Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46951 

alien remains eligible for admission as 

an E–2 CNMI Investor. 

(xii) Extensions of stay. Requests for 

extensions of E–2 CNMI Investor 

nonimmigrant status may be granted in 

increments of not more than two years, 

until the end of the transition period. To 

request an extension of stay, an E–2 

CNMI Investor must file with USCIS an 

application for extension of stay, with 

required accompanying documents, in 

accordance with the instructions on 

Form I–129. To qualify for an extension 

of E–2 CNMI Investor nonimmigrant 

status, each alien must demonstrate: 

(A) Continuous maintenance of the 

terms and conditions of E–2 CNMI 

Investor nonimmigrant status; 

(B) Physical presence in the CNMI at 

the time of filing the application for 

extension of stay; and 

(C) That he or she did not leave 

during the pendency of the application. 

(xiii) Change of status. An alien 

eligible for E–2 CNMI Investor status on 

the transition program effective date, 

but who obtains another valid 

nonimmigrant status, may apply to 

change nonimmigrant status to E–2 

CNMI Investor in accordance with 

paragraph (e)(21) of this section and 

within the period of time provided by 

paragraph (e)(23)(v). 

(xiii) Expiration of transition period. 

Upon expiration of the transition 

period, the E–2 CNMI Investor 

nonimmigrant status will automatically 

terminate. 

(xiv) Fee waiver. An alien applying for 

E–2 CNMI Investor nonimmigrant status 

is eligible for a waiver of the fee for 

Form I–129 based upon inability to pay 

as provided by 8 CFR 103.7(c)(1). 

* * * * * 

PART 274a—CONTROL OF 

EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS 

3. The authority citation for part 274a 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1324a; 8 

CFR part 2. 

4. Section 274a.12 is amended by: 

a. Removing the ‘‘or’’ at the end of 

paragraph (b)(20); 

b. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (b)(21) and adding a ‘‘; or’’ in 

its place; 

c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(22); 

and by 

d. Adding a new paragraph (c)(12) to 

read as follows: 

§ 274a.12 Classes of aliens authorized to 

accept employment. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

* * * * * 

(22) An alien in E–2 CNMI Investor 

nonimmigrant status pursuant to 8 CFR 

214.2(e)(23). An alien in this status may 

be employed only by the qualifying 

company through which the alien 

attained the status. An alien in E–2 

CNMI Investor nonimmigrant status 

may be employed only in the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands for a qualifying entity. An alien 

who attained E–2 CNMI Investor 

nonimmigrant status based upon a 

Foreign Retiree Investment Certificate or 

Certification is not employmentauthorized. Employment authorization 

does not extend to the dependents of the 

principal investor (also designated E–2 

CNMI Investor nonimmigrant) other 

than those specified in paragraph (c)(12) 

of this section; 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(12) An alien spouse of a long-term 

investor in the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (E–2 CNMI 

Investor) other than an E–2 CNMI 

investor who obtained such status based 

upon a Foreign Retiree Investment 

Certificate, pursuant to 8 CFR 

214.2(e)(23). An alien spouse of an 

E–2 CNMI Investor is eligible for 

employment in the CNMI only; 

* * * * * 

Janet Napolitano, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–21967 Filed 9–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

9 CFR Parts 317 and 381 

[Docket No. FSIS 2006–0040A] 

Product Labeling: Use of the Voluntary 

Claim ‘‘Natural’’ in the Labeling of Meat 

and Poultry Products 

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is issuing this 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) to assist the Agency 

in defining the conditions under which 

it will permit the voluntary claim 

‘‘natural’’ to be used in the labeling of 

meat and poultry products. After 

considering comments on the ‘‘natural’’ 

claim submitted by the public in 

response to a Federal Register notice 

that the Agency issued on December 5, 

2006, and the comments presented at a 

public meeting held by the Agency on 

December 12, 2006, FSIS has decided to 

solicit additional public input. FSIS has 

concluded that a further solicitation of 

comments could produce information 

that would help to clarify and resolve 

the issues surrounding the ‘‘natural’’ 

claim. Moreover, additional comment 

will help FSIS to assess how best to 

coordinate its regulation of ‘‘natural’’ 

claims with the standards for voluntary 

marketing claims developed by the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), 

particularly with AMS’s ‘‘naturally 

raised’’ marketing claim standard. 

DATES: Comments are due by November 

13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by one of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web 

site provides the ability to type short 

comments directly into the comment 

field on this Web page or attach a file 

for lengthier comments. Go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and, in the 

‘‘Search for Open Regulations’’ box, 

select ‘‘Food Safety and Inspection 

Service’’ from the agency drop-down 

menu, and then click on ‘‘Submit.’’ In 

the Docket ID column, select FDMS 

Docket Number FSIS–2006–0040A to 

submit or view public comments and to 

view supporting and related material 

available electronically. This docket can 

be viewed using the ‘‘Advanced Search’’ 

function in Regulations.gov. 

Mail, including floppy disks or CD– 

ROMs, and hand or courier-delivered 

items: Send to FSIS, OPPD, Docket 

Room, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food Safety and Inspection Service, 

5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 2–2127, 

Beltsville, Maryland 20705. 

All submissions received by mail and 

electronic mail must include the Agency 

name and docket number FSIS–2006– 

0040A. All comments submitted in 

response to this notice will be available 

for public inspection in the FSIS Docket 

Room at the address listed above 

between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday. The comments 

also will be posted to the 

regulations.gov Web site and on the 

Agency’s Web site at: http:// 

www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

regulations_&_policies/ 

2009_Notices_Index/index.asp. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sally Jones, Acting Director, Labeling 

and Program Delivery Division, Office of 

Policy and Program Development 

USDA, FSIS, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, 

Beltsville, Maryland 20705, (202) 205– 

0623, e-mail: Sally.Jones@fsis.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
46952 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

I. Background 

FSIS is the public health regulatory 

agency in the USDA that is responsible 

for ensuring that the nation’s 

commercial supply of meat, poultry, 

and egg products is safe, wholesome, 

and accurately labeled and packaged. 

FSIS develops and implements 

regulations and policies to ensure that 

meat, poultry, and egg product labeling 

is not false or misleading. Under the 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 

U.S.C. 601, 607) and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 

U.S.C. 451, 457), the labels of meat and 

poultry products must be approved by 

the Secretary of Agriculture, who has 

delegated this authority to FSIS, before 

these products can enter commerce. 

Pursuant to its authority under the 

FMIA and PPIA, FSIS has established a 

framework of regulations and policies 

within which to judge whether labels 

and other labeling of meat and poultry 

products are not false or misleading. 

To guide manufacturers in the 

development of labeling that FSIS is 

likely to determine to be not false or 

misleading with regard to the voluntary 

claim ‘‘natural,’’ FSIS first issued policy 

guidance in the form of Standards and 

Labeling Policy Memorandum (Memo) 

055, dated November 22, 1982. Policy 

Memo 055 stated that the term ‘‘natural’’ 

may be used in the labeling of meat and 

poultry products provided that the 

applicant for such labeling demonstrates 

that: 

(1) The product does not contain any 

artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring 

ingredient, or chemical preservative (as 

defined in 21 CFR 101.22), or any other 

artificial or synthetic ingredient; and 

(2) The product and its ingredients are 

not more than minimally processed. 

Minimal processing may include: (a) 

Those traditional processes used to 

make food edible, to preserve it, or to 

make it safe for human consumption, 

e.g., smoking, roasting, freezing, drying, 

and fermenting, or (b) those physical 

processes that do not fundamentally 

alter the raw product or that only 

separate a whole, intact food into 

component parts, e.g., grinding meat, 

separating eggs into albumen and yolk, 

and pressing fruits to produce juices. 

Relatively severe processes, e.g., solvent 

extraction, acid hydrolysis, and 

chemical bleaching, would clearly 

constitute more than minimal 

processing. 

Policy Memo 055 also provided that 

the use of an ingredient that has 

undergone more than minimal 

processing in general precludes a 

product in which the ingredient is used 

from bearing an unqualified ‘‘natural’’ 

claim. Policy Memo 055 stated that FSIS 

will evaluate label submissions on a 

case-by-case basis, however, and may 

approve a label if the manufacturer of 

the product demonstrates that the use of 

such an ingredient does not 

significantly change the character of the 

product provided the ‘‘natural’’ claim is 

clearly and conspicuously qualified to 

identify the ingredient. 

Policy Memo 055 also provided that 

all products that claim to be ‘‘natural’’ 

or a ‘‘natural’’ food should be 

accompanied by a brief statement that 

explains what is meant by the term 

‘‘natural,’’ i.e., that the product is a 

‘‘natural’’ food because it contains no 

artificial ingredients and is only 

minimally processed. In addition, the 

1982 policy also stated that the decision 

of the Agency to approve or deny the 

use of a ‘‘natural’’ claim may be affected 

by the specific context in which the 

claim is made. For example claims that 

a product is a ‘‘natural’’ food, e.g., 

‘‘natural’’ chili, would be unacceptable 

for a product that contains beet powder, 

an ingredient that has a ‘‘natural’’ 

source but that artificially colors the 

finished product. However, ‘‘all natural 

ingredients’’ might be an acceptable 

claim for such a product. 

Since 1982, FSIS has updated its 

guidance on the use of ‘‘natural’’ claims 

to reflect case-by-case decisions made 

by the Agency and to revise references 

to regulations. In August 2005, FSIS 

rescinded Policy Memo 055 and 

incorporated its policy on ‘‘natural’’ 

claims into an entry in its Food 

Standards and Labeling Policy Book (the 

Policy Book) (available on the FSIS Web 

site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

OPPDE/larc/Policies/ 

Labeling_Policy_Book_082005.pdf. The 

2005 Policy Book entry modified FSIS’s 

‘‘natural’’ policy to add a note that 

acknowledged that ‘‘[s]ugar, sodium 

lactate (from a corn source) [at certain 

levels], and natural flavorings from 

oleoresins or extractives are acceptable 

for ‘all natural’ claims.’’ 

In late 2006, FSIS received 

information that raised questions about 

its initial judgment that the use of 

sodium lactate at levels consistent with 

those approved for flavoring (i.e., up to 

two percent of product formulation) was 

consistent with the meaning of 

‘‘natural.’’ More specifically, the 

information provided to the Agency 

indicated that sodium lactate, as well as 

potassium lactate and calcium lactate, 

may provide an antimicrobial effect at 

levels that have been approved for 

flavoring. The Agency concluded that 

listing ‘‘sodium lactate (from a corn 

source)’’ in the 2005 entry may have 

been in error. In December 2006, FSIS 

modified the ‘‘natural’’ claims entry in 

the Policy Book to remove the 2005 

reference to sodium lactate. The current 

entry in the Policy Book provides that 

the use of sodium lactate or any 

ingredient known to have multiple 

technical effects in products labeled as 

‘‘natural’’ will be evaluated on a caseby-case basis at the time of label 

approval to assess whether the intended 

use, level of use, and technical function 

of the ingredient are consistent with the 

1982 policy. 

II. Hormel Petition 

On October 9, 2006, Hormel Foods 

submitted a petition to FSIS requesting 

that the Agency initiate rulemaking to 

establish a codified definition for the 

voluntary claim ‘‘natural’’ and to 

delineate the conditions under which 

the claim can be used on the labels of 

meat and poultry products. The petition 

requests that, consistent with FSIS’s 

longstanding policy on ‘‘natural,’’ a 

meat or poultry product should not be 

labeled as ‘‘natural’’ unless (1) it does 

not contain artificial flavorings, artificial 

coloring ingredients, other artificial or 

synthetic ingredients, or chemical 

preservatives; and (2) it is not more than 

minimally processed. The petition 

further states that issues of consumer 

confidence and consistency in labeling 

dictate that exceptions for specific 

chemical preservatives and synthetic 

ingredients should not be allowed. The 

petition focused on the 2005 Policy 

Book entry’s references to the use of 

sodium lactate (from a corn source). 

A copy of the 2006 Hormel petition is 

available for viewing by the public in 

the FSIS docket room and on the FSIS 

Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

Regulations_&_Policies/ 

Petition_Natural_Label_Claims/ 

index.asp. 

III. Federal Register Notice and Public 

Meeting 

The use of the claim ‘‘natural’’ is a 

marketing issue of significant interest to 

FSIS, to industry, and to the public. 

Therefore, on December 5, 2006, FSIS 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice to inform the public of the 

October 2006 petition from Hormel and 

to announce a public meeting to discuss 

the petition (71 FR 70503). The notice 

also requested comments on the petition 

and on the use of the claim ‘‘natural’’ in 

general. The notice explained that FSIS 

had removed the 2005 reference to 

sodium lactate (from a corn source) from 

its ‘‘natural’’ claims policy and that with 

respect to ‘‘natural’’ claims FSIS would 

consider the use of sodium lactate and 

other ingredients with multiple 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46953 

functional effects on a case-by-case basis 

at the time of label evaluation. 

The public meeting on ‘‘natural’’ was 

held on December 12, 2006, in 

Washington, DC (transcripts available 

for viewing by the public in the FSIS 

docket room and on the FSIS Web site 

at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/ 

Natural_Claims_Transcripts.pdf). The 

comment period on the petition and the 

claim ‘‘natural’’ closed on January 11, 

2007, but FSIS re-opened and extended 

the comment period to March 5, 2007 

(72 FR 2257). 

IV. Issues Raised by the Comments and 

Other Issues Associated With FSIS’s 

‘‘Natural’’ Policy 

FSIS received over 12,000 comments 

on issues discussed in the December 

2006 Federal Register notice and at the 

December 2006 public meeting. The 

Agency also received petitions 

requesting that it take action with regard 

to ‘‘natural’’ claims that differ from the 

action requested in the Hormel petition. 

Because the actions requested in these 

petitions raise the same issues as those 

raised by the comments, FSIS will 

address these petitions as if they were 

comments. 

Most of the comments were identical 

letters submitted electronically by 

individuals that identified themselves 

as members of the Truthful Labeling 

Coalition (TLC), a coalition of chicken 

producers and private citizens 

concerned about the labeling of fresh 

poultry. These comments objected to the 

use of flavoring, tenderizing, and 

seasoning solutions to enhance poultry 

products bearing the ‘‘natural’’ claim. 

The TLC also submitted a petition dated 

July 27, 2007, that requests that FSIS 

take immediate action to prohibit the 

use of ‘‘natural’’ claims on the labels on 

poultry products enhanced with 

flavorings and other solutions. 

FSIS received 92 comments and three 

petitions that raised additional issues 

associated with ‘‘natural’’ claims. The 

comments and petitions were submitted 

by industry, trade associations 

representing industry, animal welfare 

advocacy organizations, private citizens, 

consumer advocacy organizations, 

researchers, consultants, and law firms 

representing industry. 

The comments expressed divergent 

views on what the claim ‘‘natural’’ as 

applied to meat and poultry products 

should mean and, in general, focused on 

particular ingredients, processing 

methods, and animal production 

practices that individual commenters 

felt should or should not be permitted 

for meat or poultry products labeled as 

‘‘natural.’’ In addition, several 

comments disagreed with the request in 

the Hormel petition that FSIS establish 

a codified definition for ‘‘natural.’’ 

These comments suggested alternative 

approaches for addressing issues 

surrounding ‘‘natural’’ claims. 

The comments indicate that there is 

an overall lack of consensus on both the 

general or common understanding of 

what the claim ‘‘natural’’ means to the 

industry and to the public and on the 

approach that FSIS should take to 

address issues associated with the use of 

‘‘natural’’ claims on the labels of meat 

and poultry products. Nonetheless, FSIS 

has concluded that a further solicitation 

of comments could produce information 

that would help to clarify and resolve 

the issues surrounding the ‘‘natural’’ 

claim. Therefore, to better focus the 

public input submitted in response to 

this ANPR, FSIS is requesting comments 

on the issues described below. 

1. The Need for Rulemaking 

The comments submitted in response 

to the December 2006 Federal Register 

notice and presented at the 2006 public 

meeting indicate that there is significant 

disagreement on whether FSIS should 

resolve issues surrounding ‘‘natural’’ 

claims through the rulemaking process. 

Some comments agreed with the 

Hormel petition and supported 

rulemaking to clarify and codify 

requirements for the use of ‘‘natural’’ 

claims. The comments stated that the 

only way to resolve issues associated 

with ‘‘natural’’ claims is to issue clear 

rules that can be applied consistently. 

Some comments stated that issues on 

whether certain ingredients should be 

allowed in meat or poultry products 

labeled as ‘‘natural’’ should be resolved 

through a transparent rulemaking 

process. 

Other comments objected to 

rulemaking to address issues associated 

with ‘‘natural’’ claims. Several 

comments suggested that FSIS decline 

to codify the definition of ‘‘natural,’’ as 

requested in the Hormel petition, and 

maintain a flexible policy on the use of 

‘‘natural’’ claims instead. Sara Lee, a 

manufacturer of meat and poultry 

products, submitted a petition 

requesting that FSIS adopt a flexible 

policy on ‘‘natural’’ claims that provides 

for case-by-case consideration of the use 

of the claims on the labeling of meat and 

poultry products as opposed to a static, 

fixed definition adopted through noticeand-comment rulemaking. 

The comments that opposed 

rulemaking stated that determining 

whether a ‘‘natural’’ claim on the label 

of a meat or poultry product is not false 

or misleading often depends on the 

context in which the claim is used. 

According to the comments, because the 

number of uses of the claim ‘‘natural’’ 

that are not false or misleading cannot 

be captured in a single, static regulation, 

FSIS must maintain a flexible policy 

that will allow the Agency to evaluate 

a proposed use of the claim on a caseby-case basis. 

Some comments stated that a codified 

definition of ‘‘natural’’ is unnecessary 

and would restrict FSIS’s ability to 

update its ‘‘natural’’ claims policy to 

address new technologies and changes 

in consumer expectations. Several 

comments noted that prior attempts by 

other Federal agencies to establish 

regulations to define ‘‘natural’’ as it 

applies to foods have proven 

unsuccessful. 

To address these concerns, it would 

be possible for FSIS to continue to 

resolve issues surrounding ‘‘natural’’ 

claims by maintaining its current 

approach based on the current, or a 

revised, guidance document. 

As many of the comments noted 

above indicate, determining whether a 

‘‘natural’’ claim on the label of a meat 

or poultry product is not false or 

misleading may often depend on the 

context in which the claim is used. 

Thus, these comments seem to suggest 

that FSIS should not define natural by 

adopting a rigid, static definition, but 

instead consider an approach that 

would allow manufacturers of meat and 

poultry products to use the ‘‘natural’’ 

claim on their labels in a manner 

consistent with Agency guidance as 

long as they explain clearly on the label 

why their proposed use of a ‘‘natural’’ 

claim appropriately applies to their 

particular product. The ‘‘natural’’ claim 

and explanation would continue to be 

subject to premarket, case-by-case 

approval by FSIS. 

This approach would give 

manufacturers of meat and poultry 

products flexibility to use a ‘‘natural’’ 

claim to reflect specific characteristics 

of different products, so long as they 

accurately explain on the label why this 

term fairly characterizes their product. 

The information provided on the 

product label would allow consumers to 

determine whether the ‘‘natural’’ claim, 

as explained or qualified by the product 

label, is consistent with the 

characteristics that the consumer 

expects from a ‘‘natural’’ meat or 

poultry product. 

2. Sodium Lactate and Other ‘‘MultiFunctional’’ Ingredients and Food 

Safety 

FSIS received several comments on 

the use of sodium lactate and other 

multi-functional ingredients in 

‘‘natural’’ meat and poultry products. As 

discussed above, in late 2006, FSIS 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
46954 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

received information to indicate that 

sodium lactate, as well as potassium 

lactate and calcium lactate, may provide 

antimicrobial effects at levels approved 

for their flavoring effect. FSIS also 

received comments suggesting that 

additional multi-functional ingredients, 

such as sodium citrate, distilled vinegar, 

fruit juice concentrates, and sea salt, 

may present similar issues for the 

Agency’s ‘‘natural’’ policy. Like sodium 

lactate, these substances serve technical 

purposes that at certain levels and 

under certain conditions would 

preclude the use of ‘‘natural’’ labeling 

under the Agency’s policy on the claim. 

Several comments stated that FSIS 

should not preclude products 

containing ingredients that have multifunctional effects from qualifying for the 

‘‘natural’’ claim. The comments 

maintained that the term ‘‘chemical 

preservative’’ as used in FSIS’s natural 

policy refers to synthetic or artificial 

preservative, not natural ingredients 

with preservative effects. The comments 

asserted that sodium lactate (from a corn 

source) and certain other lactates are 

‘‘natural’’ ingredients that should be 

permitted in meat and poultry products 

labeled as ‘‘natural’’ regardless of their 

technical effects. 

Some comments stated that 

ingredients that have both flavoring and 

antimicrobial effects are greatly needed 

in the manufacturing of large food 

quantities to enhance both food safety 

and quality. The comments stated that 

ingredients that have both flavoring and 

antimicrobial effects provide food 

processors with interventions that are 

needed to help ensure public health. 

Other comments acknowledged that 

while antimicrobial agents can serve 

important food safety purposes, these 

ingredients nonetheless raise concerns 

as to whether they can be used in 

products labeled as ‘‘natural.’’ 

An issue raised by the comments, 

therefore, is whether it would be 

appropriate in approving ‘‘natural’’ 

claims to distinguish ingredients used 

for their antimicrobial effects to inhibit 

the growth of pathogenic organisms, 

such as Listeria monocytogenes, from 

those used for preservative effects. This 

distinction is implicit in the definition 

of ‘‘chemical preservative’’ in 21 CFR 

101.22(a)(5) and in FSIS’s definition of 

‘‘chemical preservative’’ in 9 CFR 301.2, 

which provide that a ‘‘chemical 

preservative’’ is ‘‘any chemical that, 

when added to a food, tends to prevent 

or retard deterioration thereof * * * .’’ 

The preservative technical effect is to 

retard or prevent deterioration of food, 

and this effect is achieved by preventing 

the outgrowth of microorganisms that 

produce off-odors and discolor food as 

the food ages. Based on data that FSIS 

has received, however, some companies 

add substances with antimicrobial 

effects to their products not to achieve 

effects on spoilage organisms but to 

impart flavor and to inhibit the 

outgrowth of the pathogen Listeria 

monocytogenes that may be present in 

the product. 

These companies submitted data to 

demonstrate that the ingredient’s 

primary purpose is for flavoring, with a 

potential added benefit of preventing 

the outgrowth of Listeria 

monocytogenes, and not to prevent or 

retard deterioration of the product. The 

data submitted show that products 

containing the ingredient have the same 

‘‘sell by/use by’’ date as products with 

the same formulation except the 

antimicrobial ingredient, and that both 

products have a similar outgrowth of 

spoilage organisms over time. These 

companies have argued, therefore, that 

under these circumstances, the product 

should be eligible to bear the ‘‘natural’’ 

claim. 

While FSIS evaluates this and other 

issues discussed in this notice and the 

comments submitted in response to it, 

the Agency will continue to evaluate 

and approve ‘‘natural’’ claims in the 

labeling of products that contain multifunctional ingredients on a case-by-case 

basis. Firms seeking FSIS approval of a 

‘‘natural’’ claim for a product that 

includes a multi-functional ingredient 

like sodium lactate would need to 

substantiate the claim with, among 

other evidence, a showing that the 

ingredient is not being used to extend 

the product’s shelf life. 

3. Separate Claims for ‘‘Natural’’ 

Products and ‘‘Natural Ingredients’’ 

Several comments suggested that FSIS 

establish criteria for separate and 

distinct claims for (a) ‘‘natural’’ 

products and (b) products with ‘‘natural 

ingredients.’’ According to these 

comments, meat and poultry products 

that meet the conditions specified in the 

‘‘natural’’ claims entry in the Policy 

Book should be permitted to bear the 

claim ‘‘natural’’ on their labels, while 

meat and poultry products that simply 

contain no artificial or synthetic 

ingredients should be permitted to bear 

the claim ‘‘natural ingredients’’ on their 

labels. Some comments suggested that 

FSIS permit meat and poultry products 

that contain ingredients that comply 

with FDA’s definition of ‘‘natural 

flavor’’ or ‘‘natural flavoring’’ in 21 CFR 

101.22(a)(3) to bear the claim ‘‘natural 

ingredients’’ regardless of the 

ingredient’s technical effects or whether 

the ingredient is considered to be 

‘‘minimally processed.’’ 

4. ‘‘Non-Traditional’’ Food Processing 

Methods 

Several comments noted that many 

types of processing methods that are in 

use today did not exist 25 years ago 

when FSIS first established its policy on 

‘‘natural.’’ The comments stated that 

many of these processing methods, such 

as steam pasteurization, ultra 

pasteurization, modified atmosphere 

packaging, and high pressure 

processing, enhance the safety and 

quality of meat and poultry product 

without altering the basic nature of the 

food and thus should be permitted to be 

used on products labeled as ‘‘natural.’’ 

The comments suggested that FSIS 

consider a meat or poultry product to be 

‘‘minimally processed’’ based on the 

processing method’s impact on the food 

rather than the complexity of the 

processing technology and equipment. 

Several comments supported allowing 

the use of high pressure processing on 

meat and poultry products labeled as 

‘‘natural.’’ 

Other comments questioned whether 

advanced processing technologies, such 

as high-pressure pasteurization, should 

be considered minimally processed 

regardless of their effects on the 

composition of the finished product. 

Some comments presented results from 

focus groups and consumer surveys 

that, according to the comments, 

indicate that the consumers do not have 

a clear understanding of what 

‘‘minimally processed’’ means. The 

comments suggested that FSIS either 

clarify what minimally processed means 

or eliminate the minimal processing 

component of its ‘‘natural’’ claims 

policy. 

While it considers the comments 

submitted on this issue, FSIS will 

continue to evaluate the use of ‘‘nontraditional’’ processing methods on 

products labeled as ‘‘natural’’ on a caseby-case basis. FSIS is likely to find that 

a product that has undergone a ‘‘nontraditional’’ processing method to be 

‘‘minimally processed’’ if the 

manufacturer of the product 

demonstrates: (1) That the processing 

method functions in a manner that is 

similar to one of the traditional 

processes described in ‘‘natural’’ claims 

entry of the Policy Book, and (2) that a 

meat or poultry product that has been 

subjected to the non-traditional process 

has the same basic characteristics as a 

product that has not undergone such a 

process. 

5. ‘‘Enhanced’’ Products 

FSIS received over 12,000 electronic 

form letters from individuals stating that 

they are members of the TLC that 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46955 

expressed the view that poultry 

products containing added solutions 

(i.e., ‘‘enhanced’’ poultry) should not be 

labeled as ‘‘natural’’ because, according 

to the comments, ‘‘natural’’ products are 

not injected with solutions containing 

water, salt, flavorings, seasonings, 

tenderizing agents, and water-binding 

ingredients, such as the seaweed extract 

carrageenan. As noted above, the TLC 

also submitted a petition dated July 27, 

2007, requesting that FSIS take 

immediate action to prohibit the use of 

‘‘natural’’ claims on the labels of 

‘‘enhanced’’ poultry products. The 

petition includes results from consumer 

surveys that, according to the petition, 

demonstrate that a majority of 

consumers believe that ‘‘enhanced’’ 

products should not be labeled as 

‘‘natural.’’ 

Other comments suggested that FSIS 

establish two categories for ‘‘natural’’ 

claims associated with raw poultry 

products. The comments proposed that 

raw, single-ingredient poultry products 

that are not otherwise marinated, 

seasoned, injected, or otherwise 

‘‘enhanced’’ could be labeled as 

‘‘natural,’’ while raw poultry products 

that have been enhanced with ‘‘natural’’ 

ingredients could bear claims such as 

‘‘Made with All Natural Ingredients’’ or 

‘‘Enhanced with All Natural 

Ingredients.’’ 

‘‘Enhanced’’ products are products to 

which marinades/flavoring/tenderizing 

solutions have been added. Enhanced 

poultry products are widely sold and 

may bear ‘‘natural’’ claims because all of 

their ingredients are ‘‘natural.’’ On a 

commercial scale, manufacturers of 

poultry products are not likely to use a 

bowl, pan, or any of the other common 

household methods used by consumers 

to marinate poultry. 

For years, meat and poultry product 

manufacturers have used various 

techniques to infuse marinade and other 

solutions containing flavorings, 

seasonings, tenderizing agents, water, 

salt, and other ingredients, such as 

starches and seaweed extractives, that 

help hold the moisture in the product. 

FSIS labeling policies have been 

updated over time in light of techniques 

in commercial operations where 

flavoring and seasoning marinades and 

solutions are added to poultry and meat 

products using tumbling and ‘‘needling’’ 

mechanisms. For example, to ensure 

that the labeling of meat and poultry 

products to which solutions are added 

bears a truthful, descriptive product 

designation as provided in 9 CFR 

317.2(c)(1) and 9 CFR 381.117(a), the 

traditional product name must be 

supplemented with an adjacent qualifier 

that informs the consumer of the 

presence of the solution in the product. 

Examples of such statements are 

‘‘Chicken Breast with up to 15% of a 

Flavoring Solution’’ and ‘‘Turkey 

Cutlets Enhanced with 10% of water, 

salt, spices, and carrageenan.’’ In 

addition, FSIS’s regulations require that 

all ingredients added to poultry and 

meat products be listed in the 

ingredients statement on labeling (9 CFR 

317.2, 9 CFR 381.118). 

Thus, the labels of ‘‘enhanced’’ meat 

and poultry products are required to 

contain information to inform 

consumers that the product contains 

added solutions. However, many 

comments submitted on this issue, as 

well as the TLC petition, maintain that 

this required supplemental labeling 

feature does little to prevent consumers 

from believing that they are purchasing 

fresh, single-ingredient chicken because 

it is typically not prominently displayed 

on the product label. 

6. ‘‘Natural’’ and Animal Production 

Conditions 

Several comments stated that 

‘‘natural’’ claims on the labels of meat 

and poultry products should reflect the 

conditions under which animals used to 

produce these products were raised. 

Most of these comments stated that meat 

and poultry products from animals that 

have been genetically altered, treated 

with hormones, or fed prophylactic 

antibiotics should not qualify to be 

labeled as ‘‘natural.’’ The comments also 

asserted that products from animals 

raised under intensive confinements 

that were unable to engage in their 

natural behavior should not be labeled 

as ‘‘natural.’’ FSIS received these types 

of comments from both consumers and 

producers of meat and poultry products. 

In addition, Farm Sanctuary, a farm 

animal advocacy organization, 

petitioned the Agency to prohibit the 

claim ‘‘natural’’ on all meat and poultry 

products or, in the alternative, to work 

with USDA’s Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) to codify an expanded 

definition of ‘‘natural’’ that addresses 

the treatment and living conditions of 

animal raised for food before their 

slaughter. The petition includes the 

results of a nation-wide consumer 

survey that, according to the petition, 

indicates that consumers are confused 

about what ‘‘natural’’ claims on the 

labels of meat and poultry products 

mean and believe that the claim relates 

to the treatment of an animal while 

alive. 

Several comments suggested that FSIS 

work with USDA’s AMS to develop a 

‘‘naturally raised’’ claim for meat and 

poultry products that reflects the animal 

production practices. Other comments, 

as well as the Farm Sanctuary petition, 

asserted that establishing separate 

claims for ‘‘natural’’ and ‘‘naturally 

raised’’ would be confusing to 

consumers, and that FSIS, in 

consultation with AMS, should 

establish a single ‘‘natural’’ claim that 

encompasses the treatment and living 

conditions of animals raised for food 

prior to slaughter, as well as postslaughter processing. 

FSIS has regarded the claim 

‘‘natural,’’ when used on the labels of 

meat and poultry products, as one that 

is intended to reflect the characteristics 

of the finished product and, unlike the 

claim ‘‘naturally raised,’’ one that is not 

intended to encompass animal 

production practices. AMS as well has 

viewed ‘‘natural’’ as a distinct and 

different claim from its ‘‘naturally 

raised’’ marketing claim because 

‘‘natural’’ has been considered as a postharvest processing claim, while 

‘‘naturally raised’’ has been viewed as a 

claim that pertains to pre-harvest 

production practices. 

On January 21, 2009, AMS published 

in the Federal Register, a voluntary 

standard for ‘‘naturally raised’’ livestock 

and meat marketing claims (74 FR 

3541). The standard addresses the 

circumstances in which a ‘‘naturally 

raised’’ claim could be made for the 

production of livestock used in meat 

and meat products. The naturally raised 

marketing claim standard states that 

livestock used for the production of 

meat and meat products have been 

raised entirely without growth 

promotants and antibiotics (except 

ionophores used as a coccidiostatic for 

parasite control), and have never been 

fed animal by-products derived from the 

slaughter/harvest process or from 

animal waste. 

AMS and FSIS are carefully 

evaluating the comments submitted to 

FSIS and AMS addressing this issue, 

including the views expressed at the 

recent public meeting on animal raising 

claims (73 FR 60228, October 10, 2008). 

Several participants at the public 

meeting urged the agencies to work 

together on labeling claims such as 

‘‘natural’’ and ‘‘naturally raised,’’ and 

AMS and FSIS are, in fact, collaborating 

to achieve a consistent USDA approach 

to these issues. 

AMS’ voluntary standard for 

‘‘naturally raised livestock’’ was 

adopted to establish conditions for the 

raising of livestock that AMS will verify 

to increase the value of the livestock 

and of the meat and meat products 

derived from them. After consideration 

of the comments received with regard to 

the AMS ‘‘naturally raised’’ standard 

and of the views expressed at the public 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
46956 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

meeting on ‘‘raising’’ claims held by the 

two agencies, AMS and FSIS have 

mutually determined that the 

application of the ‘‘naturally raised’’ 

claim to meat and meat products 

warrants further evaluation by the 

agencies as well as further input from 

all interested parties. FSIS, in 

cooperation with AMS, will evaluate the 

‘‘naturally raised’’ claim in the context 

of its consideration of the broader issues 

presented by ‘‘natural’’ claims on meat 

and poultry products. Accordingly, FSIS 

does not intend, at this time, to approve 

‘‘naturally raised livestock’’ claims for 

meat or meat products based solely on 

the AMS certification to its ‘‘naturally 

raised’’ standard. Nonetheless, FSIS will 

evaluate all requests for ‘‘naturally 

raised’’ claims on a case-by case basis. 

AMS and FSIS continue to believe 

that certification by AMS to the 

‘‘naturally raised’’ standard provides 

appropriate support for claims for 

livestock and thus can enhance the 

value of such livestock when marketed 

by producers. Accordingly, AMS will 

continue to offer livestock producers the 

opportunity to use the ‘‘naturally 

raised’’ claim, verified by AMS, to 

market their animals. 

7. Establish a Uniform Federal 

Definition of ‘‘Natural’’ 

Many comments, as well as the 

petition submitted by Sara Lee, 

suggested that USDA and FDA work 

together to create a consistent meaning 

for the ‘‘natural’’ claim for both 

agencies. Some comments proposed that 

both FSIS and FDA define ‘‘natural’’ 

based on the conditions that were first 

described in FSIS Policy Memo 055. 

Other comments proposed that FSIS 

model its ‘‘natural’’ policy after FDA’s 

definition of ‘‘natural flavor’’ in 21 CFR 

101.22(a), which does not include a 

‘‘minimally processed’’ component. One 

comment encouraged FSIS to coordinate 

with FDA in the development of its 

‘‘natural’’ claims policy but stated that 

it is not imperative for the two agencies 

to have the same policy. One comment 

also suggested that FSIS work with the 

Alcohol and Tobacco Trade and 

Taxation Bureau (ATTB), in 

consultation with the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC), to develop a single 

working definition of the term ‘‘natural’’ 

for food and beverage products. 

8. Carbon Monoxide 

Although FSIS did not receive 

comments on this issue, some 

processing establishments and 

producers have expressed interest in 

using carbon monoxide in modified 

atmosphere packaging systems for meat 

products labeled as ‘‘natural.’’ Carbon 

monoxide is used to stabilize the 

naturally occurring red color pigment of 

meat. Proponents of this technology 

have expressed support for the use of 

carbon monoxide in ‘‘natural’’ products 

because carbon monoxide is a naturally 

occurring gas and acts to form a 

naturally occurring red meat color that 

dissipates after the product is removed 

from packaging. 

Although carbon monoxide is a 

Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) 

and suitable substance in modified 

packaging systems, FSIS considers the 

use of this technology as inconsistent 

with its policy on ‘‘natural.’’ The 

Agency’s view has been that the process 

used to add carbon monoxide to product 

packages represents more than minimal 

processing. FSIS continues to believe 

that the control system required in 

modified atmosphere processing using 

carbon monoxide, such that no more 

than 0.4% carbon monoxide is added, is 

too complex to support a ‘‘natural’’ 

claim. 

V. Issues for Comment 

FSIS issued the December 5, 2006, 

Federal Register notice and held the 

December 12, 2006 public meeting, to 

solicit public comments on what the 

voluntary labeling claim ‘‘natural’’ 

should mean when applied to meat and 

poultry products to inform the 

development of a proposed rule 

regarding the ‘‘natural’’ claim. However, 

the comments demonstrate that there is 

a lack of industry and public consensus 

on the meaning of ‘‘natural.’’ Therefore, 

FSIS is not prepared at this time to issue 

a proposed rule to establish a regulatory 

definition for the claim. Instead, the 

Agency is publishing this ANPR to 

solicit further public comment. During 

the pendency of this process, the 

Agency will continue to apply its 

‘‘natural’’ claims policy described in the 

Policy Book. 

To inform this process, FSIS requests 

comments on the following issues raised 

in this document. 

1. Alternatives to Rulemaking 

• In light of the concerns expressed 

by the comments that disagreed that 

FSIS should establish a codified 

definition for ‘‘natural,’’ the Agency 

requests comments on whether it should 

proceed to develop a proposed 

regulation, or use this proceeding to 

develop an updated ‘‘natural’’ claims 

policy. 

• If commenters think that FSIS 

should not promulgate a rule to define 

‘‘natural,’’ the Agency requests 

comments on whether it should 

continue to resolve issues associated 

with ‘‘natural’’ claims by relying on the 

existing or a revised policy document 

on ‘‘natural’’ claims, and if so, whether 

it should consider adopting the more 

flexible approach described earlier in 

this document in which, instead of 

defining ‘‘natural,’’ the Agency would 

approve the labels of meat or poultry 

products bearing a ‘‘natural’’ claim if the 

claim is accompanied on the label by a 

truthful statement that clearly explains 

what ‘‘natural’’ means as applied to a 

particular product. 

2. Sodium Lactate and Other 

Multifunctional Ingredients 

• FSIS requests comments on 

whether it should develop a policy on 

‘‘natural’’ claims in which the Agency 

would continue to distinguish products 

that use ingredients for their 

antimicrobial effects to inhibit the 

growth of pathogenic organisms, such as 

Listeria monocytogenes, from products 

that use the same ingredients for 

preservative effects when evaluating 

labels that contain ‘‘natural’’ claims. 

• FSIS also requests comments on 

whether it would be more appropriate 

for the labeling of a meat or poultry 

product that contains multi-functional 

ingredients derived from ‘‘natural’’ 

sources, such as sodium lactate from a 

corn source, to bear an ‘‘all natural 

ingredients’’ claim rather than a 

‘‘natural’’ claim. 

3. ‘‘Non-Traditional’’ Food Processing 

Methods 

• Given the advances in food 

processing and packaging technologies 

that have occurred since Policy Memo 

055 was first issued, FSIS requests 

comments on whether it should 

continue to permit more complex 

processes to be used on meat and 

poultry products labeled as ‘‘natural’’ if 

the process does not change the basic 

characteristics of the product. 

• The Agency also requests comments 

on whether some of the more complex 

processes qualify as ‘‘minimal 

processing’’ under the Agency’s 

established ‘‘natural’’ policy, and, if not, 

whether the Agency should revise the 

policy to allow the use of such 

processes on products labeled as 

‘‘natural.’’ 

4. ‘‘Enhanced’’ Products 

• Given the significant interest in the 

use of ‘‘natural’’ claims in the labeling 

of ‘‘enhanced’’ products, FSIS requests 

comments on whether it should approve 

a ‘‘natural’’ claim on meat and poultry 

products that have been enhanced with 

solutions that contain ‘‘natural’’ 

ingredients. 

• FSIS also requests comments on 

whether it would be more appropriate 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46957 

for raw meat and poultry products 

enhanced with ‘‘natural’’ ingredients to 

be allowed to bear an ‘‘all natural 

ingredients’’ claim instead of a 

‘‘natural’’ product claim. 

• Finally, because of the large number 

of comments that objected to the 

addition of ingredients to meat and 

poultry products labeled as ‘‘natural,’’ 

FSIS requests comments on whether the 

claim ‘‘natural’’ should refer only to 

raw, single-ingredient meat and poultry 

products, i.e., cuts of meat and poultry 

and ground meat and poultry. 

5. Natural and Naturally Raised 

• Given the number of comments that 

suggested that the claim ‘‘natural’’ as 

applied to meat and poultry products 

should encompass the conditions under 

which the source animals for these 

products were raised, FSIS requests 

comments on the issue and on how FSIS 

and AMS can best achieve a consistent 

approach to the claims ‘‘natural’’ and 

‘‘naturally raised.’’ 

• FSIS also requests comment on 

whether the Agency should adhere to its 

traditional view that the claim ‘‘natural’’ 

relates only to the finished meat or 

poultry product and not factor in how 

the source livestock or poultry are 

raised. 

6. Carbon Monoxide 

• FSIS requests comments on 

whether the Agency’s position regarding 

the use of carbon monoxide in the 

packaging of meat products is 

appropriate and should continue to be 

applied in evaluating requests for 

approval of ‘‘natural’’ claims. 

7. Economic Effects 

• FSIS requests comments on the 

potential economic effects and burdens 

of the various approaches on the use of 

‘‘natural’’ claims that were presented in 

this document. 

Additional Public Notification 

Public awareness of all segments of 

rulemaking and policy development is 

important. Consequently, in an effort to 

ensure that minorities, women, and 

persons with disabilities are aware of 

this document, FSIS will announce it 

online through the FSIS Web page 

located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

regulations_&_policies/ 

2009_Notices_Index/index.asp. FSIS 

will also make copies of this Federal 

Register publication available through 

the FSIS Constituent Update, which is 

used to provide information regarding 

FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, 

Federal Register notices, FSIS public 

meetings, recalls, and other types of 

information that could affect or would 

be of interest to constituents and 

stakeholders. The Update is 

communicated via Listserv, a free 

electronic mail subscription service for 

industry, trade and farm groups, 

consumer interest groups, health 

professionals, and other individuals 

who have asked to be included. The 

Update is available on the FSIS Web 

page. Through the Listserv and the Web 

page, FSIS is able to provide 

information to a much broader and more 

diverse audience. In addition, FSIS 

offers an e-mail subscription service that 

provides automatic and customized 

access to selected food safety news and 

information. This service is available at 

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

news_and_events/email_subscription/. 

Options range from recalls to export 

information to regulations, directives 

and notices. 

Customers can add or delete 

subscriptions themselves, and have the 

option to password-protect their 

accounts. 

Done at Washington, DC, on September 9, 

2009. 

Alfred V. Almanza, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–22036 Filed 9–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 301 

[REG–116614–08] 

RIN 1545–BH90 

Disregarded Entities and Excise Taxes 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

by cross-reference to temporary 

regulations. 

SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations 

section of this issue of the Federal 

Register, the IRS is issuing temporary 

regulations clarifying that a singleowner eligible entity that is disregarded 

as an entity separate from its owner for 

any purpose, but regarded as a separate 

entity for certain excise tax purposes, is 

treated as a corporation for tax 

administration purposes related to those 

excise taxes. Those regulations also 

make conforming changes to the tax 

liability rule for disregarded entities and 

the treatment of entity rule for 

disregarded entities with respect to 

employment taxes. The regulations 

affect disregarded entities in general 

and, in particular, disregarded entities 

that pay or pay over certain federal 

excise taxes or that are required to be 

registered by the IRS. The text of those 

temporary regulations also serves as the 

text of these proposed regulations. 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

and requests for a public hearing must 

be received by December 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–116614–08), room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. 

Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, 

Washington, DC 20044. Submissions 

may be hand-delivered Monday through 

Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 

4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–116614– 

08), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC, or sent 

electronically via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–116614– 

08). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed regulations, 

Michael H. Beker, (202) 622–3070; 

concerning the submissions of 

comments and requests for a public 

hearing, Richard Hurst, (202) 622–2949 

(TDD telephone) (not toll-free numbers) 

and his e-mail address is 

Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Explanation of 

Provisions 

Temporary regulations in the Rules 

and Regulations section of this issue of 

the Federal Register amend 26 CFR part 

301. The temporary regulations clarify 

that a single-owner eligible entity that is 

disregarded as an entity separate from 

its owner for any purpose, but regarded 

as a separate entity for certain excise tax 

purposes, is treated as a corporation for 

tax administrative purposes related to 

those excise taxes (that is, excise taxes 

reported on Form 720, ‘‘Quarterly 

Federal Excise Tax Return;’’ Form 730, 

‘‘Monthly Tax Return for Wagers;’’ Form 

2290, ‘‘Heavy Highway Vehicle Use Tax 

Return;’’ and Form 11–C, ‘‘Occupation 

Tax and Registration Return for 

Wagering;’’ excise tax refunds or 

payments claimed on Form 8849, 

‘‘Claim for Refund of Excise Taxes;’’ and 

excise tax registrations on Form 637, 

‘‘Application for Registration (For 

Certain Excise Tax Activities).’’ The 

temporary regulations also make 

conforming changes to the tax liability 

rule for disregarded entities in 

§ 301.7701–2(c)(2)(iii) and the treatment 

of entity rule for disregarded entities 

with respect to employment taxes in 

§ 301.7701–2(c)(2)(iv)(B). The text of 

those temporary regulations also serves 

as the text of these proposed 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS