24808 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

25The three credit union-related associations

asked that the Rule be amended to permit creditors

to include the Notice in the documents evidencing

the consumer credit obligation rather than requiring

that it be a separate document, as discussed above.

26The Commission has handled inquiries of this

nature through staff interpretation letters, which are

placed on the public record. To date, more than 70

such letters interpreting the Rule have been issued.

27Federally-chartered credit unions are subject to

the NCUA’s version of the Rule.

28See Small Business Size Regulations, 13 CFR

Part 121.601.

review that would lead us to revise that

position.

3. Impact of the Rule on Creditors

CUNA, the only creditor

representative to discuss the subject,

stated that ‘‘Generally, credit unions

have not reported any significant

economic or regulatory impact on their

operations due to this rule.’’

4. Proposed Changes to the Rule to

Benefit Creditors

The Missouri Bankers Association

posited that the Rule provision

prohibiting the pyramiding of late fees

is not sufficiently clear as to what

constitutes a late fee.25 The Association

questioned whether a returned check

fee, for example, would be a late fee

under the Rule, and, if so, whether the

creditor would be permitted under the

Rule to collect it.

This comment calls for an explanation

of the Rule, rather than a modification

to it.26 The Rule does not prohibit a

creditor from collecting a late fee, nor

would it prohibit a creditor from

collecting a returned check fee. The

Rule states that, where a charge is

assessed with respect to only one late

payment and that charge remains

unpaid, the creditor may not for that

reason deem all subsequent payments to

be late or incomplete and assess late

charges with respect to those payments

as well.

In the example provided by the

commenter, if one check was returned

for insufficient funds, the creditor could

assess a returned check fee if permitted

by state law and the terms of the

contract to do so. What the creditor

could not do, assuming the consumer

did not promptly pay the returned

check fee, is to declare all subsequent

payments to be late or incomplete solely

for that reason and assess fees on those

payments.

5. Effect on Other Regulations

Except for the comparisons to the

Federal Reserve Board and other

agencies’ versions of the Rule discussed

above, no commenter discussed the

Rule’s effect on other federal, state or

local laws or regulations.

6. Effect of Technology or Economic

Conditions

No commenter discussed the effects,

if any, of changes in relevant technology

or economic conditions on the Rule.

7., 8., and 9. Effect on Small Businesses

According to CUNA, the Rule applies

to 5,000 state-chartered credit unions.27

CMIG states that the majority of those

credit unions have assets of $100

million or less. Thus, they are

considered to be small entities for the

purposes of the RFA.28 The only burden

that the commenters who claim to

represent such entities identified as

having been imposed by the Rule on

small entities was the requirement

discussed above of providing the

cosigner notice as a separate document.

10. The Notice to Cosigner

No commenter discussed the wording

of the notice.

11. Effect on the Cost and Availability

of Credit

As mentioned above, CUNA stated

that its members generally reported no

significant economic impact on their

operations due to the Rule. Williams &

Eoannou stated that the Rule has had no

negative impact on the cost or

availability of credit and that the use of

credit by consumers has increased since

the Rule became effective. NCLC

provided statistics purporting to show

the increase in consumer debt in the

years following the Rule’s

implementation. In its view, this

increase can be explained in part by

increased consumer demand for what

became, as a result of the Rule, a more

attractive type of credit. No commenter

suggested any adverse economic impact

from the Rule.

12. Disclosure Alternative to the Rule

No commenter addressed the question

of an alternative Rule that would require

disclosure of the existence of contract

provisions that might cause injury to

consumers, as opposed to restricting the

use of such provisions.

III. Conclusion

The Notice attracted limited public

interest. The discussion of issues

relating to small entities, the parties

protected by the RFA, was minimal. A

number of varying suggestions were

made to expand the Rule, but none of

these had extensive support.

After carefully considering the

comments, the Commission believes

that they do not present a sufficient

basis to conclude that the Rule has had

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Similarly,

none of the other issues raised in the

comments merits revision of the Rule at

this time. The Commission is therefore

terminating this review.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 444

Federal Trade Commission, Consumer

credit contracts, Consigner disclosures,

Trade practices, Truth in Lending.

Authority: The Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. Section 601 (1980).

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11360 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 500, 582, and 589

[Docket No. 94G–0239]

GRAS Status of Propylene Glycol;

Exclusion of Use in Cat Food

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is proposing to

amend its regulations to exclude from

generally recognized as safe (GRAS)

status the use of propylene glycol (PG)

in or on cat food. This proposed action

is based on FDA’s review of currently

available information which has raised

significant questions about the safety of

this use. Semimoist pet foods containing

PG were not in existence when the

GRAS status for use in animal feeds was

established, thus this GRAS

determination does not apply to the

newly intended uses of PG. FDA is

proposing that PG in or on cat food is

a food additive and is not prior

sanctioned for this use, and subject to

certain provisions of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act).

DATES: Written comments by July 24,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments to the

Dockets Management Branch (HFA–

305), Food and Drug Administration,

rm. 1–23, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,

Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David A. Dzanis, Center for Veterinary

Medicine (HFV–222), Food and Drug
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 24809

Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,

Rockville, MD 20855, 301–594–1728.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Propylene glycol has been used

worldwide in the preparation of human

foods, pet foods, pharmaceuticals, and

cosmetics. It was first used in human

foods in 1920, and in pet foods in the

early 1960’s. In pet foods, PG functions

as a humectant, plasticizer, and

microbiological preservative.

In the Federal Register of November

20, 1959 (24 FR 9368), the agency

published a final rule establishing PG as

generally recognized as safe (GRAS) in

21 CFR 121.101(h) as a general purpose

food additive. PG’s use in animal food

and feed was recodified to 21 CFR

582.1666 in the Federal Register

September 10, 1976 (41 FR 38618 at

38657).

In the Federal Register of June 17,

1977 (42 FR 30865), the agency

proposed to affirm PG as GRAS as a

direct and indirect human food

ingredient. Subsequently, in the Federal

Register of June 25, 1982 (47 FR 27810),

a final rule was published affirming the

GRAS status of PG. The agency’s

conclusions were based upon a review

of scientific literature from 1920 to

1977. A total of 282 abstracts on the

additive were reviewed and 68

particularly pertinent reports from the

literature survey were summarized in a

scientific literature review. The results

of this scientific review were discussed

in the June 17, 1977, document.

II. Prior Sanction

A substance that is added to food is

not a food additive if it is the subject of

a prior sanction (section 201(s)(4) of the

act (21 U.S.C. 321(s)(4)). ‘‘Prior

sanction’’ means an explicit approval

granted with respect to use of a

substance in food prior to September 6,

1958, by FDA or the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

pursuant to the act, the Poultry Products

Inspection Act, or the Meat Inspection

Act (21 CFR 570.3(1)). A prior sanction

applies to the specific use of a substance

in food, i.e., the level, condition,

product, etc., for which there was

explicit approval by FDA or USDA.

Moreover, the existence of a prior

sanction exempts the sanctioned use

from the food additive provisions of the

act but not from the other adulteration

or the misbranding provisions of the act

(see 21 CFR 181.5(a) and (b)).

If, at the time that FDA proposes to

determine that a substance is not GRAS

and is a food additive under 21 CFR

570.38, the agency is aware of any prior

sanction for use of the substance, it will

concurrently propose a separate

regulation covering such use of the

ingredient under part 582 (21 CFR part

582). If the agency is unaware of any

such applicable prior sanction, the

proposed regulation (as to the

substances GRAS or food additive

status) will so state and will require any

person who intends to assert or rely on

such sanction at any later time (21 CFR

570.38(d)).

FDA is not aware of any prior

sanctions for the use of propylene glycol

in or on cat food, that meet the criteria

described above. No party has claimed

a prior sanction for this use of

propylene glycol in or on cat food.

Accordingly, based on the information

that is available to it, the agency

concludes that no prior sanction exists

for the use of propylene glycol in or on

cat food.

III. FDA’s Concerns

Following review of a number of

studies conducted since 1982

concerning the use of PG in cat food, the

agency has concluded that there are

significant questions about the safety of

PG in cat food. In 1976, because the

safety of PG was being questioned, the

European Economic Community (EEC)

initiated a review of additives used in

pet foods. In response to this initiative,

studies were funded by several pet food

companies to verify the safety of PG in

semimoist dog and cat foods (these

studies include Ref. 1). Clinical tests

included the measurement of a blood

parameter called Heinz bodies, a test

which had not been performed in

previous PG studies. Heinz bodies are

small clumps of denatured protein in

the red blood cells. Cats offered food

containing PG at levels used in

semimoist food were found to develop

Heinz bodies. Although Heinz bodies

were known to be indicative of red

blood cell damage, the studies did not

provide evidence that PG caused anemia

or other adverse clinical effects in cats.

Because of the questions raised by the

European cat studies, a U.S. pet food

industry research group (IRG),

composed of interested pet food

companies and PG manufacturers, was

formed in early 1978. The IRG’s purpose

was to investigate the significance of

linking PG and Heinz body formation,

especially PG’s effect on the health of

the cat. In August 1978, representatives

of the IRG met with FDA to provide the

results of the EEC tests and describe the

research being conducted to determine

the significance of Heinz body

formation. Since this first meeting,

additional pertinent research data have

been provided to FDA.

The results of the IRG studies were

published in peer-reviewed scientific

journals (Refs. 2 and 3). In the first

study, adult cats were fed diets

containing 0, 6, or 12 percent PG on a

dry matter basis over a 16-week period.

Cats fed PG had a dose-related increase

in Heinz bodies, and a dose-related

decrease in mean red blood cell survival

time. In the 12 percent group, there was

also an increase in punctate

reticulocytes, and slight changes in the

packed cell volume, hemoglobin

concentration, and red blood cell

counts. These results indicate that red

blood cells are more susceptible to

destruction due to PG. Periportal liver

glycogen accumulation, splenic

nodules, and heart and kidney lesions

were observed in some of the cats in the

12 percent group, and the same splenic

lesions were seen in some cats in the 6

percent group. In the second study, 12-

to 14-week-old kittens were fed diets

containing 0, 6, or 12 percent PG on a

dry matter basis for 13 weeks. Findings

followed a pattern similar to those of the

adult cat study, but the increase in

reticulocyte count and reduction in red

blood cell lifespan were greater in

kittens than in adults. This difference

was attributed to higher consumption of

PG on a per weight basis in kittens.

Other reports in the scientific

literature confirmed and expanded on

the IRG findings. In a retrospective

study, a direct relationship between

Heinz body formation and lower packed

cell volumes and lower erythrocyte

reduced glutathione concentrations

were found in cats (Ref. 4). Another

study found dose-dependent increases

in Heinz body formation and decreases

in red blood cell lifespans in cats fed

diets containing 12 and 41 percent PG

(Ref. 5). A dose-dependent increase in

iron pigment in liver and splenic tissue

was also observed. Cats fed 41 percent

PG diets had a significantly lower mean

packed cell volumes, a decreased mean

erythrocyte reduced glutathione

concentration, punctate reticulocytosis,

and bone marrow erythroid hyperplasia.

This suggests that although the bone

marrow was attempting to compensate

for increased red blood cell destruction,

the marrow could not produce enough

red blood cells to compensate for the

rate of destruction.

Increased Heinz body formation and

decreased red blood cell survival time

were observed in kittens fed diets

containing 5 or 10 percent PG for 12

weeks in a study by Hickman and others

(Ref. 6). Purified experimental diets

containing nitrate, histamine, histamine

plus nitrate, or vitamin A failed to

induce Heinz body formation. After

cessation of treatment with PG-
24810 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

containing diets, the Heinz body

percentage returned to pretreatment

levels in 6 to 8 weeks. Thus, PG was

identified as the causative factor, and

these other possible components of cat

food were ruled out as causes of Heinz

body formation. Another study found

cats fed a commercial diet containing

8.3 percent PG were more susceptible to

red blood cell oxidant stress from

acetaminophen administration than cats

fed a control diet (Ref. 7). Thus,

acetaminophen, a common pain reliever

for human use but poisonous to cats,

was even more dangerous if cats were

fed diets containing PG.

Despite the lack of overt clinical

anemia in cats in these studies, the data

establishes clearly that PG taxes the red

blood cell production system. The lack

of reports from the veterinary profession

of clinically obvious consequences of

PG ingestion is an inappropriate

criterion to judge the safety of PG, as the

indirect impacts of a toxicant are not

often readily associated with the

compound. FDA believes that cats

consuming PG-containing diets would

be less able to compensate for other

oxidative stresses, such as those

induced by infections, drugs, or toxins.

Heinz bodies induced by PG may

interfere with the proper diagnosis of

diabetes mellitus, hyperthyroidism,

lymphoma, and other diseases in cats

associated with Heinz body formation.

Consumption of PG-containing diets

may also contribute to the severity of

anemia from a variety of causes. Thus,

FDA concludes that the findings of the

studies of IRG and others constitute

adverse effects on the health of cats.

Based on data derived from the FDA

master file on PG, the no-observedeffect-level (NOEL) in cats with respect

to Heinz body formation is 80

milligrams (mg) PG per kilogram (/kg)

body weight (Ref. 1). Assuming typical

consumption rates, this level translates

to approximately 4,900 to 5,700 mg PG/

kg food dry matter (0.49 to 0.57 percent

dry matter) for adult, nonreproducing

cats, and 0.135 to 0.16 percent dry

matter for growing kittens. These levels

are far below what has historically been

used as a humectant in semimoist cat

foods (6 percent to 13 percent dry

matter). At levels below 3 percent, PG

no longer has any technical or

functional effect in the food as a

humectant. Effects are seen in adult as

well as growing animals. Thus, FDA

cannot conclude that a limited use of

PG, e.g., a reduced level of use, or a diet

intended for certain lifestages of cats

only is GRAS.

In 1992, FDA informed industry

through a letter to the IRG of its concern

regarding the safety of PG in cat foods.

Subsequent to that action, the majority

of cat food manufacturers removed PG

from their formulations. However, a

portion of the products on the market,

including some imported products,

continue to contain PG.

IV. Conclusions

On the basis of the foregoing, the

agency has concluded that PG is not

GRAS as an ingredient of cat food nor

is this use subject to a prior sanction.

Under these circumstances PG is

deemed to be a food additive, subject to

section 409 of the act (21 U.S.C. 348),

and its use in cat food must be in

accordance with a published food

additive regulation.

V. Environmental Impact

The agency has carefully considered

the potential environmental effects of

this action. FDA has concluded that the

action will not have a significant impact

on the human environment, and that an

environmental impact statement is not

required. The agency’s finding of no

significant impact and the evidence

supporting that finding, contained in an

environmental assessment, may be seen

in the Dockets Management Branch

(address above) between 9 a.m. and 4

p.m., Monday through Friday.

VI. Analysis of Impacts

FDA has examined the impacts of this

proposed rule under Executive Order

12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(Pub. L. 96–354). Executive Order 12866

directs agencies to assess all costs and

benefits of available regulatory

alternatives and, when regulation is

necessary, to select regulatory

approaches that maximize net benefits

(including potential economic,

environmental, public health and safety,

and other advantages; distributive

impacts; and equity). The agency

believes that this proposed rule is

consistent with the regulatory

philosophy and principles identified in

the Executive Order. In addition, the

proposed rule is not a significant

regulatory action as defined by the

Executive Order and so is not subject to

review under the Executive Order.

This assessment analyzes the

economic effects of the proposed rule to

exclude from GRAS status the use of PG

in or on cat food. PG is used as a

humectant, plasticizer, and

microbiological preservative in

semimoist cat food. Semimoist cat foods

containing PG did not exist when the

GRAS status for its use in animal feeds

was established, and this GRAS

determination does not apply to the

newly intended use of PG. Currently

available information on the effects of

PG demonstrates serious concerns about

its safety in cats.

FDA requested that pet food

manufacturers discontinue the use of PG

as an ingredient in semimoist cat foods

in 1992. The majority of manufacturers

in the industry have complied with this

request. Agency experts estimate that

PG is currently used in at most 5

percent of semimoist cat foods and at

most 10 percent of cat snacks, which are

similar in texture and content to

semimoist foods. These usage rates

continue to decline.

FDA estimates of 1993 sales of

semimoist cat foods and snacks to U.S.

households are $85,000,000 and

$53,000,000, respectively (Neilsen

Marketing Research data). Those sales

representing semimoist cat foods and

cat snacks which contain PG are

approximately $9,550,000 (5 percent of

$85,000,000 plus 10 percent of

$53,000,000). The effect of the proposed

rule would be to replace these sales

with other cat foods and cat snacks not

containing PG. Most of the industry has

already substituted glycerin for PG in

semimoist foods and snacks. It is likely

that the remaining portion of the

industry would make the substitution of

glycerin for PG rather than surrender

their share of the semimoist cat food

and cat snack market. The cost of this

substitution to the production process is

expected to be small.

Purchases of PG by semimoist cat

food and cat snack manufacturers

represent a very small percentage of

total PG sales, estimated at less than 1

percent. Demand for semimoist cat

foods has declined considerably since

1987. Although demand for cat snacks

continues to grow, its sales are still a

small part of the total pet food industry.

Thus, the effect of the proposed rule to

PG manufacturers would also be small.

The effects of the proposed rule on

small businesses would not be

substantial. Although more small-sized

companies are involved in

manufacturing cat snack foods than in

semimoist foods, their costs of

compliance would not be significant.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

requires agencies to analyze regulatory

options that would minimize any

significant impact of a rule on small

entities. For the above reasons, the

agency certifies that the proposed rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Therefore, under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, no further analysis is

required.

VII. References

The following references have been

placed on display in the Dockets
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 24811

Management Branch (address above)

and may be seen by interested persons

between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday

through Friday.

1. Quast, J. F., C. G. Humiston, C. E. Wade,

et al. Results of a Toxicology Study in Cats

Fed Diets Containing Propylene Glycol for up

to Three Months, FDA Master File Report No.

12, 1979.

2. Bauer, M. C., D. J. Weiss, V. Perman,

‘‘Hematologic Alterations in Adult Cats Fed

6 or 12% Propylene Glycol,’’ American

Journal of Veterinary Research, 53:69–72,

1991.

3. Bauer, M. C., D. J. Weiss, V. Perman,

‘‘Hematological Alterations in Kittens

Induced by 6 and 12% Dietary Propylene

Glycol,’’ Veterinary and Human Toxicology,

34:127–130, 1992.

4. Christopher, M. M., ‘‘Relation of

Endogenous Heinz Bodies to Disease and

Anemia in Cats: 120 Cases (1978–1987),’’

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical

Association, 194:1089–1095, 1989.

5. Christopher, M. M., V. Perman, J. W.

Eaton, ‘‘Contribution of Propylene GlycolInduced Heinz Body Formation to Anemia in

Cats,’’ Journal of the American Veterinary

Medical Association, 194:1045–1055, 1989.

6. Hickman, M. A., Q. R. Rogers, J. G.

Morris, ‘‘Effect of Diet on Heinz Body

Formation in Kittens,’’ American Journal of

Veterinary Research, 50:475–478, 1990.

7. Weiss, D. J., C. B. McClay, M. M.

Christopher, M. Murphy, V. Perman, ‘‘Effects

of Propylene Glycol-Containing Diets on

Acetaminophen-Induced

Methemoglobinemia in Cats,’’ Journal of the

American Veterinary Medical Association,

196:1816–1819, 1990.

VIII. Comments

Interested persons may, on or before

July 24, 1995, submit to the Dockets

Management Branch (address above)

written comments regarding this

proposal. Two copies of any comments

are to be submitted, except that

individuals may submit one copy.

Comments are to be identified with the

docket number found in brackets in the

heading of this document. Received

comments may be seen in the office

above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 500

Animal drugs, Animal feeds, Cancer,

Labeling, Polychlorinated biphenyl’s

(PCB’s).

21 CFR Parts 582 and 589

Animal feeds, Animal foods, Food

additives.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that

21 CFR parts 500, 582, and 589 be

amended as follows:

PART 500—GENERAL

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 500 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 402, 403, 409,

501, 502, 503, 512, 701 of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331,

342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371).

2. New § 500.50 is added to subpart B

to read as follows:

§ 500.50 Propylene glycol in or on cat

food.

The Food and Drug Administration

has determined that propylene glycol in

or on cat food is not generally

recognized as safe and is a food additive

subject to section 409 of the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act).

The Food and Drug Administration also

has determined that this use of

propylene glycol is not prior sanctioned.

PART 582—SUBSTANCES

GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS SAFE

3. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 582 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409, 701 of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21

U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371).

4. Section 582.1666 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 582.1666 Propylene glycol.

* * * * *

(b) Conditions of use. This substance

is generally recognized as safe (except in

cat food) when used in accordance with

good manufacturing or feeding practice.

PART 589—SUBSTANCES

PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL

FOOD OR FEED

5. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 589 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409, 701, of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21

U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371).

6. New § 589.1001 is added to subpart

B to read as follows:

§ 589.1001 Propylene glycol in or on cat

food.

The Food and Drug Administration

has determined that propylene glycol in

or on cat food has not been shown by

adequate scientific data to be safe for

use. Use of propylene glycol in or on cat

food causes the feed to be adulterated

and in violation of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), in the

absence of a regulation providing for its

safe use as a food additive under section

409 of the act, unless it is subject to an

effective notice of claimed

investigational exemption for a food

additive under § 570.17 of this chapter,

or unless the substance is intended for

use as a new animal drug and is subject

to an approved application under

section 512 of the act or an effective

notice of claimed investigational

exemption for a new animal drug under

part 511 of this chapter.

Dated: May 2, 1995.

William B. Schultz,

Deputy Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 95–11526 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 301

[IA–007–95]

RIN 1545–AT21

Authority of the Secretary of

Agriculture to Share Employer

Identification Numbers Collected From

Retail Food Stores and Wholesale

Food Concerns

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document contains

proposed regulations relating to the

authority of the Secretary of Agriculture

to share employer identification

numbers collected from retail food

stores and wholesale food concerns with

other agencies or instrumentalities of

the United States. These proposed

regulations reflect changes to the law

made by section 316(b) of the Social

Security Independence and Program

Improvements Act of 1994 and affect

retail food stores and wholesale food

concerns.

DATES: Written comments and requests

for a public hearing must be received by

June 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to:

CC:DOM:CORP:T:R (IA–007–95), room

5228, Internal Revenue Service, POB

7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington,

DC 20044. In the alternative,

submissions may be hand delivered

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.

to: CC:DOM:CORP:T:R (IA–007–95),

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert J. Basso (202) 622–6232 (not a

toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This document contains proposed

amendments to the Procedure and