94-16817. Enhanced Poultry Inspection  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-16817]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: July 13, 1994]
    
    
                                                       VOL. 59, NO. 133
    
                                               Wednesday, July 13, 1994
    
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
    
    Food Safety and Inspection Service
    
    9 CFR Part 381
    
    [Docket No. 94-016P]
    RIN 0583-AB79
    
     
    
    Enhanced Poultry Inspection
    
    AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service is proposing to amend 
    the poultry products inspection regulations to implement a new system 
    of post-mortem inspection for all poultry species. The proposed system 
    contains several innovations to provide assurances that USDA-inspected 
    and passed poultry products will be free of visible contamination and 
    will require the use of approved antimicrobial treatments in all 
    official establishments. The proposed system would replace all existing 
    systems of poultry post-mortem inspection with a single system in which 
    two FSIS inspectors would staff each poultry processing line and 
    examine carcasses for disease and visible contamination. The proposed 
    regulation would not mandate a reduction in maximum linespeeds. The 
    proposed system would place additional responsibility on official 
    establishments to assure that the poultry they process is wholesome and 
    free of disease. Establishment personnel, positioned before the on-line 
    post-mortem FSIS inspector, would check carcasses prior to inspection 
    and present for inspection only those poultry that are free of disease. 
    Additionally, they would identify all poultry requiring off-line trim, 
    salvage or reprocessing prior to presentation to FSIS for inspection. A 
    second FSIS inspector would be positioned at a new inspection station 
    that would incorporate that portion of the processing line between 
    viscera harvest and the chiller. This is a location where contamination 
    can occur but where there is currently no on-line inspection taking 
    place. Finished Product Standards would be revised to eliminate process 
    tolerances for fecal contamination. Recordkeeping and verification 
    procedures would be required so that establishment process control 
    could be assured. Additionally, all contaminated poultry that are 
    reprocessed would be reinspected on the main processing line by the 
    second FSIS inspector and antimicrobial treatments would required to be 
    applied to carcasses before the chilling operation.
    
    DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 11, 1994.
    
    ADDRESSES: Written comments to Policy Evaluation and Planning Staff, 
    Attn: Diane Moore, Room 3171 South Agriculture Building, Food Safety 
    and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 
    20250. Oral comments, as provided under the Poultry Products Inspection 
    Act, should be directed to Dr. Isabel Arrington, at the address given 
    below. (See also ``Comments'' under Supplementary Information.)
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Dr. Isabel Arrington, Staff Officer, Inspection Management Program, 
    Inspection Operations, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. 
    Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-7905.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    
    Comments
    
        The Agency recognizes that there may be additional information that 
    was not available for its consideration at the time this proposal was 
    written. Therefore, the Agency is conducting further analysis of the 
    benefits and costs of the proposal and also is soliciting additional 
    information on this proposal. In particular, FSIS is interested in 
    receiving information on inspector sequence, benefits, and costs of the 
    proposed rule. FSIS expects that this information will be submitted in 
    the form of comments from the public.
        Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this 
    proposal. Written comments should be sent to the Policy Evaluation and 
    Planning Staff and should refer to the docket number that appears in 
    the heading of this document. Any person desiring opportunity for oral 
    presentation of views, as provided under the Poultry Products 
    Inspection Act, must make such request to Dr. Arrington so that 
    arrangements may be made for such views to be presented. A record will 
    be made of all views orally presented. All comments submitted in 
    response to this proposal will be available for public inspection in 
    the Policy Office from 9 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
        Additionally, FSIS will collect data by pilot testing this proposal 
    during the comment period. The Agency will comply with all bargaining 
    obligations under the National Basic Agreement and the Federal Service 
    Labor Management Relations Statute relating to the impact any Poultry 
    Enhancement Inspection System pilot test would have on employee working 
    conditions.
        To the extent that the further analysis conducted by USDA and the 
    comments solicited by this proposal contain meritorious alternatives, 
    information, or data not previously considered, the Agency may decide 
    to propose changes to specific provisions of this proposed rule. In 
    this event, the Agency is committed to supplement this rulemaking to 
    provide the public an opportunity to comment on the specific revised 
    regulatory provisions.
    
    Background
    
    Introduction
    
        The Secretary of Agriculture is charged by the Poultry Products 
    Inspection Act (PPIA--21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) with carrying out a 
    mandatory poultry products inspection program. The purpose of this 
    inspection is to assure that poultry products in interstate and foreign 
    commerce are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, 
    and packaged. The Act prohibits the shipment in commerce of poultry 
    products that are adulterated or misbranded (21 U.S.C. 458), including 
    any poultry products that bear or contain any poisonous or deleterious 
    substance that may render them injurious to health (21 U.S.C. 
    453(g)(1)) or that for any other reason are unsound, unhealthful, 
    unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food (21 U.S.C. 453(g)(3)). 
    The Act requires post-mortem inspection of all carcasses of slaughtered 
    poultry subject to the Act and such reinspection as deemed necessary 
    (21 U.S.C. 455(b)). The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such 
    rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of 
    the Act (21 U.S.C. 463(b)).
        FSIS has stationed about 2,705 inspectors in 300 poultry 
    slaughtering establishments nationwide. They are responsible for ante-
    mortem and post-mortem inspection, and the inspection of further 
    processed products at these establishments. They are also responsible 
    for assuring that facilities and equipment are sanitary and the plant 
    environment conducive to the manufacture of a wholesome product.
        To meet the PPIA requirement for post-mortem inspection of every 
    poultry carcass, FSIS stations inspectors on every slaughter line 
    throughout every working shift. Most poultry slaughtering 
    establishments operate moving production lines that carry the poultry 
    through all the stages of processing from that of the live bird to the 
    finished, ready-to-cook stage.
    
    Slaughter and Dressing Process
    
        Currently, live birds are brought to the plant and hung upside-down 
    on shackles on the moving conveyor line. They are moved first to the 
    stunning and slaughtering area, where they are bled out. Next, they are 
    moved into scalding vats where the feathers are loosened. They are then 
    conveyed to automatic defeathering machines (called ``pickers''), where 
    the feathers are taken off the carcass by rapidly moving rubber 
    ``fingers.'' After this operation, the birds pass through a hock 
    removal area. Then they pass to the evisceration area of the plant, 
    where the birds are eviscerated by automatic machinery. Evisceration is 
    usually accomplished by cutting the bird's abdomen and ``scooping'' out 
    the organs with metal ``spoons'' or paddles.
        The viscera are left attached to and suspended outside the carcass 
    throughout post-mortem inspection. The birds are presented for 
    inspection with the hanging viscera suspended to one side of the 
    carcass. The inspector conducts a post-mortem examination for signs of 
    disease or abnormality by holding open the abdominal cavity with one 
    hand and viewing its interior and then quickly manipulating the viscera 
    with the other hand. At the same time, the inspector observes the 
    external surfaces of the carcass for signs of disease, abnormality, or 
    contamination. The inspector also points out to establishment employees 
    lesions or other conditions that may be removed by trimming.
        Birds that do not pass post-mortem inspection are either removed 
    from the processing line and placed on a hang-back rack for veterinary 
    disposition or they are designated for off-line trimming, salvage, or 
    reprocessing, or condemned. Birds that are inspected and passed by FSIS 
    move on to the next operations, which include viscera removal, giblet 
    harvest, and final trimming and washing. The carcasses then proceed to 
    the chilling operation, where usually they are immersed in ice and cold 
    water tanks to bring the carcass temperature down to acceptable levels 
    and to retard bacterial growth. The chilled birds are then packaged and 
    readied for shipment or further processed.
    
    Basis of Inspection
    
        All post-mortem inspection is based on the use of an organoleptic 
    method of inspection. That is, inspectors and veterinarians rely on the 
    use of their five senses in making decisions regarding the disposition 
    of poultry carcasses and their parts. Additionally, FSIS personnel 
    monitor chemical residues and microbial baselines by taking random 
    samples of inspected birds for laboratory microbiological or chemical 
    analyses. Laboratory analysis can be utilized to confirm post-mortem 
    dispositions or suspected chemical residues.
        The organoleptic method has proven reliable over many years in the 
    detection of diseases or abnormalities that could be dangerous and are 
    certainly objectionable to consumers. Nevertheless, the organoleptic 
    method is not capable of detecting microbial pathogens that may be 
    present on raw, ready-to-cook product. Because of the continuing and 
    increasing threat of foodborne pathogens, including pathogens known to 
    be carried on the surfaces of dressed poultry carcasses and in feces, 
    the focus of meat and poultry inspection must shift towards enhancing 
    public health.
    
    Pathogen Reduction Initiatives
    
        In this regard other FSIS initiatives include prevention programs 
    for use on the farm and during live-animal transit, the development of 
    rapid detection methods using the latest technologies, the collection 
    of microbiological baseline data, the development of risk analysis 
    methods applicable to meat and poultry inspection, microbial detection 
    and reduction activities in both slaughtering and processing plants, 
    and an intensified education program directed at retail outlets, food 
    handlers, and consumers.
        Some of these initiatives will obviously take longer than others to 
    carry out. Some in-plant activities will depend on the development of 
    new technology. Even though all critical research questions have not 
    yet been answered, FSIS recognizes and accepts its obligation to 
    proceed with activities that are likely to succeed based on current 
    theories about pathogen control. The agency also has the opportunity to 
    introduce useful microbial detection technologies into the present 
    inspection program as they become available, not waiting for the fully 
    developed new system.
        This proposal includes several activities which are based on 
    present knowledge, especially that which suggests that pathogen 
    presence on carcasses is likely associated with fecal contamination and 
    that careful process control can reduce the potential for 
    contamination.
    
    Current Inspection Systems
    
        Several poultry post-mortem inspection systems are currently 
    operated in federally inspected establishments--traditional, New Line 
    Speed (NELS), New Turkey Inspection System (NTIS), and the Streamlined 
    Inspection System (SIS). Within each of these current systems no 
    product with visible fecal contamination is permitted to enter the 
    chiller, but the assurance of this standard is based on monitoring 
    samples; inspectors do not have the opportunity to continuously verify 
    that fecal contamination doesn't enter the chiller.
    
    Traditional
    
        Under traditional inspection, the oldest system, one inspector 
    examines a whole bird and is responsible for its proper disposition, 
    including directing and verifying any required trimming by an 
    establishment employee who is the ``inspector's helper,'' before the 
    bird leaves the area of inspection. A sample of inspected product is 
    reinspected for processing nonconformances through an acceptable 
    quality level (AQL) statistical program. Line speeds for traditional 
    inspection were based on work-measurement studies and were set at the 
    limit at which an inspector could carry out the organoleptic 
    examination and manipulation of each carcass presented for inspection. 
    Also, industry was not capable of producing birds at a higher speed and 
    therefore, these line speeds were acceptable.
    
    SIS
    
        In the mid-1970's, the development of automated evisceration 
    equipment, as well as improvements in genetics, nutrition, health, and 
    flock management, allowed the poultry industry to present uniform lots 
    of birds to inspectors faster than inspectors could inspect using 
    traditional methods. In 1978, the FSIS approved the use of a new 
    inspection method known as Modified Traditional Inspection (MTI). MTI 
    allowed industry to run an eviscerating line at speeds of up to 70 
    birds per minute.
        In 1985, USDA designed a new system to replace MTI that would 
    permit the industry to continue to operate at 70 birds per minute but 
    require fewer on-line inspectors. This system became known as the 
    Streamlined Inspection System (SIS). SIS, which is currently the 
    standard form of inspection for young chickens, requires one or two 
    inspectors to be positioned on each processing line after the birds 
    have been eviscerated. Each inspector performs a whole-bird inspection 
    involving the examination of the outside, inside, and viscera of the 
    birds presented for inspection. The one-inspector form of SIS is known 
    as SIS-1; the two-inspector version, called SIS-2, is the most widely 
    used (about 140 plants, compared with only about 3 plants for SIS-1).
        Inspection under both SIS-1 and SIS-2 is conducted in two phases--a 
    post-mortem inspection phase and a reinspection phase. In the 
    inspection phase, inspectors determine which birds must be salvaged, 
    reprocessed, condemned, retained for veterinary disposition, or allowed 
    to be moved down the line as a passed bird subject to reinspection.
        The reinspection station or stations are located both before and 
    after each chiller. At the prechill station, inspectors examine 
    carcasses by visually monitoring, checking quality control data, or 
    sampling product at the station. SIS incorporates a finished product 
    standards (FPS) program by which product is evaluated and the results 
    tracked with the aid of the CUSUM statistical method. The tabulation 
    and charting of CUSUM results enables the establishment and FSIS 
    inspectors to determine whether the establishment's processes are under 
    control, and hence, whether the process will produce consistently 
    sound, wholesome product.
    
    NELS
    
        During the 1970's and 1980's the industry continued to make 
    significant technological advances and were capable of better process 
    control. The FSIS inspection procedure became the limiting factor on 
    industry productivity. In 1981, the Agency developed a new procedure, 
    New Line Speed (NELS), that shifted quality control responsibilities to 
    the plant and relied more heavily on monitoring and verification than 
    in the past. This is a voluntary program, and, if approved the 
    establishment can operate at a maximum rate of 91 birds per minute.
        NELS combines SIS post-mortem inspection procedures with an 
    establishment-operated slaughter quality control program that is 
    monitored by FSIS. The Agency permits the NELS system in appropriately 
    equipped establishments that have requested and been approved for the 
    system. The NELS inspection system consists of three FSIS inspectors 
    performing the NELS whole-bird post-mortem inspection procedure and at 
    least one inspector monitoring the application of an FSIS-approved, 
    plant-operated slaughter quality control (QC) program. The QC program 
    is designed to assure that the processing system is under control.
    
    NTIS
    
        The above discussion regarding MTI, SIS, and NELS is specific to 
    the development of inspection systems for young chickens, the largest 
    segment of the poultry industry. Other classes of poultry have not 
    evolved through the same inspection procedures. However, as the turkey 
    industry began to grow and become more automated, merely expanding 
    traditional procedures was impractical and inefficient. Therefore, in 
    1985, FSIS established the New Turkey Inspection (NTI) system which was 
    based on the concepts and procedures used in NELS system.
        This system calls for one or two inspectors on each inspection line 
    to inspect the inside, outside, and viscera of each bird presented, 
    with establishment employees responsible for trimming passed carcasses. 
    The adequacy of the trimming is assured through an establishment-
    operated quality control and finished product standards (FPS) program 
    that is monitored by FSIS personnel.
    
    Poultry Enhancement Program
    
    Introduction
    
        Experience has shown that there are two points on the poultry main 
    processing line where birds are more likely to become contaminated. The 
    first of these is at evisceration, when improperly adjusted equipment 
    may perforate or burst the intestines as the viscera is ``scooped'' 
    out, resulting in fecal contamination on the interior surface of the 
    carcass. The second point where contamination may occur is where the 
    viscera are separated from the carcass. Unless the viscera harvest is 
    properly carried out, the interior surface of carcasses can become 
    contaminated with feces. In March, the Secretary of Agriculture 
    announced a series of measures that are intended to strengthen poultry 
    products inspection and reduce the occurrence of pathogens on raw 
    product. The initiatives included a better method for enforcing ``zero 
    tolerance'' for fecal contamination on raw product by changing the 
    inspection sequence to provide on-line inspection checks for 
    contamination, which is not provided by current systems. Also included 
    among the initiatives are the use of approved antimicrobial treatments 
    on carcasses and the 100% reinspection of reprocessed carcasses. 
    Because these initiatives would change procedures that are already 
    authorized or required by the regulations, it is necessary to amend the 
    regulations to carry them out.
        The proposal would implement a new system of post mortem 
    inspection, require re-inspection of all reprocessed birds on the main 
    processing line, revised the existing finished product standards 
    program, and require the use of an antimicrobial treatment before the 
    chilling operation. The proposed new inspection system is intended to 
    assure that only uncontaminated poultry would enter the chiller and the 
    required antimicrobial treatment is applied to every carcass. A benefit 
    of these is to reduce the chance of cross-contamination in the chilling 
    operation.
    
    Inspection Sequence Changes
    
        The proposal would replace all existing systems of poultry post-
    mortem inspection with a single system in which two FSIS inspectors 
    would staff each poultry processing line. The first inspector would 
    examine eviscerated poultry at an ``on-line post-mortem inspection 
    station,'' located at or near the present post-mortem inspection 
    position. This inspector would assure that carcasses sorted by the 
    establishment are free of condemnable pathology or are properly 
    designated for off-line trim, salvage, or reprocessing.
        The second inspection station, the ``on-line/off-line carcass 
    inspection station,'' would be positioned just before the chiller. The 
    inspector at this station would perform on-line inspection for fecal 
    contamination thus ensuring that no visible fecal contamination is 
    present on carcasses entering the chiller. This inspector would also be 
    responsible for observing plant operations between the viscera harvest 
    and the final wash and for reinspecting all reprocessed birds on the 
    line.
        The Agency requests that comments on the proposal include 
    information and data on this proposed inspector sequence, or 
    information and data relative to any alternatives to this proposed 
    inspector sequence.
    
    Establishment Responsibilities
    
        Establishment personnel, known as sorters, would be positioned 
    before the first FSIS inspector. This position will be a reassignment 
    of duties for the current plant presenters and inspector helpers. The 
    establishment sorters differ in responsibility from the inspectors' 
    helpers under the current regulations because the sorters would be more 
    active in detecting disease and abnormality and sorting birds affected 
    by such conditions from normal birds.
        The required establishment sorter or sorters would be responsible 
    for assuring that no diseased poultry requiring condemnation are 
    presented for FSIS inspection. They would designate poultry for off-
    line salvage, trimming, or reprocessing, or condemn the birds prior to 
    presentation for inspection, and they would be required to record all 
    condemnations on a disposition reporting form required for the purpose. 
    Only those birds without condemnable conditions would be permitted to 
    reach the post-mortem inspection station, except for those designated 
    and marked for reprocessing, knife-salvage, or other off-line 
    procedures. These would be removed from the evisceration line only 
    after the bird passed the FSIS post-mortem inspector at the on-line 
    post-mortem inspection station but before the viscera harvest.
        Under the proposal, as is currently required, the establishment 
    would have to position an employee after the post-mortem inspector and 
    before the viscera harvest. This employee would be required to perform 
    duties such as removing carcasses marked for salvage or reprocessing, 
    or placing birds on hangback racks for veterinary disposition or 
    correlation.
        The establishment also would continue to be required to position 
    one or more trimmers after the giblet harvest and before the final 
    wash. These trimmers would continue to perform the duties required by 
    the current regulations, but they would have the additional 
    responsibility of removing for reprocessing birds that are contaminated 
    with feces on the inner surfaces and assuring that only birds that are 
    properly trimmed are presented to the FSIS inspector at the on-line/
    off-line carcass inspection station.
    
    Reprocessing
    
        Currently, reinspection of reprocessed birds by FSIS is done by 
    random sampling of lots. The proposed system would require all 
    reprocessed birds to be returned to the main processing line at a point 
    before the second FSIS inspector to assure that they are reinspected. 
    If any reprocessed bird were found with fecal contamination, all birds 
    remaining in the reprocessed lot would be returned to the 
    establishment's reprocessing station for rework.
    
    Equipment and Facilities Requirements
    
        All poultry slaughtering establishments would be required to comply 
    with the same equipment and facility requirements, which would be 
    essentially those of the present SIS, NELS, and NTIS inspection 
    systems, extended to accommodate inspection at the proposed on-line/
    off-line inspection station. For example, establishments would have to 
    furnish adjustable inspection stands and shadow-free lighting with a 
    minimum intensity of 200 foot candles and a color rendering index of 85 
    at the inspection stations. Also, guidebars would have to be installed 
    at both inspection stations in all establishments to permit birds to be 
    moved smoothly and consistently to the edge of the trough running below 
    the conveyor so that birds would be properly presented to the FSIS 
    inspector.
    
    Linespeed
    
        Maximum linespeeds allowed under optimal conditions would remain 
    the same under the proposed system. The proposed system does not 
    prescribe specific hand motions which in the past have been a 
    determining factor in the rate at which an inspector could inspect each 
    bird. This system would allow the inspector flexibility in the 
    technique used to inspect each bird. Also, this proposal would 
    eliminate the presentation for FSIS inspection of those birds with 
    condemnable conditions.
        FSIS also considered the impact linespeeds have on the safety and 
    wholesomeness of poultry. A study was conducted between June 1990 and 
    May 1991 at a poultry establishment to determine if the microbiological 
    quality of poultry carcasses was different when processed at varying 
    linespeeds. The general conclusion was that mean bacterial counts and 
    Salmonella prevalence did not change significantly with varying 
    processing linespeeds.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\Study conducted by USDA, FSIS, Science and Technology. The 
    study is available for review at the Hearing Clerk's Office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Also, there are data to support the incidence of Salmonella on 
    whole broiler carcasses declined from 36.9% to 25.0% between 1979 and 
    1992 irrespective of changes in linespeeds.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\Study conducted by USDA, FSIS, Science and Technology. A copy 
    of this study is available in the office of the FSIS Hearing Clerk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Other factors do impact the microbiological quality of the product 
    such as chlorine and other antimicrobial treatments as well as process 
    control and the adherence to good manufacturing practices by the 
    establishment.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\``Effects of countercurrent scalding and postscald spray on 
    the bacteriologic profile of raw chicken carcasses.'' 1992. W. James 
    et al. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Vol. 
    201, No. 5, pages 705-708. A copy of this document is available from 
    the FSIS Hearing Clerk, Washington, DC.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Based on this information, maximum inspection rates for young 
    chickens would remain at 70 birds per minute for establishments without 
    approved slaughter PQC programs and at 91 birds per minute for 
    establishments with approved slaughter PQC programs. The rates for 
    turkeys with J-type opening cuts and weighing under 16 lbs. would be 20 
    birds per minute at establishments without such PQC programs and 51 
    birds per minute at establishments operating such PQC programs. The 
    rates for such turkeys weighing more than 16 lbs. would be 16 birds per 
    minute without such PQC and 41 birds per minute with such PQC. The 
    rates for turkeys with bar-type opening cuts weighing under 16 lbs. 
    would be 20 birds per minute at establishments without PQC programs and 
    45 birds per minute at establishments operating PQC programs. The 
    corresponding rates for such turkeys weighing over 16 lbs. would be 16 
    birds per minute without a PQC program and 35 birds per minute with a 
    PQC program. (See Table 1.)
    
                       Table 1.--Maximum Production Rates                   
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Birds per minute                
       Class of poultry    -------------------------------------------------
                                    With PQC               Without PQC      
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Young chickens........                       91                       70
                                                                            
    Young turkeys:                                                          
                               J-type opening cut       3-point suspension  
        Less than 16                                                        
         pounds...........                       51                       20
        More than 16                                                        
         pounds...........                       41                       16
                                                                            
                              Bar-type opening cut      3-point suspension  
        Less than 16                                                        
         pounds...........                       45                       20
        More than 16                                                        
         pounds...........                       35                       16
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Under the proposal, the FSIS inspector in charge (IIC) or his/her 
    designee would retain the responsibility for determining whether 
    conditions permit adequate post-mortem inspection at the maximum rates. 
    Criteria for justifying linespeed reductions would include the 
    inability of the official establishment to present carcasses so that 
    internal and external surfaces and organs can be inspected, remove 
    condemnable birds from the line, and properly identify contaminated 
    birds for trimming or knife salvage.
    
    Finished Product Standards Revisions
    
        The FPS now provided in the regulations would be updated and 
    tightened to reflect more accurately the current conditions in the 
    poultry industry.
        The current FPS program was developed on the basis of 1983 in-house 
    data. Since the standards were adopted, the program has proven more 
    effective in preventing nonconformances than the AQL it supplanted. 
    However, experience in applying the FPS has disclosed certain 
    limitations involving the application of testing rules and actions. The 
    proposed revised FPS would overcome these limitations while preserving 
    the advantages of the current FPS. The strength of both the current 
    program and the proposed revised FPS is the effectiveness of on-line 
    quality control in maintaining processing control. Processing control, 
    which focuses on prevention rather than the detection of 
    nonconformances, would continue to be the guiding concept of the FPS.
        The proposed FPS program would incorporate the following changes to 
    the current FPS processing control monitoring program:
        (1) Consolidation of nonconformance categories.
        (2) Elimination of feces from reinspection categories.
        (3) Elimination of post-chill testing.
        (4) Setting nonconformances tolerances at same level for all 
    poultry classes.
        (5) Separation of the trimmable lesion/condition category from 
    processing/trim categories.
        (6) Simplification of on-line processing control monitoring rules.
    
    Consolidation of Nonconformance Categories
    
        The proposed revised FPS nonconformance categories (Table 1 at 
    proposed 9 CFR 381.76(h)) would be fewer than the existing FPS 
    nonconformance categories and the testing procedure would be simpler. 
    The proposed category changes would make testing easier and provide 
    earlier feedback. Appropriate preventive and corrective actions could 
    be initiated because the carcass nonconformance would be based on 
    ready-to-cook (RTC) requirements and sanitary dressing procedures.
        The current finished product standards (FPS) program has 20 
    prechill processing, 14 prechill trim, and 3 post-chill categories (37 
    categories). These groupings are based on the type of nonconformances 
    found on carcasses. The proposed FPS program would have 8 
    nonconformance categories and 1 separate trimmable lesion/condition 
    category. The nonconformances would be assigned to common groups with 
    respect to control, origin, prevention, or removal. Prechill processing 
    and trim categories would be combined on one test form to simplify the 
    testing process so that only one cumulative summation (CUSUM) would be 
    calculated.
        The relative risk of nonconformances would be the same for each 
    poultry class. Because the comparative risk between categories is not 
    known, the new nonconformance categories would be weighted equally 
    (each having a weight factor of one). This change would also eliminate 
    any tendency to correct only those nonconformances with higher weights.
    
    Elimination of Feces From the Nonconformance Categories
    
        One goal of the FPS program would be to ensure that poultry 
    carcasses are free of feces. To emphasize the Agency's determination to 
    enforce the ``zero tolerance'' for such contamination, feces would no 
    longer be listed among nonconformance categories. Any finding of fecal 
    contamination during an FPS check would require an immediate line speed 
    reduction. On-line processing control by the establishment is necessary 
    to exclude fecal contamination from product ready to enter the chilling 
    system.
        There are two operations in the slaughtering process where there is 
    a greater chance for carcass contamination. These operations are 
    evisceration and viscera harvest. Under this proposal, FSIS inspectors 
    would be stationed after each of these operations to ensure only non-
    contaminated carcasses proceed down the line.
    
    Elimination of Post-Chill Testing
    
        One goal of the proposed FPS reinspection test would be to ensure 
    that the establishment keeps its evisceration process under control 
    with emphasis on preventing fecal contamination from entering the 
    carcass chilling system. All carcasses would be subject to sampling 
    using the proposed FPS test, which includes a modified extraneous 
    material category, prior to entering the chill system; therefore, these 
    defects should not enter the chill system. The current FPS post-chill 
    test focuses on the detection of extraneous material nonconformances 
    too late in the slaughtering and dressing procedure to provide 
    information that could be used to improve evisceration controls.
    
    Setting Tolerances at the Same Level for All Poultry Classes
    
        It is reasonable to set one tolerance to provide a uniform standard 
    for evaluating all poultry carcasses after slaughter and dressing since 
    ready-to-cook (RTC) requirements and the same nonconformances apply to 
    all poultry classes. Established tolerances for poultry carcasses are 
    already approaching uniformity. The current FPS pre-chill trim 
    nonconformance limits for young chickens and turkeys are already the 
    same. The FPS pre-chill processing and post-chill nonconformance limits 
    for young chickens and young turkeys are almost the same.
        Ideally, if optimal processing controls were maintained, poultry 
    would be nonconformance-free. Nonconformance-free product may be 
    theoretically achievable but is not likely to be commercially feasible. 
    A reasonable tolerance would allow for the presence of a few accidental 
    nonconformances incidental to the process and, at the same time, define 
    acceptable quality levels. Establishing a new tolerance for all poultry 
    classes along with changes in the testing rules would encourage 
    continual improvement in processing control. Periodic re-evaluation of 
    these limits would be essential to encouraging the trend toward the 
    production of poultry that is free of nonconformances.
        The current FPS tolerances and action numbers are based on data 
    collected in 1983. The Agency is now offering for comment the 
    modifications of these standards that field inspection experience has 
    shown to be necessary. Even so, the Agency will be especially attentive 
    to comments addressing the proposed FPS standards.
        Currently, the FPS upper limit of acceptability of a 10-bird test 
    sample is called the subgroup absolute limit. The subgroup absolute 
    limit is defined by the tolerance number plus 5 (T+5). The ``plus 5'' 
    is the expected normal variance in a process under control. In the 
    proposed FPS program, the need for the subgroup absolute limit (T+5) is 
    eliminated by incorporating normal process variability within 
    tolerance. Following the cumulative summation (CUSUM) method, the 
    process variability exceeding tolerance is recorded. The proposed FPS 
    program uses CUSUM to determine when the process is out of control and 
    to identify product requiring rework. Tolerance levels for 
    nonconformances would ensure appropriate corrective actions at the 
    control points. In recent years, a zero CUSUM has been achieved 
    consistently by establishments under the current FPS program--evidence 
    that nonconformance process control has improved. A zero CUSUM over 
    time is not expected. Because of process variation, a certain number of 
    tests are expected to exceed tolerance and cause an increase in the 
    CUSUM. The FPS tolerance numbers for nonconformances were set at such a 
    level that one test in 20 would be expected to exceed the tolerance 
    number plus 5. Under the present FPS program, exceeding the subgroup 
    absolute limit (T+5) is usually the only cause for corrective action or 
    testing. Maintaining a zero CUSUM does not encourage further 
    improvement in process control.
    
    Separation of the Trimmable Lesion/Condition Category From the 
    Processing/Trim Categories
    
        One goal of the proposed revised FPS program would be to ensure 
    process control with a statistically valid method of identifying 
    trimmable lesions and conditions and product requiring rework. The 
    confidence level of the proposed on-line test ensures a standard of no 
    tolerance for trimmable lesions and conditions. The test would be 
    objective and would result in actions that are firm, fair, and 
    consistent. The standard for trimmable lesion/condition nonconformances 
    is met through testing and actions independent of the other proposed 
    FPS nonconformance categories.
        Separating the trimmable lesion/condition category from the other 
    proposed FPS nonconformance categories allows independent actions which 
    include: (a) Monitoring a statistically valid number of carcasses on-
    line; (b) notifying the IIC immediately of trimmable lesion/condition 
    nonconformance; (c) accurately identifying product with trimmable 
    lesion/condition nonconformance for rework; (d) recording and 
    evaluating corrective actions taken.
        The current finished product standards (FPS) program assigns a 
    point value to the trimmable lesion/condition nonconformances found 
    during a 10-bird monitoring test. These points are included in the 
    CUSUM calculation for the pre-chill trim test. At the same time, 
    trimmable lesion/condition nonconformances have a ``zero tolerance.'' 
    That is, an immediate retest involving an additional 10-bird sample is 
    required when a trimmable lesion/condition is detected. The 10-bird 
    retest is not a statistically valid number of carcasses. The 
    probability that trimmable lesions and conditions will be found through 
    such 10-bird tests is low, even when the process is out of control. 
    Thus, the testing does not result in identifying product for rework.
        The proposed on-line verification test is statistically based to 
    ensure processing control and takes a reasonably short time to perform. 
    The test would be conducted by the establishment on a 300-bird sample 
    taken after the final wash at the reinspection sample collection site. 
    An FSIS floor inspector would typically perform verification sampling 
    for the Agency. A line-stop button would be required to facilitate the 
    removal of carcasses with trimmable lesions and conditions during the 
    on-line test.
    
    Simplifcation of Rules for Monitoring On-Line Processing Control
    
        An additional goal of the proposed revised FPS program would be to 
    modify testing rules and procedures to ensure that testing is sensitive 
    and specific enough to identify loss of processing control. A high 
    probability of identifying product requiring rework would be associated 
    with actions taken on the basis of the tests.
        As mentioned, testing rules in the current FPS program are 
    cumbersome and result in repeated testing which rarely results in 
    identifying product for rework. When pre-chill nonconformances reach 
    action levels, immediate multiple location testing and retesting is 
    required at pre-chill, post-chill, and on-line control points. This 
    increase in simultaneous testing is labor-intensive for both the 
    establishment and inspection. This labor-intensive effort rarely 
    results in the identification of product for rework. There is little 
    incentive to do testing that almost never leads to regulatory action. 
    The program requirements generate a lot of paper work, while the 
    intended effect on processing control is difficult to quantify.
        The proposed revised FPS program would identify when the 
    establishment's processing is out of control and product requires 
    rework. All monitoring tests would be applied at pre-chill. Under the 
    current FPS program, product is tested at post-chill using pre-chill 
    standards to identify product requiring rework. At post-chill, product 
    from multiple evisceration lines is sometimes commingled in one 
    chiller. This commingling dilutes nonconformances and decreases the 
    probability of identifying product for rework when tested post-chill. 
    With the proposed FPS, all affected carcasses would be subject to 
    reinspection, identified at pre-chill, and segregated for rework.
        The proposed revised FPS is easily applied even when carcasses go 
    directly to further processing. The proposed categories (Table 1 at 
    proposed 9 CFR 381.76(h)) are designed to provide feedback to the 
    establishment to ensure processing control.
    
    Corrective Actions
    
        If the on-line postmortem inspector observed a bird that should 
    have been condemned or designated and marked for off-line knife-
    salvage, trimming, or reprocessing, the inspector would stop the 
    processing line to make a proper disposition. The inspector would have 
    the bird condemned, removed from the line, or, if the condition of the 
    bird was found to be questionable, placed on a hang-back rack for 
    veterinary disposition.
        If the on-line/off-line carcass inspector observes any fecally 
    contaminated birds, the line would be stopped and the bird removed for 
    reprocessing. Additionally, a mandatory linespeed reduction would be 
    required. The linespeed would be reduced to the extent necessary to 
    ensure process control in preventing/eliminating all feces and for such 
    duration until it is determined by FSIS that the process can be 
    maintained in compliance with the no visible fecal contamination 
    standard.
        If any reprocessed bird is found with fecal contamination, the on-
    line/off-line inspector will require all birds remaining in the 
    reprocessed lot to be returned to the establishment's reprocessing 
    station for rework.
        Any finding of fecal contamination during a Finished Product 
    Standard check would require an immediate linespeed reduction and 
    reprocessing of the contaminated carcass.
    
    Antimicrobial Treatments
    
        In spite of the best efforts to reduce or eliminate visible 
    contamination through the measures that this proposal would require, 
    poultry would still harbor bacteria. The numbers of these invisible 
    contaminants can only be reduced through antimicrobial treatments. With 
    this proposed rulemaking, the Agency would require, for the first time, 
    that poultry slaughtering establishments provide antimicrobial 
    interventions before the carcasses enter the chilling system.
        Thus, in addition to changing post-mortem inspection staffing and 
    procedures and reinspection criteria, this proposed rulemaking would 
    mandate the use of an approved antimicrobial treatment for poultry. The 
    treatments could be applied at any point preceding the chilling 
    operation. Many establishments would already be in compliance with this 
    provision of the proposed regulations because they routinely apply a 
    20-ppm chlorinated spray at the final wash. Spoilage and pathogenic 
    bacteria naturally reside on the surface of raw poultry. It has been 
    assumed that a certain level of bacteria present on carcass surfaces 
    was unavoidable due to the inherent characteristics of animals and raw 
    poultry meat and the nature of the slaughter and processing operation. 
    Consequently, organoleptic inspection procedures were designed to 
    detect obvious carcass diseases or abnormalities. FSIS is expanding its 
    inspection activities to address increasing concern by the scientific 
    community and the public about the threat of foodborne illness from 
    consumption of meat and poultry products. Pathogens of concern in 
    poultry include Salmonella and Campylobacter, which are frequently 
    carried on raw poultry. These bacteria cannot be detected by sight, 
    smell, or taste.
        Salmonellae, found in the intestinal tract and waste of most warm-
    blooded animals, are the most important cause of bacterial foodborne 
    illness with a 0.1 percent case fatality rate and highest average cost 
    per case.\4\ Foods of animal origin, particularly meat and poultry, are 
    considered to be the primary source of human salmonellosis. The 
    organisms are present in the skin and feathers of live birds whose 
    carcasses can also become contaminated during slaughter from intestinal 
    tract contents of otherwise healthy animals. Cross contamination of 
    cooked foods from raw meat and poultry, kitchen utensils, or surfaces 
    has been frequently described as a cause of salmonellosis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\Agricultural Outlook, Economic Research Service, USDA, AO-197 
    (June 1993), pp. 32-36. A copy is available for review in the FSIS 
    Hearing Clerk's office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Campylobacter jejuni lives naturally as a harmless inhabitant in 
    the intestinal tract of many warm-blooded animals, including poultry. 
    In many countries the incidence of Campylobacter infection is higher 
    than that for Salmonella. In North America, campylobacteriosis is 
    believed to be the principal cause of foodborne enteritis, accounting 
    for the highest number of cases.\5\ Poultry meat is most often 
    implicated as the primary source of infection.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \5\Agricultural Outlook, Economic Research Service, USDA, AO-197 
    (June 1993), pp. 32-36. A copy is available for review in the FSIS 
    Hearing Clerk's office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        From 1983 to 1987, 2,397 foodborne disease outbreaks were reported 
    to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), representing 91,678 cases. 
    CDC defined an outbreak as an incident in which two or more persons 
    experience a similar illness and food is implicated. The etiology was 
    unknown in the majority of outbreaks. Among outbreaks in which etiology 
    was determined, bacterial pathogens caused the largest number of 
    outbreaks (66 percent) and cases (92 percent). During the five-year 
    interval, meat and poultry accounted for approximately 16 percent of 
    the bacterial disease outbreaks. Salmonella was the most frequently 
    reported pathogen each year.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \6\MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report), Vol. 39/No. SS-
    1: ``CDC Surveillance Summaries, March 1990.'' This document is 
    available for review at the FSIS Hearing Clerk's office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        FSIS recognizes that the technologies now available for reducing 
    bacterial contamination on raw poultry carcasses are limited. There are 
    currently no approved antimicrobial agents for use pre-chill listed in 
    the poultry inspection regulations, although several compounds appear 
    promising. Described below are a few alternative treatment methods 
    available to the poultry industry for use or further development.
        Trisodium phosphate is approved by FDA for use as a processing aid 
    on raw poultry. It is listed in the FDA regulations as generally 
    recognized as safe (GRAS) for multiple purpose use in accordance with 
    good manufacturing practice (21 CFR 182.1778). FSIS has granted 
    approval for testing of trisodium phosphate at pre-chill and post-chill 
    locations and has begun rulemaking procedures to include this compound 
    and its use conditions in the table of substances in 9 CFR 
    381.147(f)(4). Trisodium phosphate has been shown to reduce microbial 
    contamination on poultry carcasses when applied by spraying or dipping 
    carcasses for up to 30 seconds in an 8- to 12-percent solution. 
    Industry studies show a one to one and one-half logarithm reduction in 
    the number of Salmonella and other bacteria on carcass surfaces when 
    carcasses are dipped in or sprayed with trisodium phosphate.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \7\Study conducted by the Rhone-Poulenc Company. The study is 
    available for review at the Hearing Clerk's Office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Several organic acid compounds, including lactic acid and acetic 
    acid, have antimicrobial effects and are listed in the FDA regulations 
    as GRAS. Although listed in 21 CFR, conditions-of-use have not been 
    established for use of these compounds on poultry products. Researchers 
    have obtained varying degrees of microbial reductions when treating 
    carcasses with organic acid compounds. Early studies indicated changes 
    in carcass skin color when carcasses were treated with organic acid 
    compounds. More recent studies provide data supporting the 
    effectiveness of organic acid compounds at concentrations that do not 
    compromise the sensory properties of the meat.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \8\``Natural Lactic acid: a natural solution.'' J. Bacus. 1987. 
    The National Provisioner. June 13, 1987. Pages 19-21. This document 
    is available for review in the FSIS Hearing Clerk's office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The washing of carcasses with chlorinated water to reduce the 
    numbers of spoilage and pathogenic bacteria on carcasses is a longtime 
    practice in the poultry industry. As early as 1951, researchers noted 
    the effectiveness of in-plant chlorination in lowering bacteria counts 
    on product, increasing shelf life, reducing odors in the establishment, 
    and reducing slime on equipment.\9\ Chlorine is used now in most 
    poultry establishments, primarily in chill water, to prevent bacterial 
    cross-contamination and as an effective sanitizing agent on facilities 
    and equipment usually at levels of 20 to 50 parts per million available 
    chlorine.\10\ A 1992 FSIS study showed significant microbial reductions 
    on raw chicken carcasses and giblets immersed in chlorinated chill 
    water.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \9\``In-Plant Chlorination Does a 3-Way Job.'' H. Gorseline. 
    1951. U.S. Egg and Poultry Magazine. April. Pages 12, 13, 29-31. 
    This document is available for review in the Hearing Clerk's office.
        \10\``List of Proprietary Substances and Nonfood Compounds,'' 
    USDA, FSIS, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1419, January 1, 1994. 
    Page II-vi. This document is available for review in the FSIS 
    Hearing Clerk's office.
        \11\``Effects of chlorination of chill water on the 
    bacteriologic profile of raw chicken carcasses and giblets.'' 1992. 
    W. James et al. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical 
    Association. Vol. 200, No. 1, pages 60-63.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Manufacturers of chlorine dioxide have petitioned FDA to permit the 
    use of this compound to disinfect waters contacting fresh meat, fresh 
    poultry, processed meat, and processed poultry.\12\ Studies have shown 
    that chlorine dioxide used at lower concentrations is as effective as 
    chlorine in reducing bacterial levels on poultry.''\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \12\``Rio Linda Chemical Co., Inc.; Filing of Food Additive 
    Petition.'' Notice was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 59, 
    No. 22, by FDA on February 2, 1994. A copy is available for review 
    in the FSIS Hearing Clerk's office.
        \13\``Effect on Broiler Carcasses and Water of Treating Chiller 
    Water with Chlorine or Chlorine Dioxide.'' H.S. Lillard. 1980. 
    Poultry Science, Vol. 59, pagess 1761-1766. A copy is available for 
    review in the FSIS Hearing Clerk's office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Mechanical process modifications have also been studied. Good 
    effects in reducing bacterial levels on carcasses have been obtained 
    when conventional scald and chilling systems have been replaced with 
    countercurrent scald and chilling systems. In countercurrent systems, 
    carcasses exit from the system where the water is the cleanest.14 
    In 1991, the industry conducted a major study that showed that a 
    combination countercurrent scald system, post-scald rinse, and 
    chlorination at several control points on the evisceration line 
    effectively reduced the number of spoilage and pathogenic organisms on 
    carcass surfaces.15
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\4``Effects of countercurrent scalding and postscald spray on 
    the bacteriologic profile of raw chicken carcasses.'' 1992. W. James 
    et al. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Vol. 
    201, No. 5, pages 705-708. A copy of this document is available from 
    the FSIS Hearing Clerk, Washington, DC.
        \1\5``Effects of Six Modifications on the Incidence and Levels 
    of Spoilage and Pathogenic Organisms on Commercially Processed 
    Postchill Broilers.'' 1992. Amy L. Waldroup et al. Journal of 
    Applied Poultry Science. Res. 1:226-234. A copy of this document is 
    available for review at the FSIS Hearing Clerk's office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Washing the carcass more often during the slaughter and dressing 
    operation has been shown to reduce the levels of bacteria on carcass 
    surfaces. Researchers theorize that spray washing at critical points 
    during the process creates a water film between the bacteria and the 
    carcass surface which prevents bacteria from attaching to carcass 
    surfaces. Simply washing carcasses with hot water has also been shown 
    to be effective in reducing the levels of bacteria on carcass 
    surfaces.16
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\6``Salmonella Savvy.'' R. Mulder. 1987. Poultry Processing. 
    December 1987. Pages 72-74. This document is available for review in 
    the FSIS Hearing Clerk's office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        FSIS is studying the use of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control 
    Point (HACCP) concept in official establishments as an effective means 
    of improving the process and reducing bacterial loads on carcasses. 
    Using HACCP in poultry inspection was proposed by the National Academy 
    of Science in a 1985 study, ``Meat and Poultry Inspection: The 
    Scientific Basis of the Nation's Program.''17 The first step in 
    developing an effective HACCP plan is to define the hazards. 
    Microbiological hazards are defined as ``the unacceptable survival by 
    microorganisms of concern to safety or spoilage and/or the unacceptable 
    production or persistence in foods of products of microbial 
    metabolism.'' After hazards are identified, critical control points are 
    established. The critical control point describes the location or 
    points in the process which, if not correctly controlled, could lead to 
    contamination with unacceptable growth.18
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\7This document is available for review at the Hearing Clerk's 
    Office, Washington, DC.
        \1\8``The Use of HACCP in the Production of Meat and Poultry 
    Products.'' R. Tompkin. 1990. Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 53, 
    No. 9, pages 795-803. A copy is available for review in the FSIS 
    Hearing Clerk's office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The use of an antimicrobial treatment on raw poultry carcasses 
    would not eliminate the need for continued careful handling of raw 
    poultry products, but would reduce the levels of bacteria that may be 
    present. Establishments have several options to use as effective 
    treatments in reducing bacterial contamination on carcass surfaces. 
    Some treatments will require further development as indicated. Finding 
    practical ways to reduce bacterial contamination on raw poultry 
    products will continue to be a top priority in the agency.
    
    Anticipated Improvements
    
        Inspectors and veterinarians would be free to concentrate their 
    attention on disease problems, on more intensive inspection of various 
    on-line and off-line plant operations and on microbial controls. The 
    Agency could more effectively utilize its inspection resources to 
    maintain bird-by-bird inspection at this time, particularly for 
    pathology and disease conditions, while enhancing and increasing its 
    use of a comprehensive program of sampling and quality assurance. This 
    proposal would also allow the Agency to begin to lay the groundwork 
    necessary for further training of personnel to perform monitoring and 
    prevention activities needed to implement the Hazard Analysis and 
    Critical Control Points System in the future. The poultry enhancement 
    initiatives included in this proposal are intended to improve the 
    current inspection system and not be a substitute for inspection. A 
    comparison of the current and proposed systems is summarized in Table 
    2.
    
                                                 Table 2.--Comparison of Current and Proposed Inspection Systems                                            
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Number of                                                                                    Process                                    
                    carcass/     Number of   Pre-chill clean   Plant pre-                                       corrective        Mandatory                 
                  viscera post-  pre-chill       carcass       sorting of    Maximum line     Reprocessed       action for      antimicrobial     FPS fecal 
                     mortem       carcass      enforcement       product        speed           product         finding of        locations       tolerance 
                   inspectors   inspectors                                                                        feces                                     
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TRAD........  Varies......          0   Monitoring Off-    No........  Varies.........  Monitoring.....  Varies.........  Reprocessing      Yes.        
                                             Line                                                                             Equipment                     
    SIS-1.......  1...........          0   Monitoring Off-    No........  35.............  Monitoring.....  Retest.........  Reprocessing      Yes.        
                                             Line                                                                             Equipment                     
    SIS-2.......  2...........          0   Monitoring Off-    No........  70.............  Monitoring.....  Retest.........  Reprocessing      Yes.        
                                             Line                                                                             Equipment                     
    NELS........  3...........          0   Monitoring Off-    No........  91.............  Monitoring.....  Retest.........  Reprocessing      Yes.        
                                             Line                                                                             Equipment                     
    NTIS-1......  1...........          0   Monitoring Off-    No........  Range 17-26....  Monitoring.....  Retest.........  Reprocessing      Yes.        
                                             Line                                                                             Equipment                     
    NTIS-2......  2...........          0   Monitoring Off-    No........  Range 35-51....  Monitoring.....  Retest.........  Reprocessing      Yes.        
                                             Line                                                                             Equipment                     
    PEP.........  1...........          1   Monitoring Off-    Yes.......  See Table #1...  100% Re-         Automatic Line   Reprocessing      No.         
                                             Line and                                        inspection.      Speed           Equipment                     
                                            On-Line                                                           Reduction.      Carcasses                     
                                             Inspection                                                                                                     
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        There are currently a total of 8382 in-plant inspector positions, 
    including poultry and meat inspectors. These proposed enhancements 
    would not have any impact on the total number of inspector positions. 
    There are 424 total in-plant inspector vacancies. FSIS has requested 
    funds for 200 additional inspectors for FY95 to help fill some of these 
    vacancies. The implementation of these poultry enhancement changes 
    would not have an impact on the number of vacancies.
        The total number of inspectors available for off-line duties as a 
    result of the proposed poultry enhancement program would be 139. (See 
    Tables 3a. and 3b.)
    
       Table 3a.--Inspection Position Changes Resulting From Converting to  
                           Enhanced Poultry Inspection                      
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Current on-   On-line 
          Inspection system         Total     Total      line     inspectors
                                    plants    lines   inspectors   under PEP
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SIS.........................        139      367      1,275       1,266 
    NELS........................         45      118        630         414 
    NTIS........................         27       46         88         124 
    Traditional.................         79       96        168         218 
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Total.................        290      627      2,161       2,022 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
     Table 3b.--Total In-plant Inspection Positions Under Current System and
                                       PEP                                  
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Number of USDA inspection positions in poultry      Current         
                   slaughter establishments                  system    PEP  
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Veterinarians.........................................      456      456
    On-line Inspectors....................................    2,161    2,022
    Off-line Inspectors...................................      502      641
                                                           -----------------
          Total...........................................    3,119    3,119
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Currently, the average net increase in in-plant inspector positions 
    is 55-57 per year. The majority of increased positions have resulted 
    from industry growth. It is projected that the growth of the poultry 
    industry will continue and possibly increase. Additionally, FSIS 
    expects an increased need for inspectors for HACCP monitoring and 
    additional microbiological duties. The 139 inspection personnel 
    resulting from the implementation of the enhanced poultry inspection 
    system could fill the new positions resulting from industry growth, as 
    well as the new positions created for HACCP monitoring and additional 
    microbiological duties. Other positions considered could include 
    permanent relief inspector positions or additional off-line inspector 
    positions.
        Although not available for the present rulemaking, new 
    microbiological tests and sampling programs are under development. The 
    proposed system requires inspection at a point where FSIS expects some 
    microbiological testing to occur. Research is aimed at determining 
    typical microbial conditions at various in-plant and in-process 
    locations. On the basis of such information, it is hoped, criteria can 
    be developed for determining when plant processes are in control and in 
    compliance with a standard, based on microbiological test results. In 
    the future, with the aid of rapid in-plant tests, inspectors and 
    veterinarians should be able to determine more precisely the source and 
    nature of microbial threats to public health.
    
    Executive Order 12866
    
        FSIS has determined that this proposed rule is significant, but 
    does not believe it to be economically significant, for the purposes of 
    Executive Order 12866, because it raises significant policy issues 
    arising out of legal mandates and the Administration's priorities, 
    which include a regulatory system that improves, protects, and 
    maintains public health and safety without imposing unacceptable costs 
    on the private sector.
        The proposed rulemaking would meet the objectives of the Secretary 
    of Agriculture to enhance poultry inspection by enforcing a more 
    stringent policy for the removal of feces from dressed poultry 
    carcasses and by requiring the application of antimicrobial treatments. 
    It is thereby intended to improve public health and safety and 
    strengthen consumer confidence in poultry products.
        While the proposed rulemaking would impose initial costs and 
    additional responsibilities on the regulated industry, the Agency's 
    assessment indicates that the proposed rulemaking is cost-effective as 
    compared to the alternatives considered. There would be no reduction in 
    maximum poultry production linespeeds currently allowed under optimal 
    conditions, but the proposed regulation would provide inducements to 
    industry to improve processing controls and further ensure the quality 
    and safety of outgoing product.
        At the same time, the proposed rulemaking would apply the 
    President's regulatory philosophy by addressing a compelling public 
    need ``. . . to protect or improve the health and safety of the public 
    . . . or the well-being of the people.'' (E.O. 12866, section 1(a).) 
    This need is evidenced by epidemiological and economic studies carried 
    out in recent years that show the presence of microbial pathogens on 
    raw poultry products to be a continuing and possibly an increasing 
    threat to the public health and the economy of the nation.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \19\Agricultural Outlook, Economic Research Service, AO-198 
    (July 1993), pp. 33-38.
        Healthy People 2000. Department of Health and Human Services. 
    1994. Food and Drug Safety: Health Status Objective 12.1.
        Copies of these documents are available for review in the office 
    of the FSIS Hearing Clerk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Preliminary assessment by FSIS indicates that this proposal is 
    consistent with other planned regulatory actions and with 
    Administration policy goals. For example, this proposed rulemaking 
    would be both compatible with and a precursor of the planned mandatory 
    Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) programs for meat 
    and poultry establishments. The inspection and plant sorting stations 
    to be provided for control of disease and contamination would be 
    consistent with certain control points that would be chosen for 
    monitoring under a HACCP system. The proposal is also intended to 
    contribute to the fulfillment of the Administration's public health 
    objectives as set forth in the Healthy People 2000 initiative.
    
    Benefits of Proposed Rule
    
        The benefits to be derived from the proposed rule include potential 
    reductions in the microbial profile of dressed, ready-to-cook poultry, 
    including both pathogens and other bacterial organisms. A reduction in 
    visible contamination, combined with antimicrobial treatments, can 
    result in a decrease in the microbial load on dressed poultry 
    carcasses.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \20\``Comparison of the Microbiological Quality of Inspection-
    Passed and Fecal Contamination-Condemned Broiler Carcasses.'' L.C. 
    Blankenship, et al. 1975. Journal of Food Science, Vol. 40, pages 
    1236-1238. A copy of this article is available for review in the 
    office of the FSIS Hearing Clerk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Foodborne illness exacts a significant annual toll on the American 
    people and economy. An estimated 6.5 million to 33 million people in 
    the United States become ill and 6,000 to 9,000 die each year from 
    foodborne illness. Meat, poultry, dairy, and seafood products are the 
    foods most likely to contain contaminants. Microbial foodborne disease 
    causes an estimated $2.5 billion to $3.4 billion in medical costs and 
    reduced productivity to be spent each year for four major bacterial 
    pathogens and $2.6 billion each year for parasitic diseases.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \21\USDA, Economic Research Service, Agriculture Information 
    Bulletin No. 664-53, September 1993. A copy of this publication is 
    available in the office of the FSIS Hearing Clerk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Of the four bacterial pathogens, Salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni, 
    Listeria monocytogenes, and Escherichia coli 0157:H7, the first three 
    are found on poultry. In as many as 17.2 percent of salmonellosis 
    cases, poultry products have been implicated as the vehicle (immediate 
    source of infection). Annual medical costs attributable to 
    salmonellosis range from $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion. The costs 
    associated with campylobacteriosis cases are in the neighborhood of $1 
    billion per year. More than 40 percent of campylobacteriosis cases can 
    be attributed to the consumption of improperly handled chicken. 
    Productivity losses from such cases are estimated at over $400 million 
    for 1992.\22\ The growing proportion of the U.S. population that is 
    compromised by immunologic deficiencies and age exacerbates the problem 
    because these subpopulations are more susceptible to infection and 
    death resulting from infection.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \22\Agriculture Outlook, Economic Research Service, USDA, AO-198 
    (July 1993), pp. 33-36.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The costs associated with foodborne illness attributable to 
    improperly handled poultry are thus substantial in both human and 
    monetary terms, and the Department has undertaken a comprehensive 
    program of research, regulation, and consumer education to try to 
    improve the situation. The reduction of foodborne pathogens on meat, 
    meat food, and poultry products remains the Agency's highest research 
    priority. Eight of the Agency's ``top ten'' research topics concern 
    aspects of this problem. FSIS is developing a number of regulations, 
    including this proposed rule, to deal comprehensively with the problems 
    associated with pathogens on raw meat and poultry. For example, the 
    Agency recently promulgated a regulation requiring safe handling 
    labeling on all meat and poultry products that are raw or have not been 
    subjected to a process that would make them ready-to-eat. A vigorous 
    consumer education campaign is underway to publicize the safe handling 
    labels and to remind consumers of the importance of food safety 
    practices.
        The proposed rule would strengthen the Department's pathogen 
    reduction effort by providing enhanced assurance that ready-to-cook 
    poultry are free of disease and visible contamination that may harbor 
    pathogens. This would be accomplished, first, by requiring official 
    establishments to meet their responsibility to present for post-mortem 
    inspection only birds that have been presorted for condemnable 
    conditions. Second, FPS process tolerances for fecal contamination 
    would be eliminated. The effort to reduce such contamination is likely 
    to yield corresponding reductions in harmful bacteria on dressed 
    poultry carcasses.
        Third, the on-line/off-line carcass inspector, provided by the 
    proposal, would be able to increase FSIS oversight over establishment 
    dressing procedures, such as viscera harvest, and on-line trimming. 
    Inspectors would now have the opportunity to inspect every carcass 
    after the viscera harvest operation. Because, under the current 
    inspection systems, there is no on-line inspection position after 
    viscera removal, Federal inspectors are not able to view every carcass 
    at the end of the production line before the carcasses enter the 
    chiller. This proposal would correct that situation.
        Fourth, all reprocessed poultry would be reinspected. Added 
    assurance would thus be provided that reprocessed poultry are free of 
    visible contamination and unlikely to be a cause of cross contamination 
    when introduced into the chill system.
        Fifth, a pre-chill antimicrobial treatment step would be required. 
    This would help assure lower microbial populations on raw carcasses.
        The additional assurance of poultry wholesomeness provided by the 
    proposed regulation would increase consumer confidence in the U.S. 
    poultry supply, with further increases in the domestic and export 
    markets for U.S. poultry a likely result.
        Another benefit of the proposed regulation would be improved safety 
    and health conditions for FSIS inspectors. The new inspection 
    procedures to be implemented by this proposal would result in the 
    elimination of most repetitive inspector hand motions, and this would 
    lead in turn to a dramatic reduction in repetitive motion disorder 
    among FSIS poultry inspectors--including days off from work for medical 
    consultation and treatment. Annual claims reported by FSIS inspectors 
    (both poultry and red meat) to the Office of Workers Compensation 
    Programs of the Department of Labor have amounted to over $500,000 per 
    year for repetitive motion disorder. In addition to such well-
    publicized conditions as carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis, 
    inspector have reported cases of epicondylitis, ganglionic cyst, and 
    other conditions imposing compensation costs of $4,000 to $5,000 per 
    case.
        Finally, the proposed regulation would establish a single, uniform 
    inspection system for all classes of poultry that are subject to the 
    PPIA. Poultry processors would have added assurance that--no matter 
    what kind of poultry they market--the standards and procedures by which 
    the poultry are inspected are the same, and that all birds are expected 
    to meet uniform requirements. All establishments would be able to 
    maintain, and some establishments would be able to increase, their 
    production rates.
        The Agency would gain short-term flexibility in assigning 
    inspectors from some line positions to existing vacancies in the 
    inspection program, and long-run flexibility to train personnel in a 
    uniform methodology and to assign or reassign them more readily to 
    locations where they are most needed. Implementation of enhanced 
    poultry inspection would benefit the Agency by helping to offset the 
    need for more inspectors to meet industry growth, fulfill HACCP 
    monitoring requirements, and carry out microbiological sampling 
    programs. Finally, consumers would gain the assurance that the same 
    dressing and contamination standards had been applied to all types of 
    federally inspected poultry.
        The Agency requests that comments on these and other benefits be 
    submitted to help evaluate the advantages that could be expected from 
    implementation of a final rule.
    
    Costs of Proposed Rule
    
        The major impacts of the proposal on the poultry industry would be 
    the one-time costs associated with installing new facilities and 
    equipment and the on-going costs associated with information 
    collections and the 100-percent reinspection of reprocessed birds. 
    Preliminary estimates of these costs are summarized in Table 4. The 
    Agency requests that comments on the proposal include information on 
    the costs to the extent it is available. These comments would help 
    evaluating the costs in the final rule. As indicated in the section of 
    this preamble concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act, a detailed 
    analysis of the information collection requirements of the proposal is 
    being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget.
    
          Table 4.--Costs to Establishments Under Current Inspection Systems of Converting to Enhanced Poultry Inspection, by System and Cost Category      
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Training,                                                                          
                                               Inspection                hiring of    Reprocessing                                                          
                 Current system                stands and    Lighting    additional    inspection   Reconfiguration  Antimicrobial  Information     Total   
                                               guidebars,              establishment     cost to                       treatment     collection             
                                              installation               employees      industry*                                                           
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Traditional.............................      $792,160    $96,000     $179,000        $196,000       $40,000         $24,000       $395,000   $1,722,160
    SIS-1...................................        23,880      3,000       15,000           6,700         3,000           1,000         15,000       67,580
    SIS-2...................................       716,440          0      223,000       1,056,720       182,000          41,000        680,000    2,898,160
    NELS....................................       231,280          0       75,000         809,340        60,000          14,000        225,000    1,414,620
    NTIS-1..................................        95,520     12,000       20,000          30,240         6,000           3,000         35,000      201,760
    NTIS-2..................................       270,640          0       32,500          73,920        17,000           6,000        100,000      500,060
                                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Column totals.....................     2,129,920    110,000      544,500       2,172,920       308,000          89,000      1,450,000    6,804,340
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Indicates per-annum cost; other costs computed on one-time-only basis.                                                                                
    
        The figures listed in Table 4 take into account the number of 
    federally inspected poultry slaughter establishments currently in 
    operation and the number of slaughtering lines for each inspection 
    system. The estimates provided for inspection stand purchase and 
    installation are based on consultation with several equipment 
    manufacturers. Most of the approximately 186 establishments currently 
    operating under SIS-2 and NELS may be able to use or move existing 
    inspection stands at a cost of no more than $1,000 each. For example, 
    an establishment currently operating under the NELS inspection system 
    may be able to provide a reconfigured inspection line by moving an 
    inspection stand from the post-mortem inspection area to the pre-
    chiller carcass inspection station. Some plants, however, would have to 
    purchase or construct and install at least one new inspection stand at 
    a cost of $6,000 to $10,000 per installation. A guidebar would have to 
    be installed at each on-line post-mortem inspection station to permit 
    eviscerated birds to be presented to the inspector for examination.
        The estimates for installation of 200 foot-candle lighting take 
    into account the fact that establishments operating under several of 
    the current inspection systems (SIS, NELS, and NTIS) are already 
    provided with enhanced lighting. Establishments operating under 
    traditional inspection (as many as 96 lines) would have to install new 
    lighting at a cost of about $1,000 per purchase and installation. The 
    enhanced lighting is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of post-
    mortem inspection and the FPS checks under the new system.
        As noted, most projected costs are one-time only. A few 
    establishments may have to hire new personnel to staff some poultry 
    slaughter lines. Additional expenses for retraining establishment 
    personnel are likely to be incurred by all establishments. In addition, 
    most establishments affected by this proposal would incur miscellaneous 
    line reconfiguration expenses involving space reallocation at an 
    estimated $1,000 per establishment.
        To meet the requirement for antimicrobial treatment before the 
    chiller, approximately 30 percent of poultry plants would have to 
    install equipment. Most poultry establishments would not be affected 
    immediately by the requirement because their final washers are already 
    using an antimicrobial agent. Those establishments that are not using 
    their final washes to add an antimicrobial agent could do so for 
    approximately $500 per processing line simply connecting their existing 
    chlorine supply to their final carcass wash equipment.
        The industry would incur additional annual costs in connection with 
    the 100-percent on-line reinspection of reprocessed birds. These costs 
    have been computed on the basis of the average linespeeds for the 
    different inspection systems and the assumption of a 2-percent overall 
    rate of reprocessing. It has also been assumed that most reinspection 
    of reprocessed carcasses would result in overtime hours and that a 
    labor cost would be incurred for rehanging birds on the processing 
    line. Overtime salaries for Federal inspectors (paid by affected 
    establishments) and wages for establishment personnel have been 
    factored into the estimates. The 2-percent reprocessing rate is based 
    on approximately two years of in-plant data collection and represents 
    the national average. Through a combination of process control, good 
    husbandry practices, and good manufacturing practices individual 
    establishments can lower this rate thereby decreasing this on-going 
    cost.
        Also, an allowance for minor plant reconfigurations has been made. 
    It is expected that some establishments would have to move equipment 
    and rearrange their slaughtering lines to a limited extent to make room 
    for inspection locations.
        Below are estimated costs to the poultry industry of converting to 
    enhanced poultry inspection:
    
    Inspection and plant sorter stands and guidebars for at most 643 lines: 
    $2,129,920
    Enhanced lighting for as many as 100 lines: $110,000
    Expenses for training and hiring new establishment personnel: $544,500
    Cost of inspection of reprocessed carcasses: $2.2 million
    Miscellaneous processing line reconfiguration costs: $308,000
    Cost of minimal equipment installations to meet final wash 
    antimicrobial treatment requirement: $89,000
    Estimated annual cost of information collections: $1.4 million
    Total estimated direct impact on federally inspected establishments: 
    $6.8 million
    Estimated direct impact on (approx. 160) State-inspected establishments 
    operating under ``at least equal to'' programs: $3.4 million
    Estimated direct impact on poultry industry: $10.2 million
    
        The Agency does not expect economic losses to occur as a result of 
    slowing linespeeds due to proposed corrective action. As indicated 
    earlier in the preamble to this rule, maximum linespeeds allowed under 
    optimal conditions would remain the same. If establishment sorters 
    fulfill their responsibility, as outlined in this proposal, then 
    maximum linespeeds should be attainable. Establishments currently 
    operating under traditional inspection may be able to achieve increases 
    in linespeeds under this proposal but such action could only occur if 
    quality and safety of the outgoing product was ensured. As indicated by 
    this analysis, the industry could operate with maximum effectiveness 
    with a small investment in personnel and training. As currently 
    allowed, the FTIS inspector in charge or his/her designee would retain 
    the discretion to reduce linespeeds when necessary.
    
    Alternatives Considered
    
        FSIS considered two alternatives to this proposal that would meet 
    the Secretary's objectives. The first of the alternatives would involve 
    detaching the viscera from poultry carcasses prior to inspection and 
    presenting the organs and the carcass for inspection at the same time, 
    but separated. A separate belt or tray would be provided for the 
    viscera to prevent the viscera from contaminating the carcass. However, 
    the cost to industry would be approximately $140 million for new 
    equipment. In addition, downtime for construction and installation 
    could cost the industry as much as $780 million.
        Under the second alternative, the current post-mortem inspection 
    procedures would be retained utilizing existing inspection techniques, 
    but with an inspector at the end of the line after the viscera have 
    been removed from the carcasses to examine each carcass for fecal 
    contamination. This could be accomplished either by moving an existing 
    inspector to the end of the line, or by adding a new inspector to every 
    line, or by a combination of both arrangements. However, this would 
    mean that the Government could incur additional personnel costs of 
    approximately $16 million per annum. Further, production rates could be 
    reduced by 30 to 50 percent if the inspectors tasks remained identical, 
    but fewer inspectors were used to perform those functions. The impact 
    of the slowed linespeeds could reach $5.2 billion per year for chickens 
    and turkeys.
        In the judgment of the Agency, either of these alternatives would 
    impose unacceptable costs.
    
    Executive Order 12778
    
        This proposed rule has been reviewed pursuant to Executive Order 
    12778, Civil Justice Reform. States and local jurisdictions are 
    preempted under the PPIA from imposing any requirements with respect to 
    federally inspected premises and facilities, and operations of such 
    establishments, that are in addition to, or different than, those 
    imposed under the PPIA. States and local jurisdictions are also 
    preempted under the PPIA from imposing any marking, labeling, 
    packaging, or ingredient requirements on federally inspected poultry 
    products that are in addition to, or different than, those imposed 
    under the PPIA. States and local jurisdictions may, however, exercise 
    concurrent jurisdiction over poultry products that are outside official 
    establishments for the purpose of preventing the distribution of 
    poultry products that are misbranded or adulterated under the PPIA or, 
    in the case of imported articles, which are not at such an 
    establishment, after their entry into the United States. States and 
    local jurisdictions may also make requirements or take other actions 
    that are consistent with the PPIA, with respect to any other matters 
    regulated under the PPIA.
        Under the PPIA, States that maintain poultry product inspection 
    programs must impose requirements on State-inspected products and 
    establishments that are at least equal to those required under the 
    PPIA. These States may, however, impose more stringent requirements on 
    such State-inspected products and establishments.
        In the event of its adoption, no retroactive effect would be given 
    to this proposed rule, no administrative procedures must be exhausted 
    before any judicial challenge can be taken to the application of these 
    provisions.
    
    Effect on Small Entities
    
        The Administrator has determined that this proposed rule will not 
    have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
    The small entities affected by this proposal are small poultry 
    slaughtering establishments operating one or two slaughtering lines 
    each staffed by one FSIS food inspector. They include establishments 
    operating under the SIS-1 and NTIS-1 inspection systems, and some small 
    entities operating under the traditional inspection procedures; these 
    account for 75 of the approximately 300 poultry slaughtering 
    establishments that would be affected by the proposed rule. Thus, the 
    proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities.
        It may be assumed that each establishment with only one single-
    inspector processing line would be required to make a one-time 
    investment of about $10,000 for an inspection platform and 
    installation, enhanced lighting, equipment installation to meet the 
    requirement for antimicrobial treatment of dressed poultry, and 
    training of establishment personnel. Each establishment with two lines 
    could incur expenses of as much as $17,000.
        Also, every establishment would be required to operate a finished 
    product standards program. Establishments now operating under 
    traditional inspection would thus assume a modest information 
    collection burden.
        However, there would be no production rate reductions and, in fact, 
    small establishments could benefit from increases in production rates. 
    For example, some processing lines staffed by a single FSIS inspector 
    would now be staffed by two inspectors and plant sorters. That means 
    that, consistent with physical plant limitations, the class of poultry 
    processed, market demand for poultry products (which has been steadily 
    increasing in recent decades), and the establishment's ability to 
    maintain processing controls and quality standards, production rates on 
    these processing lines could be increased with the adoption of the 
    proposed rule. In the most favorable scenario, an establishment 
    currently operating under traditional inspection and processing young 
    chickens at the rate of 25 per minute would be able to increase its 
    production rate up to 70 birds per minute. The increase in annual 
    returns resulting from such a production-rate increase would more than 
    offset any necessary one-time investment.
        In addition, for reasons given in this notice in support of changes 
    to the FPS, there would be greater assurances of processing stability 
    and product quality under the proposed rule. Identification of product 
    requiring rework would be more certain. Resulting efficiencies could be 
    expected to yield returns that, combined with productivity gains, would 
    offset outlays for equipment in the near term for most establishments.
        For these reasons, therefore, the proposed rule would not have a 
    significant net effect on a substantial number of small entities.
    
    Paperwork Requirements
    
        This proposed rule requires paperwork and recordkeeping activities 
    that would provide FSIS with information to ensure that establishments 
    are in compliance with the proposed regulations.
        Each day, establishments would complete a form that reports that 
    day's poultry condemnations. Also, under the proposed FPS program, 
    establishments would report data on only one form. Under the current 
    FPS system, establishments complete three forms to report data from FPS 
    checks.
        Establishments using chlorinated water to meet the proposed 
    antimicrobial treatment requirements would be required to monitor the 
    concentration by testing three times a shift and keeping on file 
    records of the test results.
        Any establishment wishing to operate an approved PQC program would 
    have to send a copy of the program to the Administrator for approval. 
    Additionally, an establishment wishing to use antimicrobial compounds 
    not listed in the table of approved substances may request, in writing, 
    approval for use of such compounds from the Administrator.
        The paperwork requirements contained in this proposal have been 
    submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval under the 
    Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Comments on the 
    paperwork burden of this proposed rule should be sent to: Office of 
    Management and Budget, Desk Officer for FSIS, Office of Information and 
    Regulatory Affairs, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, 
    Washington, DC 20503, and to the Clearance Office, Room 404-W, 
    Administration Building, Washington, DC 20250.
    
    List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 381
    
        Poultry inspection, Poultry and poultry products.
    
    Proposed Rule
    
        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to 
    amend 9 CFR part 381 of the poultry products inspection regulations as 
    follows:
    
    PART 381--POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
    
        1. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138F; 7 U.S.C. 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR 
    2.17, 2.55.
    
        2. Section 381.36 would be amended by removing paragraphs (d) and 
    (e) and by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 381.36  Facilities required.
    
    * * * * *
        (c) Facilities for post-mortem inspection. The following facility 
    requirements for post-mortem inspection are in addition to the other 
    requirements to obtain a grant of inspection.
        (1) The following provisions shall apply to every inspection 
    station:
        (i) The conveyor line shall be level for the entire length of the 
    inspection. The vertical distance from the bottom of the shackles to 
    the top of the adjustable platform (paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this 
    section) in its lowest position shall not be less than 60 inches.
        (ii) Floor space shall consist of 4 feet along the conveyor line 
    for each inspector, with a total of 8 feet for the two inspection 
    stations, and 4 feet for the inspector helper provided by the 
    establishment as required under Sec. 381.76(d).
        (iii) Guidebars shall be installed in all establishments so that 
    the inspector will receive birds on at least 6-inch centers for young 
    chicken lines and at least 12-inch centers for turkey lines. The 
    guidebar must move the bird to the edge of the trough for the 
    inspector, and provide smooth, steady, and consistent movement through 
    both the on-line post-mortem inspection station and the on-line/off-
    line carcass inspection station.
        (iv) The on-line post-mortem inspection station and the on-line/
    off-line carcass inspection station shall meet the requirements 
    specified in Sec. 381.53. Each inspection station shall have a platform 
    that is slip-resistant and can be safely accessed by the inspector. The 
    platform shall be designed so that it can be easily and rapidly 
    adjusted for a minimum of 14 inches vertically while standing on the 
    platform. The platform shall be a minimum length of 4 feet and have a 
    minimum width of 2 feet; the platform shall be designed with a 42-inch 
    high rail on the back side and with \1/2\ inch foot bumpers on both 
    sides and front to allow safe working conditions. The platform must 
    have a safe lift mechanism and be large enough for the inspector to sit 
    on a stool and to change stations during breaks or inspector rotation.
        (v) Conveyor line stop/start switches shall be located within easy 
    reach of each inspector.
        (vi) A trough or other facilities complying with Sec. 381.53(g)(4) 
    shall extend beneath the conveyor at all places where processing 
    operations are conducted from the point where the carcass is opened to 
    the point after the second inspector. The trough must be of sufficient 
    width to preclude trimmings, drips, and debris from accumulating on the 
    floor or platforms. The clearance between the suspended carcasses and 
    the trough must be sufficient to preclude contamination of carcasses by 
    splash.
        (vii) A minimum of 200 footcandles of shadow-free lighting with 
    minimum color rendering index value of 85\1\ where the birds are 
    inspected to facilitate inspection, notwithstanding the requirements of 
    Sec. 381.52(b).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\This requirement may be met by deluxe cool white type of 
    fluorescent lighting.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (viii) ``On-line'' handrinsing facilities with a continuous flow of 
    water conforming to Sec. 381.51(f) shall be provided for and within 
    easy reach of each inspector and each establishment employee working on 
    the line.
        (ix) Hangback racks shall be provided for and positioned within 
    easy reach of the inspector.
        (x) The on-line post-mortem inspection station shall be provided 
    with receptacles for condemned carcasses and parts. Such receptacles 
    shall conform to the requirements of Sec. 381.53(m).
        (2) In addition to the requirements prescribed in paragraph (c)(1) 
    of this section, the establishment shall provide safely accessible 
    space for the on-line/off-line carcass inspector to perform on-line 
    inspection checks of carcasses between the viscera harvest and the 
    final wash.
        (3) Reinspection stations for Finished Product Standards (FPS) 
    monitoring, as prescribed in Sec. 381.76(h), are required. The Agency 
    will determine the number of stations needed in those establishments 
    having more than one processing line or more than one chiller. One or 
    more FPS reinspection stations shall be conveniently located at the end 
    of the line or lines prior to chilling. Each reinspection station must 
    meet the following provisions:
        (i) Floor space shall consist of 3 feet along each conveyor line. 
    The space shall be level and protected from all traffic and overhead 
    obstructions.
        (ii) A table at least 2 feet wide and 2 feet deep and 3 feet in 
    height shall be provided for reinspecting the sampled carcasses, except 
    that such a table shall be at least 3 feet wide and 2 feet deep in 
    establishments processing turkeys. All such tables shall be designed to 
    be readily cleanable and drainable.
        (iii) A minimum of 200 footcandles of shadow-free lighting with a 
    minimum color rendering index of 85\1\ on the table surface shall be 
    provided.
        (iv) A separate clip board holder shall be provided for holding the 
    recording sheets.
        (v) Hangback racks designed to hold 10 carcasses shall be provided 
    for and positioned within easy reach of persons at the station.
        3. Section 381.67 would be revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 381.67  Maximum post-mortem inspection rates.
    
        (a) The maximum post-mortem inspection rates for the classes of 
    poultry are specified in the following table. Establishments that 
    operate under an approved partial quality control (PQC) program, as 
    prescribed in Sec. 381.76(i), may operate at higher production rates 
    when optimum conditions are met. These maximum rates shall not be 
    exceeded.
    
                            Maximum Production Rates                        
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Birds per minute                
       Class of poultry    -------------------------------------------------
                                    With PQC               Without PQC      
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Young chickens........                       91                       70
    Young turkeys:                                                          
                               J-type opening cut       3-point suspension  
        Less than 16                                                        
         pounds...........                       51                       20
        More than 16                                                        
         pounds...........                       41                       16
                              Bar-type opening cut      3-point suspension  
        Less than 16                                                        
         pounds...........                       45                       20
        More than 16                                                        
         pounds...........                       35                       16
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (b) The inspector in charge or his or her designee shall be 
    responsible for reducing production rates where, in the inspector's 
    judgment, the post-mortem inspection procedure cannot be adequately 
    performed with the time available because of either of the following 
    conditions:
        (1) The official establishment cannot present the birds in such a 
    manner that the carcasses including both internal and external surfaces 
    and all organs, are readily accessible for inspection, or
        (2) The establishment cannot properly remove diseased birds or 
    properly identify contaminated birds and birds for off-line trimming or 
    knife salvage.
        4. Section 381.68 would be removed and reserved.
        5. Subpart I would be amended by adding a new Sec. 381.69 to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 381.69  Treating carcasses to reduce bacterial contamination.
    
        (a) General. Raw, unchilled poultry carcasses shall be treated at 
    any point during the slaughter and dressing operation to reduce levels 
    of bacterial contamination on carcass surfaces.
        (b) Treatment methods. Official establishments shall use any of the 
    following treatment methods to reduce bacterial contamination, provided 
    that the equipment used to apply the treatment has been approved under 
    Sec. 381.53, the operation of the method results in full compliance 
    with the Act and this part, and that the method permits effective and 
    efficient monitoring by program employees.
        (1) Any chlorine compound approved by the Administrator and 
    administered to raw, unchilled whole poultry carcasses or major carcass 
    portions at 20 to 50 parts per million (ppm) in the intake water at the 
    final wash. The Administrator will prepare a list containing compounds 
    approved for use in official establishments. A copy of the list may be 
    obtained from the Compounds and Packaging Division, Regulatory 
    Programs, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of 
    Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-3700.
        (i) The establishment must conduct three tests per 8-hour shift on 
    the intake water of each final washer using a starch-iodide titration 
    test kit, or any other chlorine analysis method acceptable to the IIC, 
    to assure that chlorine intake levels are within the range prescribed 
    above. An initial test must be conducted at the start of the shift 
    before the first carcass enters the final washer. The two other tests 
    must be conducted at randomly selected times during the shift. Records 
    of chlorine test results that specify the time of the test, chlorine 
    concentration levels, and the name and position of the person 
    administering the test shall be on file in the establishment and shall 
    be made available to program employees, upon request.
        (ii) If the chlorine level is above or below the range of 20 to 50 
    ppm available chlorine in the final wash water, the establishment shall 
    adjust the chlorine level to an acceptable level within 15 minutes. If 
    adjustments are not made within 15 minutes, the establishment shall 
    suspend the treatment and shall not permit any carcasses to enter the 
    final washer until the chlorine level is within the prescribed range.
        (2) Any antimicrobial compound listed in the table in 
    Sec. 381.147(f)(4) permitted for use on poultry products may be used 
    under the conditions specified therein.
        (3) Any compound previously approved for use in poultry or poultry 
    products as a food additive or processing aid by the Food and Drug 
    Administration (FDA) and listed in title 21 of the Code of Federal 
    Regulations, parts 73, 74, 81, 172, 173, 182, or 184 may be used, 
    provided the owner or operator has received approval for such use from 
    the Administrator in accordance with section 381.147(f)(1). The owner 
    or operator shall submit to the Administrator information and data 
    indicating the site of application and that the substance is effective 
    in reducing bacterial contamination on carcass surfaces, and its use is 
    in compliance with applicable FDA requirements and will not render the 
    carcass adulterated or misbranded or otherwise not in compliance with 
    the requirements of the Act.
        (4) Any countercurrent scalder, designed such that potable water 
    enters at or near the point where carcasses exit the scalder, overflow 
    outlets are located at or near the point where carcasses enter the 
    scalder, and exiting carcasses do not come in contact with overflow 
    water, that is used concurrently with a post-scald rinse may be used, 
    provided the equipment is evaluated and found acceptable by the 
    Administrator. The Administrator will prepare a list containing each 
    model approved for use in official establishments. A copy of the list 
    may be obtained from the Facilities, Equipment, and Sanitation 
    Division, Science and Technology, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 
    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-3700.
        (5) Any mechanical process modifications, other than that listed in 
    paragraph (b)(4) of this section, such as hot water rinses, used singly 
    or in combination with approved antimicrobial compounds may be used, 
    provided the owner or operator has received approval for such use from 
    the Administrator. The owner or operator shall submit to the 
    Administrator information and data indicating that the proposed method 
    is effective in reducing bacterial contamination on carcass surfaces, 
    and it will not render the carcass adulterated or misbranded or 
    otherwise not in compliance with the requirements of the Act.
        6. Section 381.76 would be amended by adding a heading for 
    paragraph (a), revising paragraphs (b) and (c), and adding new 
    paragraphs (d) through (h) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 381.76  Post-mortem inspection, when required; extent; rate of 
    inspection.
    
        (a) General. * * *
        (b) Line configuration. There are two inspection stations located 
    on each post-mortem inspection line. The first inspection station is 
    located immediately after the establishment sorter or sorters who are 
    positioned immediately after evisceration. This is known as the ``on-
    line post-mortem inspection station.'' The second inspection station is 
    located after the final wash and prior to the chiller. This is known as 
    the ``on-line/off-line carcass inspection station.''
        (c) Presentation. (1) The establishment is responsible for 
    presenting to the on-line post-mortem inspector only carcasses that are 
    free of pathology and disease that would result in condemnation, in 
    accordance with this part, designated for trimming or knife salvage of 
    such conditions, or designated for reprocessing. The establishment 
    shall present each carcass to the on-line post-mortem inspector 
    properly eviscerated with the back side toward the inspector and the 
    viscera uniformly trailing or leading.
        (i) The establishment shall place a sorter or sorters immediately 
    after evisceration and prior to the on-line post-mortem inspector to 
    sort the carcasses and remove and condemn the carcasses, as necessary, 
    or designate the carcasses for knife salvage, off-line trimming, or 
    reprocessing. The establishment sorter or sorters shall be positioned 
    on the processing line in a manner that does not impede inspection. The 
    establishment records the reason for condemnation of every carcass for 
    each sorter.
        (ii) The on-line post-mortem inspector shall assure that carcasses 
    are appropriately designated for knife salvage, off-line trimming, or 
    reprocessing, and that condemnable carcasses are condemned.
        (iii) If the on-line post-mortem inspector finds any birds on the 
    processing line that should have been condemned or designated for knife 
    salvage, off-line trimming, or reprocessing, he or she shall stop the 
    line for proper disposition, and require removal of such birds, and 
    recording of condemned birds by the establishment. The on-line post-
    mortem inspector shall retain questionable birds for disposition by the 
    inspector in charge.
        (iv) Carcasses with certain defects not requiring condemnation of 
    the entire carcass that were not designated by the establishment sorter 
    for off-line trimming, knife salvage, or reprocessing shall be passed 
    by the on-line post-mortem inspector, but he or she shall stop the line 
    and the establishment shall be required to remove them for off-line 
    trimming or knife salvage.
        (v) Carcasses that are designated for off-line trimming shall be 
    removed from the processing line by the establishment after the on-line 
    post-mortem inspector and prior to viscera harvest.
        (vi) Carcasses that are designated for knife salvage shall be 
    removed from the processing line by the establishment after the on-line 
    post-mortem inspector and before the viscera harvest.
        (vii) Carcasses that are designated for reprocessing shall be 
    removed from the processing line by the establishment after the on-line 
    post-mortem inspector and prior to the viscera harvest and reprocessed 
    at an approved reprocessing station, as prescribed in Sec. 381.91(b). 
    Such reprocessed birds shall be returned to the processing line by the 
    establishment after viscera harvest and prior to the on-line/off-line 
    carcass inspector for reinspection.
        (2) The establishment is responsible for presenting to the on-line/
    off-line carcass inspector only carcasses that are free of fecal 
    contamination and have been properly trimmed or reprocessed.
        (i) The establishment shall position a trimmer or trimmers between 
    the viscera harvest and the final wash to trim carcasses for trimmable 
    lesions and quality defects, and to remove for reprocessing carcasses 
    that are contaminated on inner surfaces with feces. The trimmer or 
    trimmers shall be positioned on the processing line in a manner that 
    does not impede inspection.
        (ii) If the on-line/off-line carcass inspector finds any carcasses 
    on the processing line that should have been designated for 
    reprocessing, he or she shall stop the line for proper disposition, and 
    require removal of the carcasses, and recording of any such carcasses 
    condemned by the establishment. Carcasses that are reprocessed by the 
    establishment shall be returned to the processing line by the 
    establishment at a point after the viscera harvest and prior to the on-
    line/off-line carcass inspector.
        (iii) If the on-line/off-line carcass inspector finds any fecal 
    contamination on a reprocessed carcass, the establishment shall be 
    required to rework all remaining reprocessed carcasses in that 
    reprocessed lot which shall be identified as prescribed in 
    Sec. 381.91(b).
        (iv) Under the following conditions, the establishment's production 
    rate shall be reduced immediately to the extent necessary to ensure 
    process control in preventing fecal contamination, and for such 
    duration, until FSIS determines that the establishment can demonstrate 
    process control at the higher production rate:
        (A) When the on-line/off-line carcass inspector finds any fecal 
    contamination on a carcass, other than reprocessed carcasses, or
        (B) When the establishment or the inspector finds any fecal 
    contamination on a carcass during testing under the Finished Product 
    Standards Program, as prescribed in paragraph (h) of this section.
        (d) Inspector helper. The on-line post-mortem inspector shall be 
    flanked by an establishment employee assigned to duties such as 
    removing carcasses previously designated by the establishment for knife 
    salvage, off-line trimming, or reprocessing or, as directed by the 
    inspector, removing birds for veterinary disposition or correlation.
        (e) Inspection rates. (1) Establishments shall operate at the rates 
    prescribed in Sec. 381.67. Establishments that operate under an 
    approved PQC program, as prescribed in paragraph (i) of this section, 
    may operate at higher rates than establishments operating without PQC.
        (2) For the establishment to run its production line at maximum 
    speed, optimal conditions must be maintained so that inspection may be 
    conducted efficiently. The inspector in charge or his or her designee 
    determines the speed at which each processing line may be operated to 
    permit inspection. A variety of conditions may affect this 
    determination including the health of each flock and the manner in 
    which birds are being presented to the inspector for inspection and the 
    accuracy of the establishment sorters.
        (f) Facilities. Each inspection station must comply with the 
    facility requirements in Sec. 381.37(c).
        (g) Recordkeeping. Establishments shall record information 
    pertaining to the birds that are condemned.
        (h) Finished Product Standards. The Finished Product Standards 
    (FPS) shall be conducted in all poultry slaughter establishments.
        (1) For purposes of this paragraph (h), the following definitions 
    shall apply:
        (i) Cumulative sum (CUSUM). A statistical concept used by the 
    establishment and monitored by the inspector whereby compliance is 
    determined based on sample results collected over a period of time. For 
    purposes of determining compliance with the finished product standards, 
    the CUSUM is equal to the sum of prior test results plus a measure of 
    the current test minus the tolerance, with the condition that the 
    resulting CUSUM cannot go below zero.
        (ii) Tolerance number. A measure that equates to product being 
    produced at a national product quality level.
        (iii) Action number. A level reached by the CUSUM where the process 
    is out of control and product action is required by the establishment 
    or the inspector.
        (iv) Start number. A value halfway between zero and the action 
    number. The start number is used to determine the starting CUSUM for 
    the first subgroup of a shift and to reset the CUSUM value if the CUSUM 
    is equal to or greater than the action number.
        (v) Subgroup. A 10-bird sample collected before product enter the 
    chiller.
        (vi) FPS testing. Testing conducted by the establishment to 
    determine the CUSUM on consecutive 10-bird subgroup samples collected 
    prior to product entering the chilling system.
        (vii) Rework. Reconditioning the product to correct the condition 
    or conditions causing the nonconformances listed in Table 1.
        (2) Finished Product Standards are criteria applied to processed 
    birds to ensure the product consistently meets ready-to-cook 
    requirements. The FPS Program is designed to monitor the quality and 
    effectiveness of the dressing and evisceration procedures. The criteria 
    consist of nonconformances (see Table 1 of this section), the incidence 
    of which is determined from 10-bird subgroup samples, reduced to a 
    CUSUM number, and measured against the standards (see Table 2 of this 
    section). Standards are applied to permit the Agency to estimate when 
    the production process is in control and when it is out of control. The 
    establishment is responsible for maintaining the FPS Program which, in 
    turn, is monitored by the inspector. If an out-of-compliance condition 
    is found, the product is segregated for rework, reworked, and retested 
    before it may proceed into commerce.
        (i) Actions to be taken when the process is in control. If the 
    CUSUM is less than the action number and the most recent subgroup 
    sample is tolerance or below, the process is judged to be in control.
        (A) Establishment actions. The establishment shall:
        (1) Randomly select and record subgroup sampling times for each 
    production unit of time before product reaches the FPS reinspection 
    station on the production line. In no case shall the time between tests 
    exceed 1 hour of production time.
        (2) Conduct a 10-bird subgroup test at a random time on each 
    poultry slaughter line. These times are preselected by the 
    establishment and available to the inspector prior to the start of the 
    shift/day's operation. All 10 samples of the subgroup shall be 
    collected at the random time.
        (3) Record the test results. If the subgroup total is tolerance or 
    below, conduct the next randomly scheduled subgroup test.
        (B) Inspector actions. The inspector shall:
        (1) Select random times for monitoring subgroup tests for each 
    half-shift on the evisceration line. In establishments that have 
    multiple evisceration lines on a production shift, monitor all lines of 
    product at the random times.
        (2) Collect the subgroup samples to be monitored at preselected 
    times. All 10 samples of the subgroup shall be collected at the random 
    time selected.
        (3) Conduct the 10-bird monitoring subgroup test. Record the test 
    results. If the subgroup total is tolerance or below, conduct the next 
    randomly scheduled subgroup test.
        (ii) Actions to be taken with rising CUSUM. If the establishment or 
    inspection subgroup test result is above tolerance, the process is 
    judged to be under questionable process control.
        (A) Establishment actions. The establishment shall:
        (1) Immediately notify the inspector in charge and the production 
    supervisor responsible for the affected evisceration line.
        (2) Take specific process corrective actions for each FPS category 
    with nonconformances to prevent the process from yielding product 
    requiring rework. These actions are recorded on the FPS form.
        (3) Suspend random time FPS testing. Conduct additional subgroup 
    tests a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 30 minutes apart at the 
    reinspection station to determine the adequacy of process corrective 
    actions. Include the test results in the CUSUM. If the testing results 
    in an additional subgroup total exceeding tolerance or CUSUM equals or 
    exceeds the action number, identify subsequent product for rework and 
    follow procedures for process out of control.
        (4) If two consecutive additional subgroup tests a minimum of 15 
    and a maximum of 30 minutes apart demonstrate process control with 
    subgroup totals equal to or less than tolerance, but they do not cause 
    CUSUM to fall to the start line or below, reset CUSUM at the start 
    number.
        (5) Resume random time subgroup testing as set forth in actions to 
    be taken when the process is in control.
        (B) Inspector actions. The inspector shall monitor product and the 
    effectiveness of process corrective actions by making spot-check 
    observations to ensure that all program requirements are met.
        (iii) Actions to be taken when the CUSUM reaches the action number. 
    If the subgroup test results in CUSUM equal to or exceeding the action 
    number, or results in a rising CUSUM and a subsequent subgroup test 
    above tolerance, the process is judged not in control.
        (A) Establishment actions. The establishment shall:
        (1) Identify subsequent product for rework.
        (2) Immediately notify the inspector in charge and production 
    supervisor responsible for the affected evisceration line.
        (3) Take specific process corrective actions for each FPS category 
    with nonconformances to regain process control and minimize rework. 
    These actions shall be recorded on the FPS form.
        (4) Suspend random time testing. Conduct additional subgroup tests 
    at the reinspection station to determine the adequacy of process 
    corrective actions. Include the test results in the CUSUM.
        (5) After two consecutive subgroup tests at least 30 minutes apart 
    result in subgroup totals equal to or less than tolerance, identify 
    product that will mark the end of the rework action.
        (6) If two consecutive additional subgroup tests demonstrate 
    process control with subgroup totals equal to or less than tolerance, 
    but they do not cause CUSUM to fall to the start line or below, reset 
    CUSUM at the start number.
        (7) Resume random time subgroup testing as set forth in actions to 
    be taken when the process is in control.
        (B) Inspector action. The inspector shall monitor product and the 
    effectiveness of process corrective actions by making spot-check 
    observations to ensure that all program requirements are met.
        (iv) Off-line rework of product. (A) When the product has been 
    identified as having been produced when the process was not in control, 
    off-line product corrective actions must take place. All corrective 
    actions such as identifying affected product, segregating product, and 
    maintaining control through rework actions are the establishment's 
    responsibility.
        (B) The inspector shall spot check the establishment's 
    identification, segregation, and control of reworked product to ensure 
    that program requirements are met. If the establishment fails in its 
    responsibilities, the inspector shall identify, segregate, and retain 
    affected product to prevent adulterated product from reaching 
    consumers.
        (C) Reworked product must be tested by the establishment with a 
    randomly selected subgroup test of the accumulated reworked lot. Before 
    product is released, the subgroup test must be less than or equal to 
    tolerance. If the subgroup test of the reworked lot exceeds tolerance, 
    the lot must be reworked again before another subgroup test is 
    selected. The following actions are required.
        (1) Establishment actions. The establishment shall:
        (i) Select the 10-bird subgroup from throughout the lot only after 
    the total lot has been reworked.
        (ii) Conduct the 10-bird test.
        (iii) Release the lot if the subgroup test is less than or equal to 
    tolerance.
        (iv) Identify and control the lot to be reworked again if the 
    subgroup again exceeds tolerance.
        (2) Inspector actions. The inspector shall spot check the rework 
    procedure and testing to ensure that establishment monitoring and 
    production meet the requirements of the program.
        (3) Trimmable Lesion/Condition Testing and Actions. The trimmable 
    lesion/condition test is designed to monitor the establishment's 
    ability to remove trimmable lesions and conditions from inspected and 
    passed carcasses. The trimmable lesions and conditions in this category 
    include, but are not limited to, the definition of trimmable lesion/
    condition nonconformances (see Table 1). A 300-bird test is conducted 
    on-line at the reinspection collection site at the end of the slaughter 
    process. The test follows the same random schedule selected for FPS 
    category testing and is conducted immediately following the FPS 10-bird 
    test. Zero tolerance for trimmable lesion/condition nonconformances is 
    met through testing and actions independent of the other FPS 
    nonconformance categories. Trimmable lesions and conditions detected on 
    carcasses through the FPS 10-bird test are removed before carcasses are 
    returned to product flow. All product identified through the 300-bird 
    on-line test as having trimmable lesions or conditions is retained, 
    reworked, and retested before proceeding into commerce.
        (i) Actions to be taken when the process is in control. When no 
    trimmable lesions or conditions are found on the 300-bird on-line test, 
    the process is judged in control.
        (A) Establishment actions. The establishment shall:
        (1) Randomly select and record subgroup sampling times for each 
    production unit of time before product reaches the reinspection station 
    on each production line. In no case shall a test represent more than 1 
    hour of production.
        (2) Conduct 300-bird on-line test at random selected time on each 
    poultry slaughter line. Record the test results. If no trimmable 
    lesion/condition is detected, continue the random scheduled time 300-
    bird on-line testing.
        (B) Inspector actions. The inspector shall:
        (1) Select random times for 300-bird on-line tests for a minimum of 
    each half-shift on each evisceration line. In establishments that have 
    multiple evisceration lines on a production shift, monitor all lines of 
    product at the random times.
        (2) Conduct the 300-bird on-line test at random selected time on 
    each poultry slaughter line. Record the test results. If no trimmable 
    lesion/condition is detected, conduct the next 300-bird on-line test at 
    random scheduled time.
        (3) If either establishment or inspection monitoring finds a 
    trimmable lesion/condition during a 300-bird on-line test, the process 
    is judged out of control.
        (ii) Actions to be taken when the process is out of control. When 
    any trimmable lesions or conditions are found on the 300-bird on-line 
    test, the process is judged out of control.
        (A) Establishment actions. The establishment shall:
        (1) Immediately identify subsequent product for rework.
        (2) Immediately notify the inspector in charge of trimmable lesion/
    condition.
        (3) Record specific process corrective actions taken for the 
    trimmable lesion/condition category on the test sheet.
        (4) Suspend random time testing for the trimmable lesion/condition 
    category.
        (5) Conduct additional 300-bird on-line tests after the final wash 
    to determine the adequacy of process corrective actions.
        (6) After a 300-bird on-line test is free of any trimmable lesion/
    condition:
        (i) Identify product that will mark the end of the rework action.
        (ii) Resume random time 300-bird on-line testing as set forth in 
    actions to be taken when the process is in control.
        (B) Inspector actions. The inspector shall monitor product and the 
    effectiveness of process corrective actions by making spot-check 
    observations to ensure that all program requirements are met.
        (iii) Off-line rework of product. (A) When the product has been 
    identified as having been produced when the process was not in control, 
    off-line product corrective actions must take place. All corrective 
    actions such as identifying affected product, segregating product, and 
    maintaining control through rework actions are the establishment's 
    responsibility.
        (B) The inspector shall spot check the establishment's 
    identification, segregation, and control of reworked product to ensure 
    that program requirements are met. If the establishment fails in its 
    responsibilities, the inspector shall identify, segregate, and retain 
    affected product to prevent adulterated product from reaching 
    consumers.
        (C) Reworked product must be tested by the establishment with a 
    randomly selected subgroup test of the accumulated reworked lot. Before 
    product is released, the subgroup test must be free of any trimmable 
    lesion/condition. If the subgroup test of the reworked lot detects a 
    trimmable lesion/condition, the lot must be reworked again before 
    another subgroup test is conducted. The following actions are required.
        (1) Establishment actions. The establishment shall:
        (i) Select a subgroup sample from throughout the lot only after the 
    total lot has been reworked.
        (ii) Conduct the rework subgroup test.
        (iii) Release the lot if no trimmable lesion/condition is found in 
    the reworked lot.
        (iv) Identify and control the lot to be reworked again if any 
    trimmable lesion/condition is found in the reworked lot.
        (2) Inspector actions. The inspector shall monitor product and the 
    effectiveness of process corrective actions by making spot-check 
    observations to ensure that all program requirements are met.
    
    Table 1--Finished Product Standards Definitions of Nonconformances
    
    1  Bruises \1/2\''
    
    --Blood clumps or clots in the superficial layers of tissue, skin, 
    muscle or loose subcutaneous tissue may be slit and the blood 
    completely washed out. When the bruise extends into the deeper layers 
    of muscle, the affected tissue must be removed. Very small bruises less 
    than \1/2\'' (dime size) and areas showing only slight reddening need 
    not be counted as defects.
    --Black/green bruises are bruises that have changed from red to a 
    black/blue or green color due to age.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of three incidents per carcass.
    Breast Blister
    --Inflammatory tissue, fluid, or pus between the skin and keel must be 
    trimmed if membrane ``slips'' or if firm nodule is greater than \1/2\'' 
    in diameter (dime size).
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of one incident per carcass.
    Sores, Scabs, Etc.
    --Any defects such as sores, abscesses, scabs, wounds, dermatitis.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of three incidents per carcass.
    Untrimmed Short Hocks
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of two incidents per carcass.
    
    2  Hair >\1/4\'' 26 or more
    
    --Hair which is one-fourth inch long or longer measured from the top of 
    the follicle to the end of the hair. 26 or more hairs equal one 
    incident.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of one incident per carcass.
    Feathers and/or Pinfeathers
    --Attached feathers or protruding pinfeathers. Scored 1 to 5 per 
    carcass as one incident, 5 to 10 per carcass as two incidents, and 11 
    or more as three incidents.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of three incidents per carcass.
    Long Shank--Both Condyles Covered
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of two incidents per carcass.
    
    3  Compound Fracture
    
    --Any bone fracture (i.e., leg, wing, or wingtip) that has caused an 
    opening through the skin. May be accompanied with a bruise, but not 
    always. Do not count the bruise in line 3 if it is associated with the 
    compound fracture.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of three incidents per carcass.
    
        Note: Bruises not associated with the fracture should be 
    recorded in the appropriate lines.
    External Mutilation
    --Mutilation to the skin and/or muscle that is caused by the slaughter, 
    dressing, or eviscerating processes. Skinned elbows (bucked wings) do 
    not require trim unless affected wing joint capsule is also opened.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of three incidents per carcass.
    
    4  Oil Glands Remnant or Whole
    
    --Recognizable fragment(s) up to a whole of one or both oil glands 
    equals one incident.
    --Factor is one.
    --Maximum of one incident per carcass.
    
    5  Intestine
    
    --Any identifiable portion of the terminal portion of the intestinal 
    tract with a lumen (closed circle) present, or split piece of intestine 
    large enough to be closed to form a lumen.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of one incident per carcass.
    Cloaca
    --Any identifiable portion of the terminal portion of the intestinal 
    tract with mucosal lining.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of one incident per carcass.
    Bursa of Fabricius
    --A whole rosebud, or identifiable portion with two or more mucosal 
    folds.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of one incident per carcass.
    
    6  Lung
    
    --Any portion of a lung equals one incident.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of one incident per carcass.
    
    7  Esophagus
    
    --Any portion of the esophagus with identifiable mucosal lining.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of one incident per carcass.
    Crop
    --Any portion of the crop that includes the mucosal lining or any 
    complete crop.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of one incident per carcass.
    Trachea
    --Identifiable portion of trachea.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of one incident per carcass.
    
    8  Extraneous Material
    
    --Include any specks, tiny smears, or stains of material that measure 
    \1/16\'' or less in the greatest dimension.
    
        Examples: Ingesta, unattached feathers, grease, and bile 
    remnants, and/or whole gall bladder or spleen, embryonic yolk, etc.
    
    --Factor is one.
    --1 to 5 = 1 defect; 6 to 10 = 2 defects; 11 or more = 3 defects. A 
    maximum of three incidents per carcass.
    Extraneous Material >\1/16\''
    --The same material as Extraneous material <\1 6\''="" but="" measuring="">\1/
    16\'' in the longest dimension.
    --Any occurrence equals one incident.
    --Factor is one.
    --A maximum of three incidents per carcass.
    
    9  Trimmable Lesions/Condition
    
    --A trimmable tumor or identifiable portion of a tumor on any part of 
    the carcass.
    --Trimmable synovitis/airsacculitis (saddle/frog) lesions that have not 
    been removed.
    --Lesion/condition subject to removal following an approved cleanout 
    process.
    
        Examples: Salpingitis, nephritis, spleen, or liver conditions 
    requiring removal of the kidneys.
    
    --All kidneys from mature poultry.
    
        Note: All establishments shall develop and maintain a permanent 
    marking system that identifies carcasses with removable lesions/
    conditions on the inside surfaces. When removable lesions/conditions 
    are identified inside the carcass by the establishment sorter, the 
    sorter will apply the permanent mark. When removable inside lesions/
    conditions are found on a subgroup sample without the permanent 
    mark, the error is not recorded. The affected carcass(es) will be 
    hung back for IIC disposition and corrective action.
    
    Table 2--Finished Product Standards Limits
    
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
    Tolerance number (T).............................................     25
    Action number....................................................     10
    Start number.....................................................      5
                                                                            
    
        (i) Partial quality control program. (1) Any owner or operator of 
    an official establishment preparing poultry products who wishes to 
    operate under an approved PQC program must submit to the Administrator 
    a partial quality control program designed to assure that poultry is 
    wholesome and properly prepared and shall request a determination as to 
    whether or not that program is adequate to result in product being in 
    compliance with the requirements of the Act and therefore qualify for 
    the higher inspection rates specified in Sec. 381.67.
        (2) The approved quality control program for the establishment 
    shall include control points on the line, which shall be monitored by 
    the inspector.
        (3) Establishment quality control employees shall operate the 
    poultry carcass on-line quality control program and shall make 
    immediately available to inspection personnel any and all data 
    collected and maintained under the approved partial quality control 
    program.
        (4) An inspector shall monitor the establishment's application of 
    the poultry carcass on-line quality control program and shall take 
    corrective action when he or she determines that the establishment has 
    failed to maintain or correct its process as described in the approved 
    quality control program.
        (5) The application, evaluation, and termination procedures for a 
    PQC program are prescribed in Sec. 381.145. If approval of the PQC 
    program has been terminated in accordance with the provisions of 
    Sec. 381.145(g), an application and request for approval of the same or 
    modified quality control program will not be evaluated by the 
    Administrator for at least 2 months from the termination date. In order 
    for the Department to provide the Federal inspection required under the 
    Act, an establishment whose PQC program has been terminated will be 
    allowed to continue operating at maximum inspection rates for 
    establishments without PQC programs as prescribed in Sec. 381.67, 
    provided all requirements of the Act and regulations thereunder are 
    met.
        7. Section 381.91 would be amended by revising the last sentence of 
    paragraph (b)(1), by redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as paragraph 
    (b)(3), and by adding a new paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 381.91  Contamination.
    
    * * * * *
        (b)(1) * * * All visible specks of contamination must be removed, 
    and, if the inner surfaces are reprocessed other than solely by 
    trimming, all surfaces of the carcass shall be treated with chlorinated 
    water containing 20 ppm available chlorine or with any compound that is 
    approved for poultry processing by the Food and Drug Administration and 
    listed in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I.
        (2) When reprocessing carcasses, the establishment shall:
        (i) Identify all reprocessed carcasses by lot in a manner 
    acceptable to the inspector in charge,
        (ii) Return each reprocessed lot to the processing line at a 
    location after viscera harvest and before the on-line/off-line carcass 
    inspector for reinspection, and
        (iii) Comply with the general chilling time and temperature 
    requirements prescribed in Sec. 381.66(b)(2).
    * * * * *
        Done at Washington, DC, on July 7, 1994.
    Patricia A. Jensen,
    Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 94-16817 Filed 7-11-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3410-DM-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
07/13/1994
Department:
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
94-16817
Dates:
Comments must be received on or before October 11, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: July 13, 1994, Docket No. 94-016P
RINs:
0583-AB79
CFR: (10)
9 CFR 381.52(b)
9 CFR 381.91(b)
9 CFR 381.147(f)(4)
9 CFR 381.145(g)
9 CFR 381.36
More ...