This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

62271

Vol. 62, No. 225

Friday, November 21, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 97–030A]

RIN 0583–AC41

Labeling Standards for Ovine

Carcasses, Parts of Carcasses, Meat

and Meat Food Products

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking; request for comments.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to a requirement in

the Farm Bill of 1996, the Department

is issuing this advance notice of

proposed rulemaking to determine the

type of labeling standards it should

establish for lamb and mutton and their

meat food products. The principal issue

of concern in the marketing of sheep is

the identification, for the benefit of

consumers, of the higher valued lamb

carcasses compared to the lower valued

mutton and sheep carcasses. One of the

key elements of this issue is the

attributes that give lamb meat products

this higher value, such as flavor, texture,

moisture, color, mouth feel, or portion

size.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

two copies of written comments to FSIS

Docket Clerk, Room 102 Cotton Annex,

300 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC

20250. Copies of USDA guidance

material cited in this notice are

available for review in the FSIS Docket

Room. All comments submitted in

response to this advance notice of

proposed rulemaking will be available

for public inspection in the FSIS Docket

Room, Room 102 Cotton Annex from

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through

Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Alfred Liepold, Food Technologist,

Regulations Development and Analysis

Division, Office of Policy, Program

Development and Evaluation, Food

Safety and Inspection Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington,

DC 20250; (202) 205–0292.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 279 of H.R. 2854—Federal

Agriculture Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996 (Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 104–

127, 4/4/96) reads as follows:

SEC 279. LABELING OF DOMESTIC

AND IMPORTED LAMB AND MUTTON

Section 7 of the Federal Meat

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 607) is

amended by adding at the end the

following:

‘‘(f) LAMB AND MUTTON.—The

Secretary, consistent with United States

international obligations, shall establish

standards for the labeling of sheep

carcasses, parts of carcasses, sheepmeat

and sheepmeat food products.’’

According to the legislative history

(House Conference Report, No. 104–

494), this provision originated in a

Senate provision which also stated that

the standard to be used was to be based

on the break or spool joint method to

differentiate lamb from mutton by the

degree of calcification of bone to reflect

maturity. Immature mammals have long

bones composed of three bony parts—a

central bony shaft and two bony plates,

one at each end. The three parts are

joined by cartilage and, as the animal

grows more cartilage is formed and

some of the existing cartilage turns to

bone. As the animal matures enough of

the cartilage turns to bone so that the

three bony parts fuse into one. So long

as the animal is immature, the bony

plate at the end of the bone can be

cleanly broken through the cartilage

between the shaft and the end plate,

leaving clean bone surfaces on both

sides of the break. This is the break

joint; the one used on lambs is the

metacarpal bone of the foreleg between

the shaft and the plate nearest the hoof.

Industry terms for the metacarpal bones

are canon bones or trotters. Once the

bone fuses and will not cleanly separate,

it is called a spool joint. It is not a true

joint.

This spool joint criterion of the Senate

Bill did not carry through to the Farm

Bill. Accordingly, the Secretary may

prescribe objective criteria, or, in

accordance with the regulatory reform

initiative, specify the end to be achieved

(performance standard), and allow

producers to develop their own criteria

to meet these performance standards.

Prior Grading Standards

In the past, the Agricultural Marketing

Service (AMS) published two standards

voluntarily regulating the marketing of

sheep, lamb, and yearling carcasses and

their meat food products on the basis,

among other things, of age and/or

maturity. These two publications were

titled ‘‘Official United States Standards

for Grades of Slaughter Lambs,

Yearlings and Sheep’’ and ‘‘Official

United States Standards for Grades of

Lamb, Yearling Mutton, and Mutton

Carcasses.’’

The purpose of these voluntary

grading standards was to develop and

establish efficient marketing methods

and practices for agricultural

commodities so that consumers could

obtain the quality of product they desire

at a reasonable cost. The grade

standards were developed to provide

uniform language to describe the

characteristics of many meat food

commodities in the marketplace.

However, rapid changes in consumer

preferences together with associated

changes in commodity characteristics,

processing technology, and marketing

practices outpaced the issuance of

regulatory modifications or revisions,

leaving the marketplace burdened with

outdated grading standards. Therefore,

in line with the President’s regulatory

review initiative, the standards were

removed from Volume 7 of the Code of

Federal Regulations on December 4,

1995, but have been kept available as

guidelines in pamphlet form.

In the publication containing the

grade standards for slaughter lambs,

yearlings, and sheep, the term lamb is

defined as: ‘‘A lamb is an immature

ovine, usually under 14 months of age,

that has not cut its first pair of incisor

teeth.’’ The term yearling is defined as:

‘‘A yearling is an ovine usually between

one and two years of age that has cut its

first pair of permanent incisor teeth but

has not cut the second pair.’’ The term

sheep is defined as: ‘‘A sheep is an

ovine , usually over 24 months of age,

that has cut its second pair of

permanent incisor teeth.’’

In the publication containing the

grade standards for lamb, yearling

mutton, and mutton carcasses where the

head is not available, the following

criteria are used. Typical lamb carcasses

tend to have slightly wide and
62272 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Field, Ray A., University of Wyoming, Letter to

Rosemary Mucklow, Western States Meat

Association, 6/1/94.

moderately flat rib bones and a light red

color and a fine texture of lean. By

contrast, typical yearling mutton

carcasses have moderately wide rib

bones which tend to be flat and a

slightly dark red color and coarse

texture of lean.

The AMS standard recites that, in the

dressing of ovine carcasses, both front

cannon bones (trotters) normally are left

attached to the carcass although in some

instances, one or both trotters may be

removed. If present, trotters will

terminate in perfect break joints (all

ridges forming the break joints are intact

and well defined), imperfect break joints

or spool joints. For determining the

maturity of ovine carcasses, an

imperfect break joint is considered the

same as a spool joint and it is assumed

that there was a spool joint on any

missing trotter. These variations, as

indicated by the following guidelines,

are important considerations in

determining whether a carcass is classed

as lamb, yearling mutton, or mutton.

A carcass with perfect break joints on

both trotters will be classed as lamb or

yearling mutton based on its other

evidences of maturity.

A carcass with spool joints on both

trotters will be classed as yearling

mutton or mutton based on its other

evidences of maturity. Mutton carcasses

always have spool joints on both front

trotters.

A carcass which has a perfect break

joint on one trotter and has either (1) a

spool joint on the other trotter, or (2) has

had the other trotter removed, will be

classed as a lamb if its other maturity

characteristics are not more advanced

than described in the grade

specifications as typical of the more

mature lamb group. Otherwise, such

carcasses will be classed as yearling

mutton. Maturity within the lamb class

shall be based on the combination of

lean and all skeletal characteristics.

Except for the above referenced

considerations given to break joints and

spool joints, when making other

maturity evaluations, more

consideration is given to the

characteristics of the flesh than is given

to the characteristics of the skeleton.

Question Concerning New Grading

Standards

The criteria stated above are those

used by AMS to distinguish the more

valued lamb meat from the less valued

meat of older ovines. The standards

have been voluntary; the costs to secure

grading by an authorized USDA

employee have been paid for by the

person requesting the service. By and

large, the only grading used has been

that for ‘‘lamb.’’ If one were to set up a

labeling standard and permit the

marketplace to determine its own

methods of objectively identifying lamb

carcasses so that they were acceptable to

buyer and seller, the goal of identifying

the more valued meat might be achieved

by more simple and less costly means.

One of the necessities of such a labeling

standard would be to determine the

desirable attributes that make lamb meat

more valuable and whether these

attributes can be determined directly

and objectively. If lamb is a more

desirable meat than mutton because of

its attributes, e.g., it is more moist, has

a finer texture, or a different chewy

feeling, then some type of analysis may

be able to determine objective data

concerning moisture and chewiness. If

the increased desirability of lamb meat

results from lighter color, milder flavor,

or the size of the portions, such as lamb

chops, a colorimetric test may be

devised. On the other hand, flavor is too

subjective to be easily used for grading

purposes; and too many variables other

than maturity can influence portion size

to make that factor of much value.

AMS has continued to grade lamb and

mutton (sheep) carcasses, using the

same grades as before the regulation

change. The grading is on a voluntary

basis, so the fact that the standards have

been removed from the regulations has

not affected such grading. As a practical

matter, producers of lamb that they

think will achieve U.S. Prime or Choice

will have such lamb officially graded by

AMS meat graders. But, since the

program is voluntary, producers will not

have other grades and classes of ovines

graded. Further, although neither FSIS

nor AMS has a definition of the word

‘‘lamb’’ in the regulations, when the

term ‘‘lamb’’ is used on a federally

inspected meat food product, the

product must come from meat that

meets the definition of ‘‘lamb’’ in the

AMS standards. It is clear that if new

standards are developed, they could

differ from the current voluntary AMS

grading standards.

This situation raises a number of

practical questions: Should FSIS issue

new grading standards or should AMS

reissue the AMS standards in the

regulations? If the standards are

reissued, should compliance with such

standards remain voluntary? Should the

standards include the standard for

yearling mutton, as the old AMS

standard did? What criteria should FSIS

use, if not the old AMS ones? Should

FSIS only use some of these criteria,

other criteria, some combination of

these and other criteria, or performance

standards? What would be the economic

and other regulatory impacts of new

standards on producers and processors?

According to a representative of the

New Zealand Meat Producers Board, the

break joint method of determining

maturity is not used in Australia or New

Zealand and would be considered a

‘‘thinly veiled attempt to erect a nontariff trade barrier.’’ The New Zealand

representative states that the only

appropriate method of defining lamb is

to use a definition accepted throughout

the world, namely; ‘‘young sheep under

12 months with no permanent incisors

in wear.’’ Some U.S. authorities agree

with the foreign comments that the

break-joint method is not sufficiently

reliable.1 However, the New Zealand

definition differs from the AMS

standards in the use of the term ‘‘in

wear’’ and, more importantly, in the

situation where there is no head on the

carcass, the teeth method of defining is

not viable. One issue there is whether

the U.S. should accept the principle of

grading in the export country, using the

teeth method?

Other practical issues exist raised by

the Farm Bill directly or indirectly, but

not specifically mentioned in it; FSIS

would appreciate any comments on

these issues also: Attempts have been

made in the past to label young ovine

carcasses which had not been graded

and which possibly do not meet the

lamb criteria as ‘‘no-roll lamb,’’ meaning

that the grade markings have not been

applied, or rolled on, the carcasses. The

Agency considered this misbranding,

since the phrase included the term

‘‘lamb’’ which could be inapplicable.

Should this policy be changed? Also

should the nomenclature for carcasses

of one to two year old ovines be

changed as has been requested from

‘‘yearling mutton’’ to ‘‘yearling lamb?’’

At present this also is considered

misbranding. Further, although there is

no definition for ‘‘lamb’’ in the

regulations, FSIS, in 9 CFR 317.8 (b)(4)

does define the term ‘‘spring lamb’’ or

‘‘genuine spring lamb’’ as applicable

only to carcasses of new-crop lambs

slaughtered during the period beginning

in March and terminating not beyond

the close of the week containing the first

Monday of October. Should this present

definition of ‘‘spring lamb;’’ be changed,

deleted, or added to the standard? Also,

as a matter of FSIS policy, sheep brains,

hearts, and tongues are considered

practically indistinguishable from lamb

brains, hearts, and tongues, respectively;

therefore, these articles from ovine

carcasses may be designated as either

sheep or lamb. Should this be changed?
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 62273

1Securities Act Rel. No. 7438 (Aug. 20, 1997) [62

FR 45359 (Aug. 27, 1997)].

2Letter from Carl B. Wilkerson, Senior Counsel,

American Council of Life Insurance, to Jonathan G.

Katz, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange

Commission (Nov. 3, 1997).

If the U.S. requires the grading of

lambs, and, at the same time, permits

the grading of imported lambs in the

country of origin by officials of that

country, the economic effects of such a

compulsory grading standard on the

exporting country would be lessened. If

this is not permitted, the country would

have to leave the bone ends on the

trotters, a practice which is not routine

at the present time. This would mean a

change in the slaughter technique in the

originating country, an increase of a few

ounces in the shipping weight of each

carcass, and an increased cost of having

each imported carcass graded at

producer expense by U.S. Department of

Agriculture personnel. It appears that

such mandatory grading would not

materially affect the number of imported

lambs, since imported lambs tend to be

younger than domestic ones at time of

slaughter. Under a required grading

program, domestic stock would also

have to be graded and some domestic

producers may consider this an

undesirable requirement.

Any further information on these or

other economic or regulatory impacts

would be welcome. If there are related

issues not mentioned, but relevant, any

information or comments on such issues

should also be submitted for evaluation.

Done at Washington, D.C., on November

14, 1997.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–30569 Filed 11–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 230

[Release No. 33–7476; File No. S7–22–97]

RIN 3235–AH23

Equity Index Insurance Products

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission.

ACTION: Concept release; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Commission is extending

from November 20, 1997, to January 5,

1998, the comment period for Securities

Act Release No. 7438 (Aug. 20, 1997), 62

FR 45359 (Aug. 27, 1997). This release

requested public comment on the

structure of equity index insurance

products, the manner in which they are

marketed, and any other matters the

Commission should consider in

addressing federal securities law issues

raised by equity index insurance

products.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in triplicate to Jonathan G.

Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549–6009.

Comments also may be submitted

electronically at the following E-mail

address: rule-comments@sec.gov. All

comment letters should refer to File No.

S7–22–97; this file number should be

included on the subject line if E-mail is

used. All comments received will be

available for public inspection and

copying in the Commission’s Public

Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549–6009.

Electronically submitted comments will

also be posted on the Commission’s

internet site (http://www.sec.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Megan L. Dunphy, Attorney, (202) 942-

0670, Office of Insurance Products,

Division of Investment Management,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

450 Fifth Street, N.W., Mail Stop 10–6,

Washington, D.C. 20549–6009.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

20, 1997, the Commission issued a

concept release soliciting comment on

the structure of equity index insurance

products, the manner in which they are

marketed, and any other matters the

Commission should consider in

addressing federal securities law issues

raised by equity index insurance

products.1 The Commission requested

that comments on the release be

received by November 20, 1997.

In a letter dated November 3, 1997,

the American Council of Life Insurance

(‘‘ACLI’’) requested a 45-day extension

of time within which to comment on the

concept release.2 The ACLI requested

the extension to provide an opportunity

for careful analysis and constructive

comment on the release.

To permit additional time for careful

analysis and constructive comment, and

in light of the importance of comments

on this subject, the Commission believes

that a 45-day extension of the comment

period is appropriate. Therefore, the

comment period for responding to

Securities Act Release No. 7438 is

extended to January 5, 1998.

November 17, 1997.

By the Commission.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–30629 Filed 11–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 920

[MD–042–FOR]

Maryland Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment

period and opportunity for public

hearing.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of

proposed amendments to the Maryland

regulatory program (hereinafter the

‘‘Maryland program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). The proposed

amendments consist of revision to the

Maryland regulations regarding a

reduced bond liability period for lands

remined. The amendments are intended

to revise the Maryland program to be

consistent with the corresponding

Federal regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by 4:00 p.m., E.S.T., December

22, 1997. If requested, a public hearing

on the proposed amendment will be

held on December 16, 1997. Requests to

speak at the hearing must be received by

4:00 p.m., E.S.T., on December 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests to speak at the hearing should

be mailed or hand delivered to George

Rieger, Field Branch Chief, at the

address listed below.

Copies of the Maryland program, the

proposed amendment, a listing of any

scheduled public hearings, and all

written comments received in response

to this document will be available for

public review at the addresses listed

below during normal business hours,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. Each requester may receive

one free copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting OSM’s

Appalachian Regional Coordinating

Center.

George Rieger, Field Branch Chief,

Appalachian Regional Coordinating

Center, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 3

Parkway Center, Pittsburgh PA 15220

Telephone: (412) 937–2153