53764 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 
have Wipaire, Inc. Supplemental Type 
Certificate (STC) No. SA01795CH installed. 
(d) Subject 
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 
Code 5510, Horizontal Stabilizer Structure; 
5511 Horizontal stabilizer, Spar/Rib; 5514, Horizontal Stabilizer Miscellaneous Structure; 5530, Vertical Stabilizer Structure. 
(e) Unsafe Condition 
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks 
found in at least one forward horizontal 
stabilizer spar on 24 of the affected airplanes where the vertical finlets tie to the forward horizontal stabilizer spar. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the forward horizontal stabilizer spars. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the horizontal tail with consequent loss of control of the airplane. 
(f) Compliance 
Comply with this AD within the 
compliance times specified, unless already 
done. 
(g) Required Actions 
(1) At the compliance times in paragraphs 
(g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD, as applicable, 
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspect the left and right forward horizontal stabilizer spars for cracks in accordance with Steps 1 through 9 of the Work Instructions of Wipaire, Inc. Service Letter 253, Revision B, dated July 27, 2023. 
(i) For STC configuration 7D1–4399–01: 
Within 3 days or 24 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or before the accumulation of 200 hours TIS since installation of STC No. SA01795CH, whichever occurs later. 
(ii) For STC configuration 7D1–4399–02: 
Within 5 days or 24 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or before the accumulation of 300 hours TIS since installation of STC No. SA01795CH, whichever occurs later. 
(iii) For STC configuration 7D1–4399–03: 
Within 15 days or 24 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or before the accumulation of 600 hours TIS since installation of STC No. SA01795CH, whichever occurs later. 
(2) If any crack is found in a forward 
horizontal stabilizer spar during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the cracked forward horizontal stabilizer spar. Replacement of the cracked forward horizontal stabilizer spar starts the initial and repetitive inspections over. 
(3) Within 10 days after each inspection 
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD or within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occur later, report the following to the FAA at the address in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Report this information regardless of whether cracks are found. 
(i) Model, engine configuration (with 
horsepower limits), and propeller type; 
(ii) Serial number and N number; (iii) Total hours TIS on airframe; (iv) Total hours TIS operated with floats, 
if known; 
(v) STC configuration and total hours with 
STC installed; 
(vi) Crack location (right or left, upper/ 
lower caps inboard/outboard hole); 
(vii) Crack size; 
(viii) Photos of cracks found, if available; 
and 
(ix) Any additional operator/mechanic 
comments 
(h) Credit for Previous Actions 
You may take credit for the initial 
inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of 
this AD if, before the effective date of this AD, you complied with Wipaire, Inc. Service Letter 253, Revision A, dated April 5, 2023. 
(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 
(AMOCs) 
(1) The Manager, Central Certification 
Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve 
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Certification Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. 
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 
notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/ certificate holding district office. 
(j) Related Information 
(1) For more information about this AD, 
contact Tim Eichor, Aviation Safety 
Engineer, Central Certification Branch, FAA, 1801 S Airport Road, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: (847) 294–7141; email: tim.d.eichor@faa.gov. 
(2) Service information identified in this 
AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD. 
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 
(1) The Director of the Federal Register 
approved the incorporation by reference 
(IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
(2) You must use this service information 
as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 
(i) Wipaire, Inc. Service Letter 253, 
Revision B, dated July 27, 2023. 
(ii) [Reserved] (3) For service information identified in 
this AD, contact Wipaire, Inc., 1700 Henry Ave, Fleming Field (KSGS), South St. Paul, MN 55075; phone: (651) 451–1205; email: customerservice@wipaire.com; website: 
wipaire.com. 
(4) You may view this service information 
at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110. 
(5) You may view this service information 
that is incorporated by reference at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- locations.html. 
Issued on July 28, 2023. 
Ross Landes, 
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, 
Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 
[FR Doc. 2023–16964 Filed 8–7–23; 11:15 am] 
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 
HUMAN SERVICES 
Food and Drug Administration 
21 CFR Parts 161, 164, 184, and 186 
[Docket No. FDA–2019–N–4750] 
RIN 0910–AI15 
Revocation of Uses of Partially 
Hydrogenated Oils in Foods 
AGENCY : Food and Drug Administration, 
HHS. 
ACTION : Direct final rule. 
SUMMARY : The Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA or we) is amending our regulations that provide for the use of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) in food in light of our determination that PHOs are no longer generally recognized as safe (GRAS). The rule removes PHOs as an optional ingredient in the standards of identity for peanut butter and canned tuna. It revises FDA’s regulations affirming food substances as GRAS pertaining to menhaden oil and rapeseed oil to no longer include partially hydrogenated forms of these oils, and deletes the regulation affirming hydrogenated fish oil as GRAS as an indirect food substance. We are also revoking prior sanctions (i.e., pre-1958 authorization of 
certain uses) for the use of PHOs in margarine, shortening, and bread, rolls, and buns based on our conclusion that these uses of PHOs may be injurious to health. We are issuing these amendments directly as a final rule because they are noncontroversial given the public health risks associated with PHOs and the increasing use of PHO alternatives, and we anticipate no significant adverse comments because PHOs were declared no longer GRAS for any use in human food in 2015. 
DATES : This rule is effective December 
22, 2023. Either electronic or written comments on the direct final rule or its companion proposed rule must be submitted by October 23, 2023. If FDA receives no significant adverse 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES153765 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 
comments within the specified 
comment period, we intend to publish a document confirming the effective date of the final rule in the Federal Register within 30 days after the 
comment period on this direct final rule ends. If timely significant adverse comments are received, FDA will publish a document in the Federal Register withdrawing this direct final 
rule within 30 days after the comment period on this direct final rule ends. 
ADDRESSES : You may submit comments 
as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing 
system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of October 23, 2023. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be 
considered timely if they are received on or before that date. 
Electronic Submissions 
Submit electronic comments in the 
following way: 
•Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. 
Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to 
the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else’s Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov. 
•If you want to submit a comment 
with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’). 
Written/Paper Submissions 
Submit written/paper submissions as 
follows: 
•Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for 
written/paper submissions): Dockets 
Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. 
•For written/paper comments 
submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’ 
Instructions: All submissions received 
must include the Docket No. FDA– 2019–N–4750 for ‘‘Revocation of Uses of Partially Hydrogenated Oils in Foods.’’ Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see 
ADDRESSES ) will be 
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ‘‘Confidential Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the 
Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240–402–7500. 
•Confidential Submissions—To 
submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states ‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/ blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both 
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as ‘‘confidential.’’ Any information marked as ‘‘confidential’’ will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA’s posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015- 09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf. 
Docket: For access to the docket to 
read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the 
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240–402–7500. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS–255), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–1309; or Carrol Bascus, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Regulations and Policy (HFS–024), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240–402– 2378. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
I. Executive Summary 
A. Purpose of the Direct Final Rule 
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the 
Direct Final Rule 
C. Legal Authority D. Costs and Benefits 
II. Direct Final Rulemaking III. Table of Abbreviations/Acronyms Used in 
This Document 
IV. Background V. Legal Authority VI. Description of the Direct Final Rule 
A. Amendment of Standard of Identity 
Regulations 
B. Amendment/Revocation of GRAS 
Affirmation Regulations 
C. Comments on Prior-Sanctioned Uses of 
PHOs 
VII. Revocation of Prior-Sanctioned Uses of 
PHOs 
VIII. Trans Fat Consumption Health Effects 
A. Updated Scientific Literature and Expert 
Opinion Review 
B. Estimated Exposure to Trans Fat From 
Prior-Sanctioned Uses of PHOs 
C. Risk Estimates Associated With Prior- 
Sanctioned Uses of PHOs 
IX. Economic Analysis of Impacts 
X. Analysis of Environmental Impact XI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 XII. Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments 
XIII. Federalism XIV. References 
I. Executive Summary 
A. Purpose of the Direct Final Rule 
The purpose of this direct final rule 
is to amend our regulations and revoke 
prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs to conform with the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the public health risks of PHOs. In June 2015, FDA published a declaratory order (Order) setting forth our final determination, based on the available scientific evidence and the findings of expert scientific panels, that there is no longer a consensus among qualified experts that PHOs, which are the primary dietary source of industrially produced trans fatty acids, are GRAS for 
any use in human food. The Order stated that we determined that this body of evidence established the health risks associated with the consumption of trans fat. In the Order, we recognized 
that there were some uses of PHOs in foods that are expressly authorized by GRAS affirmation regulations, acknowledged that there could be some uses recognized by ‘‘prior sanction’’ (and thus could not be regulated as a 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES153766 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 
food additive), and stated that we would 
address such uses separate from the final determination. We also stated that we would consider taking further action, including revising certain 
standards of identity that list PHOs as optional ingredients. 
As explained in the Order, there is a 
lack of convincing evidence that PHOs are GRAS. FDA has not approved a food additive petition for PHOs. Accordingly, we are removing PHOs from our food regulations in light of our determination that PHOs are no longer GRAS. 
Furthermore, based on our current 
review of scientific data and information, as well as previous safety reviews performed to support various FDA actions regarding trans fat, we are 
prohibiting all prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs. A prior sanction exempts a specific use of a substance in food from the definition of food additive and from all related food additive provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) if the use was sanctioned or approved prior to September 6, 1958. In accordance with FDA’s general regulations regarding prior sanctions, we may revoke a prior- sanctioned use of a food ingredient where scientific data or information demonstrate that prior-sanctioned use of the food ingredient may be injurious to health. We have determined that the prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs may render food injurious to health. Consequently, we are revoking the prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs. 
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of 
the Direct Final Rule 
The rule removes PHOs as an optional 
ingredient in the standards of identity for peanut butter and canned tuna, revises the regulations affirming the use of menhaden oil and rapeseed oil as GRAS to delete language regarding partially hydrogenated forms of these oils, and revokes the regulation affirming hydrogenated fish oil as GRAS as an indirect food substance. We are revoking prior sanctions (i.e., pre-1958 
authorization of certain uses) for the use of PHOs in margarine, shortening, and bread, rolls, and buns. 
C. Legal Authority 
This rule is consistent with our 
authority in sections 201, 401, 402, 409, 
and 701 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 348, and 371). We discuss our legal authority in greater detail in section V of this document. 
D. Costs and Benefits 
We estimated the costs of removing 
PHO-containing foods from the market, 
which accrue from product reformulation, relabeling products, 
changing food recipes, finding substitute ingredients and changes in functional and sensory product properties, such as taste, texture, and shelf life. The benefits of the rule accrue from reduction of coronary heart diseases. Discounted at 7 percent over a 20-year period, the annualized primary cost estimate of the rule is $24.5 million with a lower bound estimate of $20.8 million and an upper bound estimate of $29.7 million. The annualized benefits of this rule discounted at 7 percent over a 20-year period is $61.5 million for the primary estimate with a lower bound of $20.1 million and an upper bound of $120.7 million. 
II. Direct Final Rulemaking 
In the document titled ‘‘Guidance for 
FDA and Industry: Direct Final Rule 
Procedures,’’ announced and provided in the Federal Register of November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62466), FDA described its procedures on when and how we will employ direct final rulemaking. The guidance may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/ Guidances/ucm125166.htm. We have 
determined that this rule is appropriate for direct final rulemaking because it includes only noncontroversial amendments, and we anticipate no significant adverse comments. Consistent with our procedures on direct final rulemaking, we are also publishing elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register a companion proposed rule proposing to amend our regulations and revoke prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs to conform with the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the public health risks of PHOs. The companion proposed rule provides a procedural framework within which the rule may be finalized if the direct final rule is withdrawn because of any significant adverse comments. The comment period for the direct final rule runs concurrently with the companion proposed rule. Any comments received in response to the companion proposed rule will be considered as comments regarding the direct final rule. 
We are providing a comment period 
on the direct final rule of 75 days after 
the date of publication in the Federal Register. If we receive any significant adverse comments, we intend to withdraw this direct final rule before its effective date by publication of a notice in the Federal Register. A significant 
adverse comment is defined as a comment that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule’s underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether an adverse comment is significant and warrants terminating a direct final rulemaking, we will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. 
Comments that are frivolous, 
insubstantial, or outside the scope of the rule will not be considered significant or adverse under this procedure. A comment recommending a regulation change in addition to those in the direct final rule would not be considered a significant adverse comment unless the comment states why the rule would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment applies to a part of this rule and that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of the significant adverse comment. 
If any significant adverse comments 
are received during the comment period, FDA will publish, before the effective date of this direct final rule, a notice of significant adverse comment and withdraw the direct final rule. If we withdraw the direct final rule, any comments received will be applied to the proposed rule and will be considered in developing a final rule using the usual notice-and-comment procedure. 
If FDA receives no significant adverse 
comments during the specified comment period, we intend to publish a document confirming the effective date within 30 days after the comment period ends. 
III. Table of Abbreviations/Acronyms 
Used in This Document 
Abbreviation/ 
acronym What it means 
CFR ............... Code of Federal Regulations. 
CHD .............. Coronary heart disease. 
CVD .............. Cardiovascular disease. 
FD&C Act ...... Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act. 
FDA ............... Food and Drug Administra-
tion. 
FR ................. Federal Register. 
GRAS ............ Generally Recognized as 
Safe. 
IP–TFA .......... Industrially Produced Trans 
Fatty Acid. 
LEAR oil ........ Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed 
Oil. 
%en ............... Percentage of Total Energy 
Intake per Day. 
PHOs ............ Partially Hydrogenated Oils. 
U.S.C. ........... United States Code. 
USDA ............ United States Department of 
Agriculture. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES153767 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 
IV. Background 
In the Federal Register of November 
8, 2013 (78 FR 67169), we announced 
our tentative determination that, based on currently available scientific information, PHOs are no longer GRAS under any condition of use in human food and, therefore, are food additives. Section 201(s) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s)) defines a food additive, in part, as a substance that is not GRAS, and section 402(a)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)) establishes that food bearing or containing a food additive that is unsafe within the meaning of section 409 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 348) is adulterated. Section 409 of the FD&C Act establishes that a food additive is unsafe for the purposes of section 402(a)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act unless certain criteria are met, such as conformance with a regulation prescribing the conditions under which the additive may be safely used. In the Federal Register of June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34650), we published a declaratory order (the Order) announcing our final determination that there is no longer a consensus among qualified experts that PHOs, the primary dietary source of industrially produced trans fatty acids 
(IP–TFA), are GRAS for any use in human food. For a discussion of the science regarding the harms associated with PHOs, we refer readers to the prior administrative proceeding (see 78 FR 67169 at 67171). 
The Order acknowledged (see 80 FR 
34650 at 34651) that the regulations at 21 CFR part 184, ‘‘Direct Food Substances Affirmed as Generally Recognized as Safe,’’ (GRAS affirmation regulations) include partially hydrogenated versions of two oils: (1) menhaden oil (§ 184.1472(b) (21 CFR 184.1472(b))) and (2) low erucic acid rapeseed (LEAR) oil (§ 184.1555(c)(2) (21 CFR 184.1555(c)(2))). Partially hydrogenated menhaden oil was affirmed as GRAS for use in food (54 FR 38219, September 15, 1989) on the basis that the oil is chemically and biologically comparable to commonly used partially hydrogenated vegetable oils such as corn and soybean oils. Partially hydrogenated LEAR oil was affirmed as GRAS for use in food (50 FR 3745, January 28, 1985) based on published safety studies (i.e., scientific 
procedures) (21 CFR 170.30). In the Order, we stated that we would amend the GRAS affirmation regulations for menhaden oil and LEAR oil (§§ 184.1472 and 184.1555) in a future rulemaking (see 80 FR 34650 at 34651, 34655, and 34667). 
In addition, our GRAS affirmation 
regulation for hydrogenated fish oil at § 186.1551 (21 CFR 186.1551) (44 FR 
28323, May 15, 1979), provides for partial hydrogenation of oils expressed from fish, primarily menhaden, and secondarily herring or tuna, used as a constituent of cotton and cotton fabrics used for dry food packaging. 
Certain standard of identity 
regulations include PHOs as an optional ingredient. Since 1990, the standard of identity for canned tuna at § 161.190 (21 CFR 161.190) has provided for the use of PHOs as an optional seasoning or flavoring ingredient in canned tuna in water (55 FR 45795, October 31, 1990). Since 1968, the standard of identity for peanut butter at § 164.150 (21 CFR 164.150) has provided for the use of PHOs as an optional stabilizing ingredient (33 FR 10506, July 24, 1968). 
In addition, based on a review of our 
regulations and on comments submitted in response to our tentative determination, ‘‘prior sanctions’’ exist for the use of PHOs in margarine, shortening, and bread, rolls, and buns. As discussed in more detail in section VI of this document, a prior sanction exempts a specific use of a substance in food if the use was sanctioned or approved prior to September 6, 1958, from the definition of a food additive under section 201(s)(4) of the FD&C Act and from all related food additive provisions of the FD&C Act. 
V. Legal Authority 
We are issuing this rule under the 
legal authority of sections 201, 401, 402, 
409, and 701 of the FD&C Act. The FD&C Act defines ‘‘food additive,’’ in relevant part, as any substance, the 
intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component of food, if such substance is not generally recognized by experts as safe under the conditions of its intended use (section 201(s) of the FD&C Act). The definition of ‘‘food additive’’ exempts any uses that are the subject of a prior sanction (section 201(s)(4) of the FD&C Act). Food additives are deemed unsafe except to the extent that FDA approves their use (section 409(a) of the FD&C Act). Food is adulterated when it contains an unapproved food additive (section 402(a)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act). In addition, we may establish standards of identity for foods to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers (section 401 of the FD&C Act). Section 701(a) of the FD&C Act provides the authority to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act. 
With respect to prior sanctions, 
section 201(s)(4) of the FD&C Act exempts from the definition of a food additive any substance used in accordance with a sanction or approval granted under the FD&C Act, the Meat Inspection Act, or the Poultry Products Inspection Act before the enactment of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 on September 6, 1958. This type of sanction or approval is referred to as a ‘‘prior sanction.’’ Our regulation, at 21 CFR 170.3(l), defines this term as an explicit approval granted with respect to use of a substance in food before September 6, 1958, under the FD&C Act, the Meat Inspection Act, or the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Another FDA regulation (21 CFR 181.5(a)) states that a prior sanction exists only for a specific use(s) of a substance in food, i.e., the 
level(s), condition(s), product(s), etc., for which there was explicit approval by FDA or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) before September 6, 1958. The ‘‘explicit approval’’ needed to establish a prior sanction may be either formal or informal. If a formal approval, such as a food standard regulation issued under the FD&C Act before 1958, does not exist, correspondence issued by authorized FDA officials can constitute an informal prior sanction. 
In accordance with FDA’s general 
regulations regarding prior sanctions found at 21 CFR 181.1(b) and 181.5(c), we may revoke a prior-sanctioned use of a food ingredient where scientific data or information demonstrate that prior- sanctioned use of the food ingredient may be injurious to health and, thus, adulterates the food under section 402 of the FD&C Act. 
VI. Description of the Direct Final Rule 
This rule: 
•Amends the food standard for 
canned tuna at § 161.190 to no longer 
include partially hydrogenated vegetable oil as an optional ingredient for seasoning in canned tuna packed in water; 
•Amends the food standard for 
peanut butter at § 164.150 to no longer include partially hydrogenated vegetable oil as an optional stabilizing ingredient in peanut butter; 
•Revises § 184.1472 to delete 
references to partially hydrogenated menhaden oil; 
•Revises § 184.1555 to delete 
references to partially hydrogenated LEAR oil; 
•Revokes § 186.1551, which permits 
the use of partially hydrogenated fish oil in cotton and cotton fabrics used for dry food packaging; and 
•Revokes the prior sanctions for the 
use of PHOs in margarine, shortening, and bread, rolls, and buns. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES153768 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 
A. Amendment of Standard of Identity 
Regulations 
Standard of identity regulations for 
food are issued under section 401 of the FD&C Act and do not provide either an authorization or an exemption from regulation as a food additive under section 409 of the FD&C Act. FDA’s standards of identity, among other things, establish the common or usual name for a food and define the basic nature of the food, generally in terms of the types of ingredients that it must contain (i.e., mandatory ingredients) 
and that it may contain (i.e., optional 
ingredients). The purpose of food standards is to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. Therefore, the inclusion of PHOs in certain standards of identity does not necessarily mean that their use is permissible under section 409 of the FD&C Act. As such, our changes to these standard of identity regulations are merely for clarification purposes. 
1. Canned Tuna—§ 161.190 
Since 1990, our regulations, at 
§ 161.190(a) have described canned tuna 
as processed flesh of fish of the species enumerated in § 161.190(a)(2), commonly known as tuna, in any of the forms of pack specified in § 161.190(a)(3) (55 FR 45795). The standard of identity for canned tuna includes, as an optional ingredient, edible vegetable oil or partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, excluding olive oil, to be used alone or in combination, as seasoning in canned tuna packed in water (§ 161.190(a)(6)(viii)). 
The rule deletes the words ‘‘or 
partially hydrogenated vegetable oil’’ and ‘‘alone or in combination’’ from the list of optional ingredients in canned tuna (§ 161.190(a)(6)(viii)). The remaining term ‘‘edible vegetable oil’’ does not include the use of any partially hydrogenated oils in canned tuna. (See Ref. 1.) 
2. Peanut Butter—§ 164.150 
Since 1968, our regulations at 
§ 164.150 have described standardized 
peanut butter as a product prepared by grinding one of the shelled and roasted peanut ingredients provided for by § 164.150(b), to which may be added safe and suitable seasoning and stabilizing ingredients provided for by § 164.150(c), if such seasoning and stabilizing ingredients do not, in the aggregate, exceed 10 percent of the weight of the finished food (33 FR 10506). 
The standard of identity for peanut 
butter, at § 164.150(c), includes oil products as optional stabilizing ingredients, which must be hydrogenated vegetable oils; for purposes of § 164.150(c), hydrogenated vegetable oil is considered to include partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. 
The rule revises the standard of 
identity for peanut butter by deleting the reference to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil in § 164.150(c). The rule also makes a minor editorial change by replacing ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘must.’’ 
B. Amendment/Revocation of GRAS 
Affirmation Regulations 
1. Menhaden Oil—§ 184.1472 
Since 1997, our GRAS affirmation 
regulations for menhaden oil at 
§ 184.1472(a) have described menhaden oil as being prepared from fish of the genus Brevoortia, commonly known as 
menhaden, by cooking and pressing (62 FR 30756, June 5, 1997). The resulting crude oil is then refined using the following steps: storage (winterization), degumming (optional), neutralization, bleaching, and deodorization. 
Our regulations, at § 184.1472(b), 
address the preparation of partially hydrogenated and hydrogenated menhaden oils (§ 184.1472(b)(1)), the specifications for partially hydrogenated and hydrogenated menhaden oils (§ 184.1472(b)(2)), the uses of partially hydrogenated and hydrogenated menhaden oils (§ 184.1472(b)(3)), and the name to be used on the product’s label (§ 184.1472(b)(4)). 
The rule amends the GRAS 
affirmation regulation for menhaden oil at § 184.1472 to delete references to partially hydrogenated menhaden oil from § 184.1472(b), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(2)(iv), (b)(3), and (b)(4). The rule also changes the iodine value specification for hydrogenated menhaden oil from the current specification of ‘‘not more than 10,’’ to ‘‘not more than 4.’’ This is consistent with our definition of PHOs in the Order. For the purposes of the Order, we defined PHOs as fats and oils that have been hydrogenated, but not to complete or near complete saturation, and with an iodine value greater than 4 (80 FR 34650 at 34651). The rule also makes minor editorial changes, such as referring to hydrogenated menhaden oil (singular) rather than to hydrogenated menhaden oils (plural) and substituting ‘‘is’’ for ‘‘are’’ to reflect that the rule would refer to only hydrogenated menhaden oil. 
2. Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed Oil— 
§ 184.1555 
Since 1985, our GRAS affirmation 
regulations for LEAR oil, at § 184.1555(c) have described LEAR oil, also known as canola oil, as the fully 
refined, bleached, and deodorized edible oil obtained from certain varieties of Brassica napus or B. campestris of the 
family Cruciferae (50 FR 3745 at 3755). 
The plant varieties are those producing oil-bearing seeds with a low erucic acid content. Chemically, low erucic acid rapeseed oil is a mixture of triglycerides, composed of both saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, with an erucic acid content of no more than 2 percent of the component fatty acids. The regulation provides for the partial hydrogenation of LEAR oil (§ 184.1555(c)(2)) and discusses the oil’s purity (§ 184.1555(c)(3)) and uses in food (§ 184.1555(c)(4)). 
The rule deletes § 184.1555(c)(2) 
entirely, deletes all mention of partially hydrogenated LEAR oil from § 184.1555(c)(3) and (4), and redesignates current § 184.1555(c)(3) and (4) as § 184.1555(c)(2) and (3), respectively. 
3. Hydrogenated Fish Oil—§ 186.1551 
Since 1979, our GRAS affirmation 
regulations for hydrogenated fish oil at 
§ 186.1551 have described hydrogenated fish oil as a class of oils produced by the partial hydrogenation of oils expressed from fish, primarily menhaden and secondarily herring or tuna (44 FR 28323). The regulation allows the use of this oil as a constituent of cotton and cotton fabrics used for dry food packaging. It was noted in the final rule entitled ‘‘Substances Generally Recognized as Safe and Indirect Food Substances Affirmed as Generally Recognized as Safe; Hydrogenated Fish Oil’’ that no reports of a prior- sanctioned use for hydrogenated fish oil were submitted in response to the proposed rule, and therefore, in accordance with that proposal, any right to assert a prior sanction for a use of hydrogenated fish oil under conditions different from those set forth in this regulation had been waived (44 FR 28323). Prior sanctions for hydrogenated fish oil that differ from the use set forth in the GRAS affirmation regulations do not exist or have been waived (§ 186.1551(e)). 
The rule deletes the GRAS affirmation 
regulations for hydrogenated fish oil at § 186.1551 entirely. Our earlier determination that there are no prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the use provided for in § 186.1551 or that any other prior sanctions have been waived remains in effect. 
C. Comments on Prior-Sanctioned Uses 
of PHOs 
We stated in our tentative 
determination that we were not aware 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES153769 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 
that FDA or USDA had granted any 
explicit approval for any use of PHOs in food before the 1958 Food Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act (78 FR 67169 at 67171) and requested comments on whether there was knowledge of an applicable prior sanction for the use of PHOs in food (78 FR 67169 at 67174). We discuss the comments in this section. In addition, we conclude that any prior sanctions for other uses of PHOs in food different from the uses discussed in sections VI.C.1, 2, and 3 of this document do not exist or have been waived. 
1. GRAS Affirmation Regulations for 
Menhaden Oil, LEAR Oil, and Hydrogenated Fish Oil 
As noted in the Order we 
acknowledged that we had, in our regulations, previously affirmed as GRAS the use of PHOs in certain foods or food contact substances (80 FR 34650 
at 34651). We describe these regulations and our revocation elsewhere in this rule. Although some comments on our tentative determination suggested that these uses are prior-sanctioned, in each case the regulation affirming the status of the use as GRAS post-dates 1958. We have no evidence that the uses affirmed for menhaden oil (§ 184.1472) or LEAR oil (§ 184.1555) are prior-sanctioned. In the case of hydrogenated fish oil (§ 186.1551), any prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the use in the GRAS affirmation regulation do not exist or have been waived (§ 186.1551(e)). 
2. Canned Tuna and Peanut Butter 
Standards of Identity 
Some comments identified the 
standards of identity for canned tuna (§ 161.190) and peanut butter (§ 164.150) as providing proof of prior sanction of PHOs because ‘‘partially hydrogenated vegetable oil’’ is explicitly listed as an optional ingredient in each of those regulations. As discussed in section VI.A of this document, the standards of identity for canned tuna and peanut butter both post-date 1958. We have no evidence of any prior sanctions for the use of PHOs as described in the standards of identity for canned tuna and peanut butter. 
3. Mayonnaise, French Dressing, and 
Salad Dressing Standards of Identity 
Some comments identified the pre- 
September 6, 1958, standards of identity for mayonnaise (21 CFR 169.140), salad dressing (21 CFR 169.150), and French dressing (21 CFR 169.115 (revoked effective February 14, 2022 (87 FR 2038))) and claimed that they constituted prior sanctions for PHOs. The comments acknowledged that these 
standards did not explicitly list PHOs but argued that because the standards allow use of ‘‘edible vegetable oil’’ in the standardized products, they were understood by both FDA and industry to include PHOs because vegetable oil can be hydrogenated. 
We issued the standards of identity 
for mayonnaise, French dressing, and salad dressing in 1950 (15 FR 5227, August 12, 1950). They permit use of ‘‘edible vegetable oil’’ in the standardized products. No comments to our tentative determination identified any reference to hydrogenation of oils in the rulemaking issuing these standards. No comments suggested that industry used PHOs in these products at the time or that industry is currently using PHOs in these products. We understand that, since at least 1940, hydrogenation changes the physical properties of an oil and therefore, changes a product’s identity (see Ref. 1, discussing labeling for, among other things, ‘‘vegetable oils which have not had their identity changed through hydrogenation. . .’’). Thus, the references to ‘‘edible vegetable oil’’ in these standards, without mention of hydrogenation or hardening, do not include PHOs or fully hydrogenated oils. Therefore, the evidence does not provide an adequate basis on which to establish a prior sanction. 
4. Margarine, and Bread, Rolls, and 
Buns Standards of Identity, and Shortening 
Some comments identified the pre- 
September 6, 1958, standards of identity for bread, rolls, and buns (§ 136.110 (21 CFR 136.110)), and margarine (§ 166.110 (21 CFR 166.110)), and claimed that they constituted prior sanctions for PHOs. The comments acknowledged that these standards did not explicitly list PHOs but argued that because the standards allow use of ‘‘shortening’’ 
(bread, rolls, and buns), and ‘‘oil’’ (margarine) in the standardized products, they were understood by both FDA and industry to include PHOs because shortening and oil can be hydrogenated. Moreover, the comments acknowledged that, while there is no standard of identity for shortening that mentions PHOs specifically, historical evidence shows that shortening was generally understood to contain PHOs before 1958. 
We issued the standard of identity for 
margarine in 1941 (6 FR 2761, June 7, 1941). At that time, the standard of identity stated that oleomargarine is prepared with one or more of several optional fat ingredients, including the rendered fat, or oil, or stearin derived therefrom (any or all of which may be hydrogenated), of cattle, sheep, swine, 
or goats or any vegetable food fat or oil, or oil or stearin derived therefrom (any or all of which may be hydrogenated) (6 FR 2761 at 2762). The standard of identity, as it existed in 1941, contained no specific limitations on these ingredients. The current standard of identity (now codified at § 166.110) states, in relevant part, that margarine may include edible fats and/or oils from animals, vegetables, or fish, or mixtures of these, which may have been subjected to an accepted process of physico-chemical modification (§ 166.110(a)(1)). The standard of identity for margarine also states that margarine ‘‘may contain small amounts of other lipids, such as phosphatides or unsaponifiable constituents, and of free fatty acids naturally present in the fat or oil’’ (id.). 
We issued the standard of identity for 
bread, rolls, and buns in 1952 (17 FR 4453, May 15, 1952). The standard of identity, which is now codified at § 136.110, identifies ‘‘shortening’’ as an optional ingredient. We initially proposed a more detailed description of the term ‘‘shortening’’ in 1941 that was very similar to the term used in the margarine standard issued that same year; that description indicated that shortening is composed of fat or oil from animals, vegetables, or fish, any or all of which may be hydrogenated, or of butter, or any combination of two or more such articles (6 FR 2771, June 7, 1941). However, the final rule that we issued in 1952 simply referred to ‘‘shortening’’ and did not prescribe the contents of or otherwise define ‘‘shortening’’ (17 FR 4453). Similarly, the current standard of identity mentions ‘‘shortening,’’ but does not prescribe the contents of or otherwise define ‘‘shortening’’ (see § 136.110(c)(5)). Additionally, the standard of identity, as it existed in 1952, contained no specific limitations on these ingredients. 
In addition to identifying these 
standards of identity, some comments to our tentative determination stated that the reference to hydrogenation in the pre-September 6, 1958, standard of identity for margarine was likely to have meant partially hydrogenated oils as a practical matter, based on the inherent 
difference in the functional characteristics of partially and fully hydrogenated oils and the history of use of PHOs in margarine products. 
Other comments submitted historical 
evidence relating to widespread use of PHOs in margarine and shortening before 1958. This evidence included a 1945 USDA publication, ‘‘Foods— Enriched, Restored, Fortified’’ (Ref. 2), 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES153770 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 
that described margarine by saying: ‘‘As 
it is made by 41 manufacturing plants in the United States, margarine contains a mixture of animal fats and vegetable oils or one or the other—fats that have been used as food for centuries. These are partially hydrogenated and blended to give the right spreading consistency.’’ The comments also submitted two patents, one from 1915 for ‘‘[a] homogeneous lard-like food product consisting of an incompletely hydrogenized vegetable oil,’’ (Ref. 3) and one from 1957 for ‘‘fluid shortening,’’ stating ‘‘[s]hortenings heretofore available for baking have included . . . compounded or blended shortenings, made from mixtures of naturally hard fats or hydrogenated vegetable oils with liquid, soft, or partially hydrogenated vegetable oils’’ (Ref. 4). One comment cited a Supreme Court decision regarding the patentability of the product of partial hydrogenation of vegetable oil for use as shortening (Berlin Mills Co. v. Procter & 
Gamble Co., 254 U.S. 156 (1920)). In finding the 1915 patent invalid, the Court held that ‘‘it was known before [the patentee] took up the subject that a vegetable oil could be changed into a semi-solid, homogeneous, substance by a process of hydrogenation arrested before completion and that it might be edible’’ (Berlin Mills, 254 U.S. at 165). 
Some comments said that we 
intended to include PHOs in the terms ‘‘shortening’’ and ‘‘oil . . . (any or all of which may be hydrogenated)’’ used in these pre-1958 standards of identity. One comment said that we have, in other contexts, used the term ‘‘hydrogenated oils’’ when we intended to refer to PHOs (see, e.g., 68 FR 41434 
at 41443, July 11, 2003 (‘‘trans fatty 
acids provided by food sources of hydrogenated oil’’)) and that the term ‘‘partially hydrogenated’’ did not appear in our regulations until 1978 (43 FR 12856, March 28, 1978 (amending the food labeling regulations by substituting ‘‘hydrogenated’’ and ‘‘partially hydrogenated’’ for ‘‘saturated’’ and ‘‘partially saturated’’ when describing a fat or oil ingredient)). Additionally, in trade correspondence in 1940, we described three general types of shortening in response to a question about ingredient labeling; we said that the types of shortening were: ‘‘(1) vegetable shortenings composed wholly of mixtures of edible vegetable oils, which have been subjected to a chemical hardening process known as hydrogenation; (2) mixtures of vegetable oils with or without varying proportions of hardened vegetable oils and with edible animal fats; and (3) hydrogenated mixtures of vegetable oils and marine 
animal oils (Ref. 1).’’ In addition, during a rulemaking regarding oils and fats, we used the phrase ‘‘oil . . . (any or all of which may be hydrogenated)’’ and acknowledged that this category included PHOs (36 FR 11521, June 15, 1971). We proposed that, if the vegetable fats or oils present are hydrogenated, the ingredient declaration should include the term ‘‘hydrogenated,’’ ‘‘partially hydrogenated,’’ or ‘‘hardened,’’ and gave an example of ‘‘partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil’’ (36 FR 11521). 
Thus, a prior sanction, as provided for 
in section 201(s)(4) of the FD&C Act, exists for the uses of PHOs in margarine, shortening, and bread, rolls, and buns. However, as discussed in the next section, we are revoking the prior sanction for these uses. 
VII. Revocation of Prior-Sanctioned 
Uses of PHOs 
We have concluded that there are 
prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs in margarine, shortening, and bread, rolls, and buns, and that these uses may be injurious to health and may adulterate food under section 402 of the FD&C Act. Therefore, we are revoking the prior sanction for the uses of PHOs in margarine, shortening, and bread, rolls, and buns. Our conclusion is based on our current review of scientific data and information, as well as previous safety reviews performed in support of various FDA actions regarding trans fat and 
PHOs spanning 1999 to 2018 (see 64 FR 62746, November 17, 1999; 68 FR 41434, July 11, 2003; 78 FR 67169, November 8, 2013; 80 FR 34650, June 17, 2015; 83 FR 23382, May 21, 2018). In our review for this rule, we estimated the dietary exposure for IP–TFA from the prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs in margarine, shortening, and bread, rolls, and buns (Ref. 5) and conducted a 
quantitative risk assessment for the coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks associated with this estimated exposure to IP–TFA (Ref. 6). We also conducted an updated scientific review of published studies and evaluations by expert panels on the safety of trans fat 
(Ref. 7). 
As for the standards of identity for 
margarine and bread, rolls, and buns, no corresponding revision to these regulations are necessary. Each standard, as currently written, is limited so that only ‘‘safe and suitable’’ ingredients may be used, and neither current standard expressly refers to hydrogenation or partial hydrogenation (see §§ 136.110(b) and 166.110(a)). Moreover, our regulations provide that no provision of any regulation prescribing a definition and standard of identity is to be construed as affecting the concurrent applicability of the general provisions of the FD&C Act and our regulations (see § 130.3(c) (21 CFR 130.3(c))). For example, all standard of identity regulations contemplate that the food and all articles used as components or ingredients must not be poisonous or deleterious (see § 130.3(c); see also § 130.3(d) (further defining ‘‘safe and suitable’’)). As for shortening, our standards of identity do not describe the contents of or otherwise define ‘‘shortening,’’ so no amendment is necessary. 
VIII. Trans Fat Consumption Health 
Effects 
A. Updated Scientific Literature and 
Expert Opinion Review 
Our Order referenced three safety 
memoranda prepared by FDA that document our review of the available scientific evidence regarding human health effects of trans fat, focusing on 
the adverse effects of trans fat on risk of 
CHD (Refs. 8 to 10). In addition, we previously reviewed the health effects of IP–TFA and PHOs in 2013 in support of our tentative determination regarding the GRAS status of PHOs (78 FR 67169, Docket No. FDA–2013–N–1317). Our Order announced our final determination that there is no longer a consensus among qualified experts that PHOs are GRAS for any use in human food (80 FR 34650). The safety reviews for the Order, together with the previous safety reviews of IP–TFA and PHOs, provided important scientific background information for our review and denial of a food additive petition for certain uses of PHOs in 2018 (83 FR 23382). 
We based our Order on the available 
scientific evidence that included results from controlled feeding studies on trans fatty acid consumption in humans, findings from long-term prospective epidemiological studies, and the opinions of expert panels that there is no threshold intake level for IP–TFA that would not increase an individual’s risk of CHD. We also published a safety review for specific uses of PHOs in a notice denying a food additive petition for certain uses of PHOs in food (83 FR 23382, Docket No. FDA–2015–F–3663). This safety review reinforced our 2015 scientific review supporting the final determination that PHOs are not GRAS for use in human food. We denied the food additive petition because we determined that the petition did not contain convincing evidence to support the conclusion that the proposed uses of 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES153771 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 
PHOs were safe (83 FR 23382 at 23391). 
All the previously mentioned safety reviews of IP–TFA and PHOs provide important scientific background information for review of the health effects of the prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs. 
We are not aware of any new, 
scientific literature on the safety of IP– TFA and PHOs that would cause us to reconsider our previous safety conclusions. International and U.S. expert panels, using additional scientific evidence available since 2015, have continued to recognize the positive linear relationship between increased trans fat intake and increased low 
density lipoprotein cholesterol blood levels associated with increased CHD risk, have concluded that trans fats are 
not essential nutrients in the diet, and have recommended that trans fat 
consumption be kept as low as possible. 
B. Estimated Exposure to Trans Fat 
From Prior-Sanctioned Uses of PHOs 
For this direct final rule, in order to 
estimate the risks to CHD and CVD associated with consumption of IP–TFA from prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs, we first had to estimate dietary exposure to IP–TFA from these uses of PHOs. We used two non-consecutive days of 24- hour dietary recall data from the 2011– 2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to estimate dietary exposure to IP–TFA from the use of PHOs in margarine and shortening (which includes the prior- sanctioned uses in bread, rolls, and buns due to the use of margarine and/ or shortening in the food). We included all foods reported in NHANES that contained margarine or shortening as an ingredient in our analysis. We applied levels of trans fat commonly used in 
margarine and shortening manufactured before the publication of the tentative determination in 2013. These use levels reflect our conservative assumption that manufacturers may revert back to using PHOs at these higher use levels in margarine and shortening if prior sanctions are not revoked by this direct final rule. For the U.S. population aged 2 years and older, we estimated a cumulative mean dietary IP–TFA exposure of 0.3 grams per person per day for typical trans fat levels, for both 
margarine and shortening, based on 53 percent of the population consuming margarine or shortening (Ref. 5). The mean IP–TFA exposure for the total population (i.e., per capita intake) was 
also determined (Ref. 7). Expressed as a percentage of total energy intake per day (%en) based on a 2000 calorie diet, the mean per-capita IP–TFA exposure for typical IP–TFA levels in foods was 
estimated to be 0.07%en (Ref. 7). 
C. Risk Estimates Associated With Prior- 
Sanctioned Uses of PHOs 
We used four risk methods to estimate 
change in CHD and CVD risk associated with 0.07%en IP–TFA exposure from prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs (Ref. 6). Our assessment methodology is documented in our memorandum (Ref. 6). 
Our quantitative risk assessments 
demonstrate that there is a substantial health risk associated with 0.07%en from IP–TFA from prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs (Ref. 6). Along with our Order, our denial of the food additive petition for certain uses of PHOs in food, and our recent updated scientific literature review on the safety of PHOs and trans fat (Ref. 7), these analyses provide further support for the revocation of the prior-sanctioned uses of PHOs. The scientific consensus is that there is no threshold intake level of IP–TFA that would not increase an individual’s risk of CHD (Ref. 7). Thus, based on the available data, we conclude that PHOs 
used in food may cause the food to be injurious to health and that the use of PHOs as ingredients in margarine, shortening, and bread, rolls, and buns would adulterate these foods under section 402(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. 
IX. Economic Analysis of Impacts 
FDA has examined the impacts of the 
final rule under Executive Order 12866, 
Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 14094, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Congressional Review Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801, Pub. L. 104–121), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 
14094 direct us to assess all costs, benefits and transfers 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). Rules are ‘‘significant’’ under Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f)(1) (as amended by Executive Order 14094) if they ‘‘have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of [the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)] for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or tribal 
governments or communities.’’ OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f)(1). 
Because this rule is likely to result in 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria specified in the Congressional Review Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, OIRA has determined that this rule falls within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 
requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this rule may require some small business entities to undertake costly reformulations, we find that the final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ‘‘any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.’’ The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $177 million, using the most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount. 
The benefits of this rule are expected 
to accrue from the number of coronary heart diseases averted from discontinued use of foods made with PHOs. The removal of PHO containing foods from the marketplace will limit their access by most consumers. Such action will protect the public by reducing the health risk of developing CHDs and improving population health among those who would otherwise 
consume products containing PHOs. Continual use of PHOs is associated with increased CHD and CVDs. Per capita higher intake of PHOs can lead to elevated risk of CHD and CVDs among the U.S. population. Therefore, FDA notes that the benefit of this rule relative to baseline market conditions are expected to decrease over time as PHO containing products exit the marketplace. The annualized benefits of this rule at a 7 percent discount rate over a 20-year period is $61.5 million for the primary estimate with a lower bound of $20.1 million and an upper bound of $120.7 million. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES153772 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 
The quantified costs of the rule are 
from reformulating manufactured 
products currently produced with PHOs, relabeling products that contain PHOs, changing recipes for some PHO containing breads by retail bakeries, finding substitute ingredients as well as costs arising from functional and sensory product properties such as taste and texture. The annualized cost of the rule at a 7 percent discount rate over a 20-year period has a primary estimate of $24.5 million with a lower bound 
estimate of $20.8 million and an upper bound estimate of $29.7 million. 
Table 1 presents a summary of costs 
and benefits of this rule. 
TABLE 1—S UMMARY OF BENEFITS , COSTS AND DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF FINAL RULE, IN2020 M ILLION DOLLARS  
Category Primary 
estimate Low 
estimate High 
estimate Units 
Notes Year 
dollars Discount 
rate 
(%) Period 
covered 
(years) 
Benefits: 
Annualized Monetized $millions/year ....................................... $61.5 
58.3 $20.1 
19.1 $120.7 
114.3 2020 
2020 7 
3 20 
20 
Annualized Quantified .............................................................. ..................
..............................................................................................................................7 
3 
Qualitative ................................................................................
Costs: 
Annualized Monetized $millions/year ....................................... 24.5 
20.2 20.8 
17.1 29.7 33.2 2020 
2020 7 
3 20 20 
Annualized Quantified .............................................................. ..................
....................................
..........................................................................................7 
3 
Qualitative ................................................................................
Transfers: 
Federal Annualized Monetized $millions/year ......................... ..................
..............................................................................................................................7 
3 
From/To .................................................................................... From: To: 
Other Annualized .....................................................................Monetized $millions/year ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................7 
3 
From/To .................................................................................... From: To: 
Effects: 
State, Local or Tribal Government: None. Small Business: Potential impact on small business entities that are currently continuing to use or produce PHOs and PHO containing ingredients in their prod-
ucts. 
Wages: None. Growth: None. 
We have developed a comprehensive 
Economic Analysis of Impacts that 
assesses the impacts of the final rule. The full analysis of economic impacts is available in the docket for this final rule (Ref. 11) and at https://www.fda.gov/ about-fda/reports/economic-impact- analyses-fda-regulations. 
X. Analysis of Environmental Impacts 
We have determined under 21 CFR 
25.32(m) 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. 
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
This final rule contains no collection 
of information. Therefore, clearance by 
the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required. XII. Consultation and Coordination 
With Indian Tribal Governments 
We have analyzed this rule in 
accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13175. We have determined that the rule does not contain policies that would have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have tribal implications as defined in the Executive Order and, consequently, a tribal summary impact statement is not required. 
XIII. Federalism 
We have analyzed this rule in 
accordance with the principles set forth 
in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required. 
XIV. References 
The following references are on 
display with the Dockets Management 
Staff (see 
ADDRESSES ) and are available 
for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified 
the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time. 
1. FDA, Trade Correspondence TC–62 
(February 15, 1940), reprinted in 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES153773 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 
Kleinfeld, Vincent A. and Charles 
Wesley Dunn, Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Judicial and Administrative Record 1938–1949. 
2. U.S. Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home 
Economics (1945). Foods—Enriched, Restored, Fortified. USDA at page 11, available at https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/ download/5804422/PDF. 
3. Serial No. 591,726, Record No. 1,135,351, 
U.S. Patent Office, Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent Office, April 13, 1915, at 492; available at: https://www.uspto.gov/ learning-and-resources/official-gazette/ official-gazette-patents. 
4. Serial No. 639,222, Record No. 2,909,432, 
U.S. Patent Office, Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent Office, October 20, 1959, at 697; available at: https://www.uspto.gov/ 
learning-and-resources/official-gazette/
official-gazette-patents. 
5. FDA, Memorandum from D. Doell to E. 
Anderson, Exposure to Trans Fat from 
the Prior-Sanctioned Uses of Partially Hydrogenated Oils (PHOs), October 23, 2019. 
6. FDA, Memorandum from J. Park to E. 
Anderson, Toxicology Prior Sanction PHO Review Memo One: Agency- initiated Quantitative Coronary Heart and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment of Industrially-Produced Trans Fatty Acids (IP–TFA) Exposure 
from Prior-Sanctioned Uses of Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils (PHOs), October 22, 2019. 
7. FDA, Memorandum from J. Park to E. 
Anderson, Toxicology Prior Sanction PHO Review Memo Two: Scientific Literature Review of Safety Information Regarding Prior-Sanctioned Uses of Partially Hydrogenated Oils (PHOs) in Margarine and Shortenings, October 22, 2019. 
8. FDA, Memorandum from J. Park to M. 
Honigfort, Scientific Update on Experimental and Observational Studies of Trans Fat Intake and Coronary Heart 
Disease Risk, June 11, 2015. 
9. FDA, Memorandum from J. Park to M. 
Honigfort, Literature Review, June 11, 2015. 
10. FDA, Memorandum from J. Park to M. 
Honigfort, Quantitative Estimate of Industrial Trans Fat Intake and Coronary 
Heart Disease Risk, June 11, 2015. 
11. FDA, ‘‘Revocation of Uses of Partially 
Hydrogenated Oils in Foods’’ Regulatory Impact Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Unfunded Mandates Reform Analysis. Also available at: https:// www.fda.gov/about-fda/reports/economic-impact-analyses-fda- regulations. 
List of Subjects 
21 CFR Part 161 
Food grades and standards, Frozen 
foods, Seafood. 21 CFR Part 164 
Food grades and standards, Nuts, 
Peanuts. 21 CFR Part 184 
Food additives. 21 CFR Part 186 
Food additives, Food packaging. 
Therefore, under the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 161, 164, 184, and 186 are amended as follows: 
PART 161—FISH AND SHELLFISH 
■1. The authority citation for part 161 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348, 
371, 379e. 
■2. In § 161.190, revise paragraph 
(a)(6)(viii) to read as follows: 
§ 161.190 Canned tuna. 
(a) * * * 
(6) * * * (viii) Edible vegetable oil, excluding 
olive oil, used in an amount not to 
exceed 5 percent of the volume capacity of the container, with or without any suitable form of emulsifying and suspending ingredients that has been affirmed as GRAS or approved as a food additive to aid in dispersion of the oil, as seasoning in canned tuna packed in water. 
* * * * * 
PART 164—TREE NUT AND PEANUT 
PRODUCTS 
■3. The authority citation for part 164 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348, 
371, 379e. 
■4. In § 164.150, revise paragraph (c) to 
read as follows: 
§ 164.150 Peanut butter. 
* * * * * 
(c) The seasoning and stabilizing 
ingredients referred to in paragraph (a) of this section are suitable substances which are not food additives as defined in section 201(s) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or if they are food additives as so defined, they are used in conformity with regulations established pursuant to section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Seasoning and stabilizing ingredients that perform a useful function are regarded as suitable, except that artificial flavorings, artificial sweeteners, chemical preservatives, and color additives are not suitable ingredients in peanut butter. Oil products used as optional stabilizing ingredients must be hydrogenated vegetable oils. 
* * * * * PART 184—DIRECT FOOD 
SUBSTANCES AFFIRMED AS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS SAFE 
■5. The authority citation for part 184 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371. 
■6. In § 184.1472, revise paragraph (b) 
to read as follows: 
§ 184.1472 Menhaden oil. 
* * * * * 
(b) Hydrogenated menhaden oil. (1) 
Hydrogenated menhaden oil is prepared by feeding hydrogen gas under pressure to a converter containing crude menhaden oil and a nickel catalyst. The reaction is begun at 150 to 160 °C and after 1 hour the temperature is raised to 180 °C until the menhaden oil is fully 
hydrogenated. 
(2) Hydrogenated menhaden oil meets 
the following specifications: 
(i) Color. Opaque white solid. 
(ii) Odor. Odorless. 
(iii) Saponification value. Between 
180 and 200. 
(iv) Iodine number. Not more than 4. 
(v) Unsaponifiable matter. Not more 
than 1.5 percent. 
(vi) Free fatty acids. Not more than 0.1 
percent. 
(vii) Peroxide value. Not more than 5 
milliequivalents per kilogram of oil. 
(viii) Nickel. Not more than 0.5 part 
per million. 
(ix) Mercury. Not more than 0.5 part 
per million. 
(x) Arsenic (as As). Not more than 0.1 
part per million. 
(xi) Lead. Not more than 0.1 part per 
million. 
(3) Hydrogenated menhaden oil is 
used as edible fat or oil, as defined in § 170.3(n)(12) of this chapter, in food at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice. 
(4) The name to be used on the label 
of a product containing hydrogenated menhaden oil must include the term ‘‘hydrogenated,’’ in accordance with § 101.4(b)(14) of this chapter. 
■7. In § 184.1555, revise paragraphs 
(c)(2) and (3) and remove (c)(4) to read as follows: 
§ 184.1555 Rapeseed oil. 
* * * * * 
(c) * * * 
(2) In addition to limiting the content 
of erucic acid to a level not exceeding 
2 percent of the component fatty acids, low erucic acid rapeseed oil must be of a purity suitable for its intended use. 
(3) Low erucic acid rapeseed oil is 
used as an edible fat and oil in food, except in infant formula, at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES153774 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 9, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 
PART 186—INDIRECT FOOD 
SUBSTANCES AFFIRMED AS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS SAFE 
■8. The authority citation for part 186 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371. 
§ 186.1551 [Removed] 
■9. Remove § 186.1551. 
Dated: July 29, 2023. 
Robert M. Califf, 
Commissioner of Food and Drugs. 
[FR Doc. 2023–16725 Filed 8–8–23; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Bureau of Indian Affairs 
25 CFR Part 2 
[234A2100DD/AAKC001030/ 
A0A501010.999900] 
RIN 1076–AF64 
Appeals From Administrative Actions 
AGENCY : Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
Interior. 
ACTION : Final rule. 
SUMMARY : The Department of the 
Interior (Department) is finalizing 
updates to its regulations governing the process for pursuing administrative review of actions by Indian Affairs officials. These updates provide greater specificity and clarity to the Department’s appeals process; and reflect changes in the structure and nomenclature within Indian Affairs. 
DATES : This rule is effective on 
September 8, 2023. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Oliver Whaley, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action (RACA), Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs; Department of the Interior, telephone (202) 738– 6065, RACA@bia.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : This final 
rule is published in exercise of authority 
delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (Assistant Secretary; AS–IA) by 209 Departmental Manual (DM) 8. 
Table of Contents 
I. Executive Summary 
II. Background 
A. Providing Mechanisms for Appealing 
Decisions by Indian Affairs Officials That Did Not Exist in 1989 
B. Presenting the Regulations in Plain 
English 
C. Authorizing, Where Possible, the Filing 
of Appeal Documents in Portable Document Format (pdf) via Email D. Clarifying the Process by Which the 
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs 
Takes Jurisdiction of an Appeal to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA); and the Process Employed Whenever the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs Exercises Appellate Authority 
E. Making Certain Changes to the Process 
for Appealing Inaction of an Official 
F. To Establish a New Subpart To Expedite 
the Effectiveness of a BIA Decision Regarding Recognition of a Tribal Representative 
G. Establishing a New Subpart Providing 
Holders of Trust Accounts a Mechanism for Disputing the Accuracy of Statements of Performance Issued by the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration (BTFA) 
H. Establishing a New Subpart Setting Out 
the Process for Resolving Challenges to Administrative Actions by Alternative Dispute Resolution Instead of by Formal Appeals 
III. Comments on the Proposed Rule and 
Responses to Comments 
A. Summary of Subpart H B. Written Comment 
IV. Summary of the Final Rule and Changes 
From Proposed Rule to Final Rule 
A. Subpart A—Purpose, Definitions, and 
Scope of This Part 
B. Subpart B—Appealing Administrative 
Decisions 
C. Subpart C—Effectiveness and Finality of 
Decisions 
D. Subpart D—Appeal Bonds E. Subpart E—Deciding Appeals F. Subpart F—Appealing Inaction of an 
Agency Official 
G. Subpart G—Special Rules Regarding 
Recognition of Tribal Representative 
H. Subpart H—Appeals of Bureau of Trust 
Funds Administration Statements of 
Performance 
I. Subpart I—Alternative Dispute 
Resolution 
V. Procedural Requirements 
1. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 
12866) 
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act 3. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 5. Takings (E.O. 12630) 6. Federalism (E.O. 13132) 7. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 8. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 
13175) 
9. Paperwork Reduction Act 10. National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) 
11. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 
13211) 
I. Executive Summary 
This final rule revises the Department 
of the Interior’s (Department) 
regulations governing administrative appeals of decisions by officials subordinate to the Assistant Secretary- Indian Affairs (AS–IA). These regulations, at 25 CFR part 2, have not been updated since 1989. These revisions, set out in plain English, will facilitate the Secretary’s fulfillment of fiduciary responsibilities to Tribes and individual Indians. This rule updates 
the regulations to align the terminology and processes with organizational changes since 1989. Additionally, the rule allows, where possible, the filing of appeal documents in Portable Document Format via email. The rule clarifies the process by which the AS–IA takes jurisdiction of an appeal to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals and for appealing inaction of an official. A new subpart allows for expediting the effectiveness of a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) decision regarding recognition of a tribal representative. Another addition is the establishment of provisions allowing holders of trust accounts a mechanism for disputing the accuracy of statements of performance issued by the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration. Finally, there are provisions to resolve disputes through alternative dispute resolution. All of the revisions clarify and standardize Departmental policy. 
II. Background 
The regulations governing 
administrative appeals of actions by 
Indian Affairs officials are in title 25, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations (25 CFR part 2). The last major revision of the part 2 regulations was in 1989. See 54 FR 6478 (Feb. 10, 1989). The background of this rulemaking and Section-by-Section 
analysis are in the preamble to the proposed rule published on December 1, 2022 (87 FR 73688). During the 90-day comment period, the Department held two consultation sessions directly with Indian Tribes: February 17, 2022, via webinar; and February 22, 2022, via webinar. The public comment period on the proposed rule ended on March 1, 2023. 
The Department revised the appeals 
regulations in a number of ways, as explained below: 
•Providing Mechanisms for Appealing 
Decisions by Indian Affairs Officials 
That Did Not Exist in 1989 
A number of significant changes have 
been made to the organization of Indian Affairs since publication of the prior part 2 regulations in 1989. In 2003, the office of the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs was created and charged with some of the responsibilities previously carried out by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 130 DM 3 (Apr. 21, 2003). The Bureau of Indian Education, formerly an agency within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), was established as a separate Bureau. More recently, the Secretary created the Bureau of Trust Funds 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Aug 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1