Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 68233

fewer revenue dollars are available to

offset increases in operating expenses.

In FY 1993, MGC Branch employees

graded or certified 23,445,219,703

pounds of meat at an average of 49,902

pounds per revenue hour. In FY 1997,

MGC Branch employees graded or

certified 33,029,179,286 pounds of meat

at an average of 73,699 pounds per

revenue hour. While the average

number of pounds graded and certified

per hour have increased, the total

number of revenue hours generated by

Branch employees decreased from

469,819 in FY 1993 to 448,162 in FY

1997. In FY 1997, the program had a net

operating loss of $737,000. If revenues

remain constant and costs continue to

increase, program operating costs are

projected to exceed total revenue by

$1,519,000 in FY 1998 and $2,124,000

in FY 1999.

Since 1993, in an effort to control

overhead costs, the MGC Branch has

closed three field offices, reduced midlevel supervisory staff by 43 percent,

and reduced the number of support staff

by 29 percent. At the same time, the

MGC Branch has become more reliant

on automated information management

systems for data collection and

dissemination, account billing, and

disbursements of employee

entitlements. The reduction of field

offices, supervisory staff, and support

personnel and the increased reliance on

automated systems enabled the MGC

Branch to absorb increased operating

costs in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997.

Despite the cost reduction efforts, the

decrease in revenue hours plus the

increase in salaries, nonsalary operating

costs, and CONUS per diem rates have

already resulted in a net operating loss

for FY 1997, and will result in a net

operating loss for FY 1998. Such

operating deficits can only be balanced

by adjusting the hourly fee rate charged

to users of the service. Any further

reduction in personnel, services, or

management infrastructure beyond

those already implemented would have

a detrimental effect on the program’s

ability to provide meat grading and

certification services and support the

accurate and uniform application of

such services.

In view of these considerations, the

Agency proposes to increase the base

hourly rate commitment applicants pay

for voluntary Federal meat grading and

certification services from $36.60 to

$39.80. A commitment applicant is a

user of the service who agrees, by

commitment or agreement

memorandum, to use meat grading and

certification services for 8 consecutive

hours per day, Monday through Friday,

between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.,

excluding legal holidays. The base

hourly rate noncommitment applicants

would pay for voluntary Federal meat

grading and certification services would

increase from $39.00 to $42.20, and

would be charged to applicants who

utilize the service for 8 consecutive

hours or less per day, Monday through

Friday, between the hours of 6 a.m. and

6 p.m., excluding legal holidays. The

premium hourly rate for all applicants

would increase from $44.60 to $47.80,

and would be charged to users of the

service for the hours worked in excess

of 8 hours per day between the hours of

6 a.m. and 6 p.m.; for hours worked

between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., Monday

through Friday; and for any time

worked on Saturday and Sunday, except

on legal holidays. The holiday rate for

all applicants would increase from

$73.20 to $79.60, and would be charged

to users of the service for all hours

worked on legal holidays.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 54

Food grades and standards, Food

labeling, Meat and meat products.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 54 is amended as

follows:

PART 54—MEATS, PREPARED

MEATS, AND MEAT PRODUCTS

(GRADING, CERTIFICATION, AND

STANDARDS)

1. The authority citation for part 54

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.

§ 54.27 [Amended]

2. In § 54.27, paragraph (a), ‘‘$39.00’’

is removed and ‘‘$42.20’’ is added in its

place, ‘‘$44.60’’ is removed and

‘‘$47.80’’ is added in its place, ‘‘$73.20’’

is removed ‘‘$79.60’’ is added in its

place, and in paragraph (b), ‘‘$36.60’’ is

removed and ‘‘$39.80’’ is added in its

place, ‘‘$44.60’’ is removed and

‘‘$47.80’’ is added in its place, and

‘‘$73.20’’ is removed and ‘‘$79.60’’ is

added in its place.

Barry L. Carpenter,

Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed

Program.

[FR Doc. 97–34095 Filed 12–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Consumer Service

7 CFR Part 246

RIN 0584–AC59

Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants and

Children (WIC): WIC Cereal Sugar Limit

and Food Package Review

AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to propose

rulemaking; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Department published a

Federal Register Notice of Intent on

March 18, 1996 soliciting public

comments on whether the existing

Federal 6-gram sugar limit for WICeligible adult cereals should be changed.

The 90-day comment period ended on

June 17, 1996. USDA received 731

letters from a total of 878 commenters,

representing a wide range of interested

parties. The majority—809

commenters—expressed support for the

continuation of the 6-gram sugar limit

unchanged. In addition, several

commenters suggested that USDA

conduct a comprehensive review of the

WIC food packages rather than focus on

the single issue of the sugar content of

WIC-eligible adult cereals.

The purpose of this Notice of Intent

is to summarize the public comments

received in response to the earlier

Notice of intent and to announce the

Department’s intent to review the WIC

food packages and recommend

refinements that would best serve WIC

Program objectives. USDA’s Center for

Nutrition Policy and Promotion will be

spearheading this effort in conjunction

with the Food and Consumer Service.

Until this review is completed, the

Department will not make any decisions

about whether to propose a regulatory

change in the Federal sugar cap for WICeligible adult cereals. Therefore, the

current requirement that WIC-eligible

adult cereals made available to women

and child participants must contain no

more than 21.2 grams of sucrose and

other sugars per 100 grams of dry cereal

(i.e., 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce of

cereal) remains in effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Hallman, Branch Chief, Policy

and Program Development Branch,

Supplemental Food Programs Division,

Food and Consumer Service, USDA,

3101 Park Center Drive, Room 542,

Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305–

2730.
68234 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This Notice of Intent has been

determined to be significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and

therefore has been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This action is not a rule as defined by

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C

601–612) and thus is exempt from the

provisions of this Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This Notice of Intent does not contain

reporting or recordkeeping requirements

subject to approval by the Office of

Management and Budget in accordance

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 USC 3507).

Executive Order 12372

This program is listed in the Catalog

of Federal Domestic Assistance

Programs under No. 10.557 and is

subject to the provisions of Executive

Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials [7 CFR part

3015, Subpart V, and final rule-related

Notice of Intent published June 24, 1983

(48 FR 29114)].

Background

The Department’s March 18, 1996

Federal Register Notice of Intent

provided an overview of the different

WIC food packages for women and child

participants. These packages make

available adult cereals that contain at

least 28 milligrams of iron and no more

than 21.2 grams of sucrose and other

sugars (i.e., 6 grams of sugar per dry

ounce of cereal) per 100 grams of dry

cereal. The Notice of Intent summarized

how this 6-gram sugar limit for WICeligible adult cereals (hereinafter called

‘‘WIC cereals’’) was established as a

Federal requirement in 1980 through the

rulemaking process. A complete recap

of the sequence of events leading up to

the development of the 6-gram sugar

limit can be found in the March 18,

1996 Notice of Intent at 61 FR 10903.

In the Notice of Intent, as part of its

continuing obligation to assure that

Federal policies governing WIC

nutritional standards are scientifically

sound, the Department asked the public

to comment on whether the 6-gram

sugar limit should be retained as a

Federal requirement for WIC cereals.

The Department indicated in the Notice

of Intent that, with the exception of

dental caries, recent scientific studies

fail to clearly document an association

between sugar consumption and an

increased risk of developing chronic

diseases. Therefore, the Notice of Intent

solicited public comments to assist the

Department in making a decision about

whether to embark on a proposed

change to the Federal regulations

governing the sugar limit for WIC

cereals.

The Department encouraged

commenters to respond on how the

current WIC cereal sugar limit should be

revised, if a change in regulations was

deemed appropriate. The Notice of

Intent at 61 FR 10907 cited the

following different positions that

commenters were anticipated to take on

this issue:

• Retain the current 6-gram sugar

limit unchanged, counting all sugar,

both naturally occurring and added, as

part of the total sugar content of the

cereal.

• Set a new sugar limit, either higher

or lower than the current 6-gram level.

• Revise the 6-gram sugar limit to

represent only the amount of sugar

added during the manufacturing of a

cereal, representing either a separate

ingredient (e.g., table sugar, corn syrup,

brown sugar, honey, and maltodextrin)

or a separate component of a processed

or man-made ingredient (e.g.,

marshmallow and caramel), and exclude

the naturally occurring, inherent sugar

in the cereal (e.g., sugars in grains, dried

fruits, and nonfat dry milk).

• Eliminate the Federal sugar limit for

WIC cereals.

The Notice of Intent further stated

that commenters need not restrict their

views to one of these options, but could

also pose other alternatives. In addition,

the Department urged commenters to

discuss both the pros and cons of their

recommendations as they specifically

apply to the low-income, nutritionally

at-risk WIC population. The Department

also sought public views on how a

change would impact WIC Program

operations, such as the provision of

nutrition education. Further, the Notice

of Intent solicited feedback from the

public on whether they believed that the

6-gram limit provided an adequate range

of choices for both WIC agencies and

participants, consistent with the

nutritional purposes of the WIC

Program.

Comment Analysis

The March 18, 1996 Notice of Intent

had a 90-day comment period, which

closed on June 17, 1996. USDA received

731 letters with a postmark of June 17

or earlier from a total of 878

commenters. Commenters represented a

wide range of interested parties: the

WIC community; professional nutrition/

health care providers and associations;

members of Congress and State/local

government officials; industry and

related private support groups; public

interest groups; and the general public.

There was strong consensus among the

overwhelming majority of commenters

that the current cereal sugar limit

continues to be appropriate for the lowincome, nutritionally at-risk WIC

population.

Of the 878 commenters, 809

supported retaining the current 6-gram

sugar limit for WIC cereals. Supporters

included, but were not limited to: the 33

WIC State agency directors who

responded; 28 of the other 30 WIC State

agency staff who responded; the

National Association of WIC Directors;

the 8 State/local WIC associations or

coalitions that responded; 281 of the

308 WIC local agency directors and their

staff who responded; 26 of 29

professional health/nutrition-related

groups that responded, such as the

American Dental Association and

affiliated State dental societies/

associations in California, Illinois, Iowa,

Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and

Washington, the American Association

of Public Health Dentistry, the

American Dietetic Association and its

affiliated State chapter in Maine, the

Association of State and Territorial

Public Health Nutrition Directors, the

Society for Nutrition Education, the

Association of Maternal and Child

Health Programs, the American Public

Health Association, and the American

Academy of Pediatrics and its affiliated

State chapter in Montana; 325 of the 341

individual nutrition/health

professionals (mostly dentists,

physicians and nutritionists) who

responded; 21 of 24 members of

Congress who responded before the due

date; 2 of the 3 national cereal

manufacturers that responded; and the

17 public interest groups that

responded, such as the Food Research

and Action Center, the Center on Budget

and Policy Priorities, the Center for

Science in the Public Interest, Public

Voice for Food and Health Policy, Bread

for the World, and the Migrant Legal

Action Program, Inc.

Seven commenters suggested that

USDA establish a lower sugar limit for

WIC cereals. In most cases, their

recommendations reflected general

acceptance of the 6-gram sugar limit, but

expressed a preference for an even

lower sugar level. Three commenters

wanted a modest 1–2 gram increase in

the current sugar limit, or up to a

maximum of 8 grams per dry ounce of

cereal.

Twenty-seven commenters

recommended that the current 6-gram

limit be redefined to count only the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 68235

added sugars and to discount naturally

occurring sugars found in cereal grains

and ingredients, such as dried fruits.

This group of commenters included: 1

WIC State agency staff person; 21 WIC

local agency directors or their staff; 1

professional nutrition/health-related

group, the American Heart Association;

1 non-WIC health/research facility; and

3 individual nutrition/health

professionals or educators.

Twenty-six commenters favored a

complete elimination of a sugar limit, of

whom: 1 was a WIC local agency staff

person; 2 represented the professional

nutrition/health-related group known as

the American Council on Science and

Health; 7 were individual nutrition/

health professionals or educators; 3

represented a non-WIC health/research

facility; 12 represented the cereal, raisin

or sugar industries and related private

support groups; and 1 was a State

official.

The Department classified 11 of the

commenters, including 3 members of

Congress, as expressing ‘‘other’’ points

of view for one of the following reasons:

they did not clearly state a preference

for one of the options concerning the

WIC cereal sugar limit cited in the

Notice of Intent; they expressed an

opinion not related to any option; or

they wrote simply to provide

information or make an inquiry, rather

than to express an opinion about the

sugar limit.

Five of the 878 commenters expressed

two different positions in their letters

(i.e., 4 commenters favored retaining or

lowering the sugar limit and 1

commenter favored retaining or slightly

raising the sugar limit). The dual

positions of these 5 commenters were

captured accordingly in the counts

reported above.

As of April 4, 1997, USDA had

received 166 more letters, representing

183 commenters, that were postmarked

after the June 17, 1996 closing date. Late

letters were read and considered by the

Department, but were not included

among the official counts cited above

comprising the comment analysis. The

majority of the late commenters

expressed support for retaining the

current sugar limit.

Discussion of Commenters’ Opinions

and Rationales

Eight hundred and fifty seven of the

total 878 commenters who submitted

letters during the 90-day comment

expressed a preference to either retain,

revise or eliminate the sugar limit.

Presented below is a brief annotated list

of commenters’ major rationales related

to each of these positions.

Position I: Retain the 6-Gram Sugar

Limit Unchanged

Eight hundred and nine commenters

expressed support for retaining

unchanged the current sugar limit for

WIC cereals. The current 6-gram sugar

limit represents total grams of sugar

contained in a 1-ounce serving of cereal.

It includes grams of both naturally

occurring and added sugars.

The total number of WIC State and

local agency associations, directors and

their staff and individual nutrition/

health professionals who responded to

the Notice of Intent represented about

728 commenters, of which

approximately 680 argued against a

change in the 6-gram WIC cereal sugar

limit. Collectively, the main rationales

the 809 commenters gave in defense of

their position were:

Rationale 1: The 6-gram sugar limit is

consistent with the Dietary Guidelines

for Americans and the Food Guide

Pyramid that recommend moderation in

sugar intake.

Rationale 2: Including both naturally

occurring and added sugar in the 6-gram

sugar limit is consistent with the

information displayed on Nutrition

Facts panels of food labels that does not

distinguish between naturally occurring

or added sugars. Further, counting all

sources of sugar in determining the total

sugar content of a WIC cereal is

appropriate because the human body

cannot differentiate between the same

types of sugar which are identical

chemically whether they are naturally

occurring or added.

Rationale 3: Greater amounts of sugar

in WIC cereals would offer few if any

nutritional benefits to WIC participants.

Rationale 4: The 6-gram sugar limit is

consistent with WIC’s mission to meet

the special nutritional and health needs

of a low-income, at-risk population.

Rationale 5: The 6-gram sugar limit

represents an important nutrition

standard for WIC foods and is relevant

to WIC nutrition education goals.

Rationale 6: The 6-gram sugar limit

provides an adequate range of cereal

choices for WIC participants and State

agencies.

Rationale 7: Numerous USDA reviews

over several years (see 61 FR 10905)

have concluded that the 6-gram sugar

limit is an appropriate WIC food

requirement.

Position II: Revise the 6-Gram Sugar

Limit to Count Only Added Sugars

Twenty-seven commenters

recommended that the 6-gram sugar

limit be redefined to count only added

sugars and exempt naturally occurring

sugars in the grains and dried fruit

ingredients. Collectively, the main

rationales these 27 commenters gave in

defense of their position were:

Rationale 1: Redefining the 6-gram

sugar limit, to enable more cereals

containing dried fruits to become WIC

eligible, would be consistent with the

Dietary Guidelines recommendation

concerning eating more fruits and

vegetables.

Rationale 2: Redefining the 6-gram

sugar limit would increase the variety of

WIC cereals and dried fruit adds

beneficial nutrients to cereals, such as

dietary fiber, magnesium and zinc.

Position III: Eliminate the 6-Gram Sugar

Limit for WIC Cereals

Twenty-six commenters stated that

the current sugar limit for WIC cereals

should be abolished. Collectively, the

main rationales these 26 commenters

gave in defense of their position were:

Rationale 1: The 6-gram sugar limit

restricts the variety of WIC cereals and

is inconsistent with newer research

findings indicating that sugar

consumption is not clearly associated

with an increased risk of chronic

diseases, except dental caries.

Rationale 2: The 6-gram sugar limit is

arbitrary and capricious and is not

based upon scientific evidence.

Conclusion

The Department would like to express

its appreciation to all of the commenters

who responded to the March 18, 1996

Notice of Intent to share their insights

and views about this issue. Several

commenters expressing various

positions on the sugar limit suggested

that rather than focusing on only one

requirement of the WIC foods, i.e., the

sugar restriction for WIC cereals, USDA

should consider whether all of the

nutritional aspects of the WIC food

packages are still appropriate for the

WIC population. Therefore, USDA has

decided to conduct a review of the

overall WIC food packages. This review

will examine the WIC food packages

and recommend refinements that would

best serve WIC Program objectives. The

review will assure that the WIC food

packages are consist with the fourth

edition of the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans jointly published by USDA

and the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services in 1995, which was

issued subsequent to the last review of

the WIC food packages completed in

1992. Choosing a diet moderate in sugar

content represents just one of the seven

primary recommendations of the Dietary

Guidelines. The Department believes

that a more comprehensive assessment

of the WIC food packages would be

prudent at this time.
68236 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The USDA Center for Nutrition Policy

and Promotion will be spearheading this

effort in conjunction with the Food and

Consumer Service. The Department

expects to complete the WIC food

package review by the summer of 1998.

Until this review is completed, the

Department will not make any decisions

about whether to propose a regulatory

change in the Federal sugar limit for

WIC cereals. Consequently, the current

Federal requirement that WIC cereals

(hot or cold) made available to women

and child participants must contain no

more than 21.2 grams of sucrose and

other sugars per 100 grams of dry cereal

(i.e., 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce of

cereal) remains in effect for an

indefinite period of time.

Dated: December 17, 1997.

Shirley R. Watkins,

Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition and

Consumer Services.

[FR Doc. 97–33844 Filed 12–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–191–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model ATP Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

British Aerospace Model ATP airplanes.

This proposal would require revising

the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

modify the limitation that prohibits

positioning the power levers below the

flight idle stop during flight, and to

provide a statement of the consequences

of positioning the power levers below

the flight idle stop during flight. This

proposal is prompted by incidents and

accidents involving airplanes equipped

with turboprop engines in which the

ground propeller beta range was used

improperly during flight. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent loss of airplane

controllability, or engine overspeed and

consequent loss of engine power caused

by the power levers being positioned

below the flight idle stop while the

airplane is in flight.

DATES: Comments must be received by

January 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

191–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Quam, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2145; fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 97–NM–191–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

97–NM–191–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

In recent years, the FAA has received

reports of 14 incidents and/or accidents

involving intentional or inadvertent

operation of the propellers in the

ground beta range during flight on

airplanes equipped with turboprop

engines. (For the purposes of this

proposal, beta is defined as the range of

propeller operation intended for use

during taxi, ground idle, or reverse

operations as controlled by the power

lever settings aft of the flight idle stop.)

Five of the fourteen in-flight beta

occurrences were classified as

accidents. In each of these five cases,

operation of the propellers in the beta

range occurred during flight. Operation

of the propellers in the beta range

during flight, if not prevented, could

result in loss of airplane controllability,

or engine overspeed with consequent

loss of engine power.

Communication between the FAA and

the public during a meeting held on

June 11–12, 1996, in Seattle,

Washington, revealed a lack of

consistency of the information on inflight beta operation contained in the

FAA-approved airplane flight manual

(AFM) for airplanes that are not

certificated for in-flight operation with

the power levers below the flight idle

stop. (Airplanes that are certificated for

this type of operation are not affected by

the above-referenced conditions.)

U.S. Type Certification of the Airplane

This airplane model is manufactured

in the United Kingdom and is type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of Section

21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. The FAA has

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of these type designs that

are certificated for operation in the

United States.

FAA’s Determinations

The FAA has examined the

circumstances and reviewed all

available information related to the

incidents and accidents described

previously. The FAA finds that the

Limitations Section of the AFM’s for

certain airplanes must be revised to

prohibit positioning the power levers

below the flight idle stop while the

airplane is in flight, and to provide a

statement of the consequences of

positioning the power levers below the

flight idle stop. The FAA has

determined that the affected airplanes

include those that are equipped with

turboprop engines and that are not