### 80280 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

**PART 27—[AMENDED]**

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 27 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 15b, 7 U.S.C. 4736, 7 U.S.C. 1622(g).

2. In § 27.2, paragraph (n) is revised to read as follows:

**§ 27.2 Terms defined.**
* * * * *

(n) Classification. The classification of any cotton shall be determined by the quality of a sample in accordance with Official Cotton Standards of the United States for the color grade, the leaf grade, and fiber property measurements of American Upland cotton. High Volume Instruments will determine all fiber property measurements except extraneous matter. Cotton classers authorized by the Cotton and Tobacco Programs will determine the presence of
extraneous matter.
* * * * *

3. Section 27.31 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 27.31 Classification of cotton.**

For purposes of subsection 15b(f) of The Act, classification of cotton is the determination of the quality of a sample in accordance with the Official Cotton Standards of the United States for the color grade and leaf grade of American upland cotton, and fiber property measurements such as micronaire. High Volume Instruments will determine all fiber property measurements except extraneous matter. High Volume Instrument colormeter measurements will be used for determining the official color grade. Cotton classers authorized by the Cotton and Tobacco Programs will determine the presence of extraneous matter and authorized employees of the Cotton and Tobacco Programs will determine all fiber property measurements using High Volume Instruments.

**PART 28—[AMENDED]**

4. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 28 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 55 and 61.
5. Section 28.8 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 28.8 Classification of cotton; determination.** 

For the purposes of The Act, the classification of any cotton shall be determined by the quality of a sample in accordance with Official Cotton Standards of the United States for the color grade and the leaf grade of American upland cotton, the length of staple, and fiber property measurements such as micronaire. High Volume Instruments will determine all fiber property measurements except extraneous matter, special conditions and remarks. High Volume Instrument colormeter measurements will be used for determining the official color grade. Cotton classers authorized by the Cotton and Tobacco Programs will determine the presence of extraneous matter, special conditions and remarks and authorized employees of the Cotton and Tobacco Programs will determine all fiber property measurements using High Volume Instruments. The classification record of a Classing Office or the Quality Control Division with respect to any cotton shall be deemed to be the classification record of the Department.

Dated: December 14, 2011. Robert C. Keeney, Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–32926 Filed 12–22–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Agricultural Marketing Service**

**7 CFR Part 58**

**[DA–10–0055]**

**Grading and Inspection, General Specifications for Approved Plants and**  **Standards for Grades of Dairy Products; General Specifications for**  **Dairy Plants Approved for USDA Inspection and Grading Service** 

**AGENCY :**  Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This document proposes to amend the General Specifications for Dairy Plants Approved for United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Inspection and Grading Service (General Specifications) by raising the maximum allowable somatic cell count in producer herd goat milk from 1,000,000 cells per milliliter to 1,500,000 cells per milliliter. This will ensure that goat milk can continue to be shipped and recognizes that goats have a need for different regulatory limits for somatic cells than cows.

In addition this document proposes to eliminate mandatory sediment testing on producer milk except for milk in cans. The requirement for sediment testing has become outdated and is no longer needed.

**DATES :**  Submit written or electronic comments on or before February 21,
2012. **ADDRESSES :**  You may use any of the following methods to file comments on this action:

By mail: Susan Sausville, Chief, Standardization Branch, Dairy Programs, STOP 0230 (Room 2746 South Building), Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–0230

By fax: (202) 720–2643 By internet: http:// www.regulations.gov.

By email: Susan.Sausville@ams.usda.gov.

Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. All comments submitted, including name and address, if provided will be included in the record and made available to the public via http:// www.regulations.gov. The current General Specifications are available either from the above mailing address or by accessing the following internet address: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ dairy/Genspecs.pdf.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Susan Sausville, Chief, Standardization Branch, Dairy Programs, AMS, USDA, telephone (202) 720–9382 or email Susan.Sausville@ams.usda.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
A. Executive Order 12866

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. It is determined that its provisions would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

AMS provides, under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, voluntary, user-fee funded inspection and grading services to approximately 400 dairy manufacturing plants. All of the dairy manufacturing plants utilizing the program would be considered small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201).

The proposed amendments would not have a significant economic impactsince participation in the USDAapproved plant program is voluntary and the cost to those utilizing the program would not increase.


### 80281 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

C. Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule. D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements that appear in Part 58 of the regulations have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB Control Number 0581–0110 under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). This action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on large or small dairy processors. Background and Proposed Changes

The proposed change for goat milk raises the maximum allowable somatic cell count from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 cells per milliliter. Due to inherent differences between cows and goats, goat milk with a somatic cell count of 1,500,000 cells per milliliter can be produced from a healthy, non-mastitic udder and therefore is quality milk. The proposed change for goat milk will ensure its continued shipment and recognizes that goats have a need for different regulatory limits for somatic cells than cows. The need for a separate standard for goat milk was recognized by the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS), and a proposal to raise the somatic cell count in goat milk was approved at the 2009 NCIMS Conference. This proposed change will align the General Specifications for Dairy Plants Approved for USDA Inspection and Grading with the Grade A requirements for goat milk.

The proposed change on sediment testing would eliminate the provisions imposing mandatory sediment testing on producer milk except for milk in cans. The requirement for sediment testing has become outdated and is no longer needed. The regulations governing sediment testing were promulgated in 1975 before dairy operations started using contained milking, storage, and transportation facilities for commercial milk production. The proposed change in sediment testing is based on the fact that the majority of milk sold in the United States is produced using automated milking equipment and systems that provide no opportunity for sediment contamination. Because milk production predominantly occurs in clean, modern facilities, using sealed lines, storage tanks and sanitary pumps with no ‘‘manual handling’’ sediment testing is no longer needed except for those producers using cans for milk collection where there is a risk of sediment contamination. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 58

Dairy products, Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR part 58 be amended as follows:

**PART 58—[AMENDED]**

**Subpart B—General Specifications for Dairy Plants Approved for USDA**  **Inspection and Grading Service**

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 58, Subpart B, continues to read as follows:

Authority: Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.

2. Amend § 58.133 by revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory text, (b)(5)(ii), and (b)(6) to read as follows:

**§ 58.133 Methods for quality and wholesomeness determination.** 
* * * * *

(b) * * * (5) Whenever the official test indicates the presence of more than 750,000 somatic cells per ml. (1,500,000 per ml. for goat milk), the following procedures shall be applied:

* * * * *

(ii) Whenever two out of the last four consecutive somatic cell counts exceed 750,000 per ml. (1,500,000 per ml. for goat milk), the appropriate State regulatory authority shall be notified and a written notice given to the producer. This notice shall be in effect as long as two of the last four consecutive samples exceed 750,000 per ml. (1,500,000 per ml. for goat milk).

(6) An additional sample shall be taken after a lapse of 3 days but within 21 days of the notice required in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section. If this sample also exceeds 750,000 per ml. (1,500,000 per ml. for goat milk), subsequent milkings shall not be accepted for market until satisfactory compliance is obtained. Shipment may be resumed and a temporary status assigned to the producer by the appropriate State regulatory agency when an additional sample of herd milk is tested and found satisfactory. The producer may be assigned a full reinstatement status when three out of four consecutive somatic cell count tests do not exceed 750,000 per ml. (1,500,000 per ml. for goat milk). The samples shall be taken at a rate of not more than two per week on separate days within a 3-week period.

* * * * *

Amend § 58.134 by revising the section heading, paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:

* * * * *

**§ 58.134 Sediment content for milk in**

**cans.**

(b) Sediment content classification. Milk in cans shall be classified for sediment content, regardless of the results of the appearance and odor examination required in § 58.133(a), as follows:

USDA Sediment Standard

No. 1 (acceptable)—not to exceed 0.50 mg. or equivalent.

No. 2 (acceptable)—not to exceed 1.50 mg. or equivalent.

No. 3 (probational, not over 10 days)—not to exceed 2.50 mg. or equivalent.

No. 4 (reject)—over 2.50 mg. or equivalent.

(c) Frequency of tests. At least once each month, at irregular intervals, one or more cans of milk selected at random from each producer shall be tested.

(d) Acceptance or rejection of milk. If the sediment disc is classified as No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3, the producer’s milk may be accepted. If the sediment disc is classified No. 4 the milk shall be rejected: Provided that, If the shipment of milk is commingled with other milk in a transport tank the next shipment shall not be accepted until its quality has been determined before being picked up; however, if the person making the test is unable to get to the farm before the next shipment it may be accepted but no further shipments shall be accepted unless the milk meets the requirements of No. 3 or better. In the case of milk classified as No. 3 or No. 4, all cans shall be tested. Producers of No. 3 or No. 4 milk shall be notified immediately and shall be furnished applicable sediment discs and the next shipment shall be tested.

(e) Retests. On test of the next shipment all cans shall be tested. Milk classified as No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3 may be accepted, but No. 4 milk shall be rejected. The producers of No. 3 or No. 4 milk shall be notified immediately, furnished applicable sediment discs and the next shipment tested. This procedure of retesting successive shipments and accepting probational (No. 3) milk and rejecting No. 4 milk may be continued for not more than 10 calendar days. If at the end of this time all of the producer’s milk does not meet


### 80282 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the acceptable sediment content classification (No. 1 or No. 2), it shall be rejected.

Dated: December 14, 2011. David R. Shipman, Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–32925 Filed 12–22–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE**

**Bureau of Industry and Security**

**15 CFR Parts 742 and 774**

**[Docket No. 111020643–1642–01]**

**RIN 0694–AF42**

**Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control of Vessels**  **of War and Related Articles the President Determines No Longer**  **Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML)** 

**AGENCY :**  Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Bureau of Industry and Security publishes a proposed rule that describes how surface vessels of war and related articles that the President determines no longer warrant control under Category VI (surface vessels of war and special naval equipment) of the United States Munitions List (USML) would be controlled under the Commerce Control List (CCL) in new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 8A609, 8B609, 8C609, 8D609, and 8E609.

This rule is one of a planned series of proposed rules that are part of the Administration’s Export Control Reform Initiative under which various types of articles presently controlled on the USML under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) would, instead, be controlled on the CCL in accordance with the requirements of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), if and after the President determines that such articles no longer warrant control on the USML.

BIS is publishing this proposed rule, on December 23, 2011, in conjunction with another proposed rule that describes how submersible vessels, oceanographic and associated equipment the President determines no longer warrant control under USML Category VI or Category XX would be controlled under the CCL in new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 8A620, 8B620, 8D620, and 8E620. This proposed rule also is being published in conjunction with two proposed rules of the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, that would amend the list of articles controlled by USML Categories VI and XX, respectively.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received by February 6, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. The identification number for this rulemaking is BIS–
2011–0044.

• By email directly to publiccomments@bis.doc.gov. Include RIN 0694–AF42 in the subject line.

• By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Refer to RIN 0694–AF42.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Alexander Lopes, Director, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Telephone: (202) 482–4875, Email: Alexander.Lopes@bis.doc.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Background

On July 15, 2011, as part of the Administration’s ongoing Export Control Reform Initiative, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a proposed rule (76 FR 41958) (‘‘the July 15 proposed rule’’) that set forth a framework for how articles the President determines, in accordance with section 38(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)), would no longer warrant control on the United States Munitions List (USML) and, instead, would be controlled on the Commerce Control List (CCL). The July 15 proposed rule also contained a proposal by BIS describing how military vehicles and related articles in USML Category VII that no longer warrant control under the USML would be controlled on the CCL—the military vehicles proposal was the first in a series of such proposed rules to be published by BIS.

On November 7, 2011 (76 FR 68675), and December 6, 2011 (76 FR 76072), BIS published proposed rules describing, respectively, how aircraft and related items, and gas turbine engines and related items, determined by the President to no longer warrant control under the USML would be controlled on the CCL. In the November 7 proposed rule, BIS also made several changes and additions to the framework proposed in the July 15 proposed rule. BIS plans to publish additional proposed rules describing how certain articles that the President determines no longer warrant control on the USML ( e.g., submersibles, submarines, and related articles now controlled by USML Category VI or XX) would be controlled on the CCL.

BIS also plans to publish a proposed rule describing how the new controls described in this and similar notices would be implemented, such as through the use of ‘‘grandfather’’ clauses and additional exceptions. The goal of such amendments would be to give exporters sufficient time to implement the final versions of such changes and to avoid, to the extent possible, situations where transactions would require licenses from both the State Department and the Commerce Department.

Following the structure of the July 15 and November 7 proposed rules, which describe the ‘‘export control reform initiative framework’’ for controlling on the CCL articles that the President determines no longer warrant control on the USML, this proposed rule describes BIS’s proposal for how another group of items—various surface vessels of war and related articles that are controlled by USML Category VI—would be controlled on the CCL. The changes described in this proposed rule and the State Department’s proposed amendment to Category VI of the USML are based on a review of Category VI by the Defense Department, which worked with the Departments of State and Commerce in preparing the proposed amendments. The review was focused on identifying the types of articles that are now controlled by USML Category VI that are either: (i) Inherently military and otherwise warrant control on the USML, or (ii) if they are a type common to civil applications, possess parameters or characteristics that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage to the United States, and are almost exclusively available from the United States. If an article satisfies either or both of those criteria, the article would remain on the USML. If an article did not satisfy either criterion, but is nonetheless a type of article that is, as a result of differences in form and fit, ‘‘specially designed’’ for military applications, then it is identified in one of the new ECCNs in this proposed rule. Finally, if an article does not satisfy either of the two criteria and is not found to be ‘‘specially designed’’ for military applications, the article is not affected by this rule because such items already are not on the USML.

The licensing policies and other EARspecific controls for such items that are also described in this proposed rule