Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130 / Friday, July 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 35157

Food Components Age 1 and 2 Age 3 through 5 Age 6 through 12 1 Adult Participants 9

* * * * * * *

Meat and Meat Alternates or Yogurt,

plain or flavored, unsweetened or

sweetened

4 oz. or 1⁄2 cup .............. 6 oz. or 3⁄4 cup .............. 8 oz. or 1 cup ................ 8 oz. or 1 cup.

* * * * * * *

* * * * *

(3) * * *

Supper

Food components Children ages 1 and 2 Children ages 3 through

5

Children ages 6 through

12 1 Adult participants

Meat and Meat Alternates or Yogurt,

plain or flavored, unsweetened or

sweetened

4 oz. or 1⁄2 cup .............. 6 oz. or 3⁄4 cup .............. 8 oz. or 1 cup ................ 8 oz. or 1 cup.

* * * * * * *

* * * * *

Dated: June 27, 1996.

William E. Ludwig,

Administrator, Food and Consumer Service.

[FR Doc. 96–16992 Filed 7–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 319 and 381

[Docket No. 95–056N]

Public Health Hazard Analysis Board

Report; Availability

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability of report;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and

Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing

the availability of a report prepared by

the Public Health Hazard Analysis

Board on ‘‘Bone Particles and Foreign

Material in Meat and Poultry Products.’’

The report contains an executive

summary by the Public Health Hazard

Analysis Board, which includes the

Board’s conclusions on the

establishment of criteria for determining

the safety of meat and poultry products

containing bone particles and foreign

materials such as glass, metal and

plastic; a list of Board members and

other participants; and a bibliography.

FSIS is seeking comments on the need

for and nature of any additional

regulatory actions beyond those

provided for in its meat and poultry

regulations that should be taken

regarding bone particle size and foreign

material, such as glass, metal, and

plastic, in boneless meat and poultry

products deboned by hand or other

means.

DATES: Comments will be accepted

through August 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may

submit an original and two copies of

written comments and requests for

single copies of the report to: FSIS

Docket Clerk, DOCKET #95–056N,

Room 4352 South Agriculture Building,

Washington, DC 20250–3700. Oral

comments, as provided by the Poultry

Products Inspection Act, can be given to

Dr. Jill Hollingsworth, (202) 205–0293.

The report and comments will be

available for public inspection in the

FSIS Docket Room from 8:30 a.m. to

1:00 p.m. and from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Jill Hollingsworth, Deputy Director,

Epidemiology and Emergency Response

Program, Food Safety and Inspection

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Room 2168 South Building,

Washington, DC 20250–3700, (202) 205–

0293.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FSIS is

announcing the availability of a report

prepared by the Public Health Hazard

Analysis Board (the Board) on ‘‘Bone

Particles and Foreign Material in Meat

and Poultry Products.’’ The Board

consists of public health, medical, and

food safety experts in FSIS and other

government agencies. Private medical

specialists were contacted by the Board

for additional information on the

subject. The Board was charged with

determining health and safety concerns

related to bone particles or foreign

material in boneless meat and poultry

products. Consequently, the Board

provided criteria for use by the Agency

to determine the existence of a potential

safety hazard, due to bone particles or

foreign material, such as glass, metal,

and plastic, in meat or poultry products,

that warrant recall of the affected

product in order to protect the public

health.

The Board determined that bone

particles less than 0.4 inches (10 mm)

would not be considered a safety

hazard. Bone particles from 0.4 to 0.8

inches (10 to 20 mm) may present a

discomfort, but would be a low risk for

a safety hazard, and bone particles

greater than 0.8 inches (20 mm) have the

potential to be a safety hazard and may

cause injury to consumers. According to

the Board, any occurrence of foreign

material, such as glass, metal, and

plastic, in meat or poultry products, has

the potential to be a safety hazard and

should be evaluated on a case-by-case

basis to determine whether it presents

such a hazard.

The Board agreed that boneless

product produced in accordance with

the provisions in 9 CFR 319.5 for

mechanically-separated meat (MSM)

and provisions in 9 CFR 381.173 (59 FR

62629, December 6, 1994, and 59 FR

55962, November 3, 1995) for

mechanically-separated poultry (MSP)

to be effective on November 4, 1996,

does not present a safety hazard.

Regulatory requirements limit bone

particle size in MSM and MSP which is

produced by crushing or grinding of

bone before removal of edible tissue.

Provisions in 9 CFR 319.5 for MSM

require that at least 98 percent of bone

particles present in MSM be no greater

than 0.2 inches (5 mm) in their greatest

dimension, with no bone particles larger

than 0.034 inches (0.85 mm) in their

greatest dimension. Similar provisions

in 9 CFR 381.173 for MSP require that

at least 98 percent of bone particles

present in MSP be no greater than 0.06

inches (1.5 mm) in their greatest

dimension, with no particles greater

than 0.08 inches (2 mm) in their greatest

dimension. FSIS has concluded that
35158 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130 / Friday, July 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

these bone particle size limitations

represent good manufacturing practices

and reflect processes that are in control

and protect finished product quality.

Because bone particles are extremely

small in MSM and MSP, they would not

be considered to be a safety hazard.

Products containing bone fragments

larger than 0.8 inches (20 mm) are of

regulatory concern to FSIS, and the

Agency will consider regulatory action,

as appropriate, to protect consumers.

There are currently no regulations that

specifically address the limiting of bone

particle size for boneless meat and

poultry products deboned by hand, or

for meat produced by an advanced

mechanical method that does not

involve crushing or grinding the bones

(59 FR 62551, December 6, 1994). Safety

determinations about boneless product

produced by these methods are made on

an ad hoc basis, based on the criteria

recommended by the Board. Companies

producing boneless meat and poultry

products deboned by hand or produced

by advanced mechanical separation

generally employ manufacturing

practices that keep the size of bone

particles well below the 0.8-inch (20-

mm) level considered to be a potential

safety hazard by the Board.

FSIS’s proposed rule, ‘‘Pathogen

Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical

Control Point (HACCP) Systems,’’ (60

FR 6774, February 3, 1995) proposes

requiring meat and poultry processors to

establish HACCP systems of preventive

controls to ensure the safety of foods

they produce. This would include the

addressing of potential physical hazards

in meat and poultry products, such as

bone particles, in HACCP plans. The

proposed HACCP system would place

an affirmative duty on companies to

establish procedures to prevent bone

particles of foreign material from

presenting a safety hazard in boneless

meat and poultry products.

FSIS invites comments on whether

additional regulatory action is needed,

beyond that provided by FSIS in its

regulations, regarding bone particle size

and foreign material, such as glass,

metal, or plastic, in boneless meat and

poultry products deboned by hand,

produced by advanced mechanical

separation, or by other procedural

means not identified in current meat

and poultry regulations.

Done at Washington, DC, on: June 27, 1996.

Michael R. Taylor,

Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety.

[FR Doc. 96–17001 Filed 7–03–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 11

RIN 1076–AD76

Law and Order on Indian Reservations

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs

is proposing to amend its regulations

governing Courts of Indian Offenses to

clarify the authority of the Assistant

Secretary for Indian Affairs to establish

the courts, the jurisdiction of the courts,

their relationship to tribal governments

and the Department of the Interior, and

to provide those courts with an updated

code of laws.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before October 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be mailed

to Bettie Rushing, Office of Tribal

Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849

C Street, NW, MS 2611–MIB,

Washington, DC 20240; or, hand

delivered to Room 4603 at the same

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bettie Rushing, Bureau of Indian Affairs

(202) 208–3463.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The comments received in response to

a prior proposed rule published on

October 24, 1985, and published as a

final rule on October 21, 1993, included

suggestions for the inclusion of new

provisions in the Law and Order Code

(Code). Because the inclusion of the

suggested provisions in the final rule

would have constituted new matter

adopted without opportunity for general

public comment, a separate rule is now

proposed for those provisions to be

added to the Code.

This proposed rule (1) provides for

the establishment of courts when tribal

justice systems are not functioning, (2)

changes the method of listing Indian

reservations to which the Code applies,

(3) clarifies the provision on

jurisdictional limitations which

excludes from jurisdiction under this

part Federal employees acting within

the scope of their employment, (4) adds

provisions for drug abuse, abuse of

psychotoxic substances, child abuse,

prostitution, and family violence, and

(5) increases the maximum penalties for

various offenses in the Code.

The increased penalties are proposed

in response to the law enforcement

provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act

of 1986, amending the sentencing

limitations of the Indian Civil Rights

Act, 25 U.S.C. 1302. Indian may courts

to impose maximum fines up to $5,000

and sentences of imprisonment up to

one year.

Inclusion in § 11.100, Listing of

Courts of Indian Offenses, does not

defeat the inherent sovereignty of a tribe

to establish tribal courts and exercise

jurisdiction under tribal law. Tillett v.

Lujan, 931 F.2d 636, 640 (10th Cir.

1991) (C.F.R. courts ‘‘retain some

characteristics of an agency of the

federal government’’ but they ‘‘also

function as tribal courts’’); Combrink v.

Allen, 20 Indian L. Rep. 6029, 6030 (Ct.

Ind. App., Tonkawa, Mar. 5, 1993)

(C.F.R. court is a ‘‘federally

administered tribal court’’); Ponca

Tribal Election Board v. Snake, 17

Indian L. Rep. 6085, 6088 (Ct. Ind. App.,

Ponca, Nov. 10, 1988) (‘‘The Courts of

Indian Offenses act as tribal courts since

they are exercising the sovereign

authority of the tribe for which the court

sits.’’). Such exercise of inherent

sovereignty and the establishment of

tribal courts shall comply with the

requirements set forth in 25 CFR

§ 11.100(c).

A clarifying sentence has been added

to the jurisdictional limitations section

to express unambiguously that Federal

and state employees acting within the

scope of their employment are not

subject to the jurisdiction of Courts of

Indian Offenses.

The new offenses are abuse of

psychotoxic chemical solvents and

dangerous drug offense. They are also

proposed in response to the Anti-Drug

Abuse Act, and are intended to enhance

the ability of law enforcement agencies

on Indian reservations to prevent and

penalize the traffic of illegal narcotics

and the misuse of dangerous substances.

The two sections were suggested by the

Anadarko Area Law Enforcement Office

of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. No

specific exception for peyote is included

because peyote for religious use by the

Native American Church is excluded

from prosecution under the referenced

federal statute.

Prostitution was inadvertently

omitted from the revision of the Law

and Order Code and is, therefore,

included here. The crime is a

continuation of the provision contained

in 25 CFR Part 11 which has been in

force for many years, with the addition

of the crime of pandering which is

intended to facilitate the prosecution of

persons procuring for prostitutes.

Child abuse and neglect has been

added as a separate criminal offense. Its

inclusion was inspired by the Draft