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 impact 

since participation in the USDAapproved plant program is voluntary 

and the cost to those utilizing the 

program would not increase. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80281 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS