Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Notices 38239

UNITED STATES STANDARDS FOR DRY WHEY1—Continued

Current standard Proposed Discussion

Explanation of Terms ................................. No change ................................................ N/A.

Explanation of Terms ................................. No change ................................................ N/A.

With respect to flavor.—(1) Slight .............. No change ................................................ N/A.

An attribute barely identifiable and present

only to a small degree.

Detectable only upon critical examination We propose to change the wording to provide consistency with other U.S. Grade Standards for dry milk

products.

(2) Definite. An attribute readily identifiable

and present to a substantial degree.

(2) Definite. Not intense but detectable. ... We propose to change the wording to provide consistency with other U.S. Grade Standards for dry milk

products.

(3) Undesirable. Identifiable flavors ........... (3) Undesirable. those flavors. ................. We propose to change the wording to provide consistency with other U.S. Grade Standards for dry milk

products.

in excess of the intensity permitted, or

those flavors not otherwise listed.

No change ................................................ N/A.

(4) Bitter. Distasteful, similar to taste of

quinine.

No change ................................................ N/A.

(5) Feed. Feed flavors such as alfalfa,

sweet clover, silage, or similar feed.

(5) Feed. Feed flavors (such as alfalfa,

sweet clover, silage, or similar feed) in

milk carried through into dry whey.

We propose to change the wording to provide consistency with other U.S. Grade Standards for dry milk

products.

(6) Fermented. Flavors such as fruity or

yeasty, produced through unwanted

chemical changes brought about by

microorganisms or their enzyme systems.

No change ................................................ N/A.

(7) Storage. Lacking in freshness and imparting a ‘‘rough’’ or ‘‘harsh’’ aftertaste.(7) Storage. Lacking in freshness and imparting a ‘‘stale’’ aftertaste.We propose to change the wording to provide consistency with other U.S. Grade Standards for dry milk

products.

(8) Utensil. A flavor that is suggestive of

improper or inadequate washing and.

No change ................................................ N/A

sterilization of utensils or factory equipment.sanitation of utensils or manufacturing

equipment.

We propose to change the wording to provide consistency with other U.S. Grade Standards for dry milk

products.

(9) Weedy. Aromatic flavor characteristic

of the weeds eaten by cows carried

through into the dry whey.

No change ................................................ N/A.

(b) With respect to physical appearance:

(1) Slight pressure. Only sufficient pressure to readily disintegrate the lumps.

No change ................................................ N/A.

(2) Practically free. Present only upon very

critical examination.

No change ................................................ N/A.

(3) Free flowing. Capable of being poured

continuously without interruption.

(3) Reasonably free flowing. Pours in a

fairly constant, uniform stream from the

open end of a tilted container or scoop.

We propose to change the wording to provide consistency with other U.S. Grade Standards for dry milk

products.

(4) Lumps. Loss of powdery consistency

but not caked into hard chunks.

No change ................................................ N/A.

(5) Uniform color. Free from variation in

shades or color.

No change ................................................ N/A.

(6) Visible dark particles. The presence of

scorched or discolored specks capable

of being seen by the eye.

(6) Visible dark particles. The presence of

scorched or discolored specks readily

visible to the eye.

We propose to change the wording to provide consistency with other U.S. Grade Standards for dry milk

products.

1 Compliance with these standards does not excuse failure to comply with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.

Dated: June 13, 2000.

Kathleen A. Merrigan,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 00–15446 Filed 6–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

[PY–99–005]

United States Grade Standards for

Shell Eggs

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing

Service (AMS) is changing the United

States Grade Standards for Shell Eggs.

Specifically, the changes delete the

general term ‘‘Inedible eggs’’ and its

definition, revise the definition of the

general term ‘‘Loss’’ eggs by including

examples of inedible eggs, revise the

term descriptive of an A quality white,

and delete specifications for packaging

materials. These changes will simplify

and clarify the terminology used and

will remove information that is no

longer of value to the industry.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth S. Crosby, Acting Chief,

Standardization Branch, Poultry

Program, Agricultural Marketing

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

38240 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Notices

STOP 0259, room 3944–South, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250–0259, (202) 720–

3506.

The updated United States Grade

Standards for Shell Eggs are available

through the above address or by calling

(202) 720–3506, faxing (202) 690–0941,

e-mailing elizabeth.crosby@usda.gov, or

by accessing the Internet at

www.ams.usda.gov/poultry/standards.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946

(AMA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et

seq.) authorizes the establishment of

U.S. standards and grades for shell eggs.

Section 203(c) of the AMA directs and

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture

‘‘to develop and improve standards of

quality, condition, quantity, grade, and

packaging and recommend and

demonstrate such standards in order to

encourage uniformity and consistency

in commercial practices * * * ’’ AMS is

committed to carrying out this authority

in a manner that facilitates the

marketing of agricultural commodities

and makes copies of official standards

available upon request. The United

States Grade Standards for Shell Eggs do

not appear in the Code of Federal

Regulations but are maintained by

USDA as AMS 56.

These standards and grades are

maintained by AMS for use as a

common language of trade among those

buying and selling shell eggs. The

standards are used by shell egg

processors, wholesale traders,

institutions, Federal and State

governments, and retailers that sell eggs

to the ultimate consumer. AMS is

updating the United States Standards

for Shell Eggs using the procedures that

appear in Part 36 of Title 7 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).

AMS also administers a voluntary

grading program for shell eggs under the

AMA. Any interested person,

commercial firm, or government agency

can, for a fee, have AMS monitor

processing operations and verify that

the grade and size of eggs being

packaged meet the requirements of the

U.S. grade standards and weight classes.

Eggs meeting the requirements can be

packaged into cartons or other

containers bearing the USDA grade

shield. The grading program is

implemented by the regulations in 7

CFR part 56.

Background and Comments

A notice of proposed changes to the

United States Grade Standards for Shell

Eggs was published in the Federal

Register (64 FR 34764) on June 29, 1999.

Comments on the proposal were

solicited from interested parties until

August 30, 1999. Three comments were

received during the 60-day comment

period.

Comments from two State

Departments of Agriculture supported

the proposed changes, saying the

changes would simplify and clarify the

grade standards. The third commenter

was a manufacturer of equipment that

can print on egg cartons and directly

onto an eggshell. The commenter

objected to the proposed removal of

provisions dealing with packaging

materials, asking instead for stricter

packaging requirements dealing with

date coding, safe handling labels for

consumers, and carton aeration. The

provisions concerning packaging

materials proposed for removal do not

pertain to package labeling or date

coding, but provide program users with

suggested package specifications for

strength and construction. Additionally,

the action suggested by the commenter

regarding mandatory requirements for

package aeration could not be

effectively implemented in the

provisions proposed for removal. The

majority of table eggs (those not

packaged under USDA’s grading

program) are not subject to these

provisions. Therefore, after a review of

the comments the Agency concludes

that the standards should be revised as

proposed, with one technical

clarification described below.

Currently, the definition of ‘‘Loss’’

eggs includes inedible eggs. There is

also a separate definition for ‘‘Inedible

eggs’’ that includes examples of such

eggs. When applying the grade

tolerances of the standard, there is no

need to separately identify inedible eggs

from loss eggs. Therefore, AMS is

deleting the general term ‘‘Inedible

eggs’’ and is adding examples of

inedible eggs to the definition of ‘‘Loss’’

eggs. This clarifies that eggs with rots,

green whites, stuck yolks, blood rings,

or free yolk in the white are to be

classed as ‘‘Loss’’ eggs when applying

grade tolerances.

AMS is making one technical

clarification to the revisions as

proposed. One example of an inedible

egg currently listed in the ‘‘inedible

eggs’’ definition was not included in the

revised ‘‘Loss’’ definition. Therefore, to

be clear that ‘‘sour eggs,’’ i.e., those eggs

with an acid odor typically caused by

microorganism growth within the egg,

are to be classed as ‘‘Loss’’ eggs, this

example has been added to the ‘‘Loss’’

definition.

Candling is the process of using light

to help determine the quality of an egg.

Automated mass scanning equipment is

used by most egg packers to detect eggs

with cracked shells and interior defects.

Hand-candling is done to spot-check

and determine accuracy in grading. The

breakout method of determining interior

quality enables graders and students to

calibrate their grading skills against an

objective standard. In this method, a

micrometer measures the height of the

thick white of a broken-out egg and

gives a direct reading in Haugh units.

Currently, there is a Haugh unit range of

‘‘60 to 72’’ for A quality and ‘‘72 or

higher’’ for AA quality. Because these

values appear to overlap, AMS is

revising the description for A quality to

read ‘‘60 up to, but not including, 72.’’

This clarifies the wording and makes it

consistent with the intent of the

description.

Specifications for packaging materials

are provided in the standards as

examples of quality packaging. Since

they would not have any recognized

value to today’s industry, AMS is

deleting this section entirely.

Authority: 7 USC 1621–1627.

Dated: June 14, 2000.

Kathleen A. Merrigan,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 00–15445 Filed 6–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

Notice of Request for Extension of a

Currently Approved Information

Collection

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this

notice announces the Commodity Credit

Corporation’s (CCC) intention to request

an extension for a currently approved

information collection in support of the

CCC Supplier Credit Guarantee Program

(SCGP) based on re-estimates.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received by August 21, 2000 to be

assured of consideration.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:

Contact Merle Brown, Director, Program

Administration Division, Foreign

Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, AgStop 1031, Washington,

DC 20250–1031, telephone (202) 720–

3573.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: CCC Supplier Credit Guarantee

Program (SCGP).

OMB Number: 0551–0037.