meat derived from a King crab, but also provides 
    consumers with added characterizing information that will enable them 
    to distinguish it from traditional ``King crabmeat.''
        Therefore, after a careful review of the petition and consideration 
    of all of the available information, FDA is proposing to amend 
    Sec. 102.50, by adding the crabmeat of the species L. aequispina, 
    identified by the common or usual name ``Brown King crabmeat.'' This 
    proposal is based in part on the acceptance of L. aequispina as a 
    ``Brown King crab'' by the fishery industry and in the marketplace and 
    in part on the similarity of its meat in taste, texture, and appearance 
    with King crabmeat, as demonstrated by consumer acceptance studies.
    
    IV. Analysis of Impacts
    
        FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive 
    Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354). 
    Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits 
    of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, 
    to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
    potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
    advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that 
    this proposed rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and 
    principles identified in the Executive Order. In addition, the proposed 
    rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive 
    Order and so is not subject to review under the Executive Order.
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze 
    regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule 
    on small entities. Because L. aequispina has been marketed for 10 years 
    as golden or brown King crab, FDA estimates that there are no costs of 
    the proposed rule from labeling changes or for any other reason, the 
    agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant 
    economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, 
    under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further analysis is required.
    
    V. Environmental Impact
    
        The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(b)(1) that this action 
    is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a 
    significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an 
    environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
    required.
    
    VI. References
    
        The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets 
    Management Branch (address above) and may be seen by interested persons 
    between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    
        1. ``The Seafood Handbook, Seafood Standards, Establishing 
    Guidelines for Quality,'' published by Seafood Business Magazine, 
    Rockland, ME, Journal Publications, 1991.
        2. Miller, R.J., ``North American Crab Fisheries: Regulations 
    and Their Rationales,'' Fisheries Bulletin, 74 (3):623, 1976.
        3. Letter to Arne L. Abrams, Wendt International, Inc., from 
    Joseph P. Hile, FDA, April 12, 1982.
        4. Letter to Patrick J. Ricci, Seven Seas, Inc., from Joseph P. 
    Hile, FDA, April 30, 1984.
        5. Letter to Raquel B. Flisfisch, Embassy of Chile, ProChile 
    Chilean Government Trade Bureau, from Joseph P. Hile, FDA, September 
    28, 1984.
        6. Letter to Charles O. Perkins, Technical Services, New England 
    Fish Company, from Joseph P. Hile, FDA, September 11, 1978.
        7. Kessler, Doyne W., ``Alaska's Saltwater Fishes and Other Sea 
    Life, A Field Guide,'' The National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska 
    Northwest Publishing Co., Anchorage, AK, p. 27, 1985.
        8. Benveniste, K., ``Brown King Crab,'' Pacific Fishing, p. 44, 
    October 1983.
        9. Williams, Austin B., Lawrence G. Abele, et al., ``Common and 
    Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and 
    Canada: Decapod Crustaceans,'' American Fisheries Society Special 
    Publication 17, p. 33, 1989.
        10. Krane, W., ``Fish: Five-Language Dictionary of Fish, 
    Crustaceans and Molluscs,'' Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 96, 1986.
        11. Sindermann, C. J., ``Principal Diseases of Marine Fish and 
    Shellfish,'' vol. 2, 2d ed., Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, p. 
    193, 1990.
        12. ``North Pacific Crab,'' Seafood Leader, 12(2):213, 1992.
        13. ``Buyer's Guide,'' Seafood Leader, 8:275, 1988.
        14. Memorandum from Foster D. McClure, Statistical Analysis 
    Branch, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, to Spring 
    C. Randolph, Office of Seafood, FDA, November 1, 1993.
        15. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Regulations of the 
    Alaska Board of Fisheries and Commercial Fishing in Alaska, p. 128, 
    1990.
        16. Dore, Ian, ``Fresh Seafood,'' The Commercial Buyers Guide, 
    Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 210, 1984.
    
    VII. Comments
    
        Interested persons may, on or before September 13, 1994, submit to 
    the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments 
    regarding this proposal. Two copies of any comments are to be 
    submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to 
    be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading 
    of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office above 
    between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    
    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 102
    
        Beverages, Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Frozen foods, 
    Oils and fats, Onions, Potatoes, Seafood.
    
        Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
    authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs , it is 
    proposed that 21 CFR part 102 be amended as follows:
    
    PART 102--COMMON OR USUAL NAME FOR NONSTANDARDIZED FOODS
    
        1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 102 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 201, 403, 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
    Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 343, 371).
    
        2. Section 102.50 is amended by revising the table to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 102.50    Crabmeat.
    
    * * * * * 
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Scientific name of crab          Common or usual name of crabmeat 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chionoecetes opilio, Chionoecetes    Snow crabmeat.                     
     tanneri, Chionoecetes bairdii, and                                     
     Chionoecetes angulatus.                                                
    Erimacrus isenbeckii...............  Korean variety crabmeat or Kegani  
                                          crabmeat.                         
    Lithodes aequispina................  Brown King crabmeat.               
    Paralithodes brevipes..............  King crabmeat or Hanasaki crabmeat.
    Paralithodes camtschatica and        King crabmeat.                     
     Paralithodes platypus.                                                 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Dated: June 30, 1994.
    Michael R. Taylor,
    Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 94-17289 Filed 7-14-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
07/15/1994
Department:
Food and Drug Administration
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
94-17289
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.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: July 15, 1994, Docket No. 92P-0476
CFR: (1)
21 CFR 102.50