This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

24873 

Vol. 77, No. 81 

Thursday, April 26, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

9 CFR Parts 381 and 500 

[Docket No. FSIS–2011–0012] 

RIN 0583–AD32 

Modernization of Poultry Slaughter 

Inspection 

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is extending 

the comment period for the proposed 

rulemaking ‘‘Modernization of Poultry 

Slaughter Inspection’’ and responding to 

questions and addressing issues that 

have been raised concerning the 

proposed rule. The comment period was 

scheduled to close on April 26, 2012. 

During the comment period, a coalition 

of consumer advocacy organizations and 

two trade associations representing the 

poultry industry asked that FSIS clarify 

certain aspects of the proposed rule to 

help inform their comments. This 

document summarizes the issues raised 

by these groups and FSIS’s response. 

FSIS is also soliciting additional 

comments on how it should implement 

the final rule resulting from the 

proposal and requesting available data 

on any worker safety issues associated 

with increased line speeds. 

FSIS received a request to hold a 

public technical meeting on the 

proposed rule. FSIS does not believe 

that such a meeting would be useful. 

The Agency will, however, assess public 

understanding of the proposed rule in 

connection with its review and 

evaluation of the comments submitted 

and will respond as appropriate. 

DATES: The proposed rule published 

January 27, 2012 (77 FR 4408) is 

extended. Comments are due May 29, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by either of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: This 

Web site provides the ability to type 

short comments directly into the 

comment field on this Web page or 

attach a file for lengthier comments. Go 

to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. 

• Mail, including floppy disks or CD– 

ROMs, and hand- or courier-delivered 

items: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

FSIS, Docket Clerk, Patriots Plaza 3, 355 

E. Street SW., 8–163A, Mailstop 3782, 

Washington, DC 20250–3700. 

Instructions: All items submitted by 

mail or electronic mail must include the 

Agency name and docket number FSIS– 

2011–0012. Comments received in 

response to this docket will be made 

available for public inspection and 

posted without change, including any 

personal information, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Daniel Engeljohn, Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Policy and 

Program Development, FSIS, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–3700, (202) 720– 

2709. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 27, 2012, FSIS published 

a proposed rule, ‘‘Modernization of 

Poultry Slaughter Inspection’’ (77 FR 

4408). In that document, the Agency 

proposed a new inspection system for 

young chicken and turkey slaughter 

establishments that would replace all of 

the existing inspection systems except 

for traditional inspection. Key elements 

of the proposed new inspection system 

include: (1) Requiring that 

establishment personnel sort carcasses 

and remove unacceptable carcasses and 

parts before the birds are presented to 

the FSIS carcass inspector; (2) reducing 

the number of on-line carcass inspectors 

to one; (3) permitting faster line speeds 

than are permitted under the existing 

inspection systems; and (4) replacing 

the existing Finished Product Standards 

(FPS) with a requirement that 

establishments that operate under the 

new inspection system maintain records 

to document that the products resulting 

from their slaughter operations meet the 

definition of ready-to-cook poultry. In 

addition to the proposed new inspection 

system, FSIS also proposed changes that 

would require, among other things, that 

all establishments that slaughter poultry 

other than ratites develop, implement, 

and maintain written procedures to 

prevent contamination of carcasses and 

parts by enteric pathogens and fecal 

material, and that they incorporate these 

procedures into their HACCP plan or 

sanitation standard operating 

procedures (SOP) or other prerequisite 

programs. 

During the comment period for the 

proposal, FSIS officials met with 

representatives from a coalition of 

consumer advocacy organizations and 

two trade associations representing the 

poultry industry. The consumer 

advocacy coalition and one of the trade 

associations had requested that FSIS 

clarify certain aspects of the proposed 

rule to inform their comments on the 

proposal. Because the issues addressed 

in these meetings may be relevant to the 

development of comments from other 

stakeholders, a brief summary of these 

issues and the Agency’s response are 

described below. The other trade 

association requested that FSIS provide 

additional information on how the 

Agency intends to implement the 

proposed new poultry inspection 

system. The groups submitted written 

questions to the Agency to consider 

before each meeting. The issues raised 

on implementation are summarized in a 

separate section of this document that 

outlines and requests comments on how 

the Agency plans to implement the final 

rule. 

Summary of Issues Raised and FSIS 

Response 

In addition to the questions outlined 

below, certain members of consumer 

advocacy organizations requested that 

FSIS hold a public technical meeting on 

the proposed rule. FSIS is clarifying 

certain aspects of the proposed rule in 

this Federal Register notice and will 

assess public understanding of the 

proposed rule in connection with its 

review and evaluation of the comments 

submitted. The Agency will provide any 

needed clarification if a final rule is 

adopted. 

Following is a summary of the issues 

raised and FSIS’s response. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24874 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1. Issues Raised by the Consumer 

Advocacy Coalition 

Comment: Why does FSIS believe that 

it is preferable for plant employees to 

sort carcasses? 

FSIS response: Under the existing 

inspection systems, on-line inspectors 

conduct activities that do not have a 

direct impact on public health. If the 

proposal is finalized, and the 

establishment conducts sorting 

activities, the only birds presented to 

the carcass inspector (CI) would be 

those that are likely to pass inspection. 

Therefore, the CI will be able to focus 

on food safety-related activities, such as 

verifying that carcasses affected by 

septicemia or toxemia or contaminated 

with visible fecal material do not enter 

the chiller. For these reasons, the 

Agency is proposing to remove certain 

on-line inspection activities that are not 

directly related to public health. 

Comment: Is there any guarantee that 

FSIS inspectors would be performing 

more food safety-related activities under 

the proposed new inspection system? 

FSIS response: Yes, generally 

inspectors would be performing more 

food safety-related activities. There are 

three important aspects of the proposed 

rule that would allow FSIS inspectors to 

conduct more food safety-related 

activities. First, because the on-line CI 

would not be responsible for sorting 

carcasses for quality-related defects, the 

amount of time that the CI spends 

focusing on food safety-related activities 

would increase. Second, under the 

proposed new inspection system, the 

offline verification inspector (VI) would 

primarily conduct food safety-related 

activities, such as verifying compliance 

with HACCP and sanitation SOP 

requirements and collecting product 

samples. Third, because FSIS considers 

contamination by enteric pathogens and 

fecal contamination to be hazards that 

are reasonably likely to occur, FSIS is 

proposing to require that all 

establishments that slaughter poultry 

have written programs to address 

sanitary dressing procedures, and that, 

at a minimum, these procedures include 

microbiological testing at pre-chill and 

post-chill to monitor process control. In 

addition to conducting verification 

checks on carcasses, FSIS off-line 

inspectors would be reviewing the 

establishment’s records and test results 

to verify that the establishment 

maintains process control. 

Comment: What type of training 

would FSIS require for establishment 

employees assigned to sort carcasses? 

FSIS response: The proposed rule 

does not prescribe training for 

establishment employees. However, as 

noted in the preamble to the proposed 

rule, FSIS expects to convert the current 

instructions that it provides to Agency 

inspectors into guidance for industry to 

use to train plant sorters (77 FR 4419). 

Comment: What would establishment 

employees be required to do as part of 

their sorting activities? 

FSIS response: Should the rule 

become final, establishment sorters 

would be required to identify carcasses 

with septicemia/toxemia and other 

condemnable conditions and to remove 

them from the line before they reach the 

CI. Establishment employees would also 

need to conduct trimming and reprocessing before the birds reach the CI. 

Comment: Will establishment 

employees need to look inside the bird 

as part of their sorting responsibilities? 

FSIS response: Septicemic/toxemic 

birds exhibit signs on the outside of the 

carcass, so there is no need to look at 

the viscera. The regulations that 

prescribe conditions for condemnation 

in 9 CFR 381.81–381.93 would still 

apply. Establishment personnel would 

need to conduct sorting activities to 

address these condemnable conditions 

before the birds reach the CI. The 

conditions described in these 

regulations can be readily identified by 

examining the outside of the carcass. 

Lesions on the viscera do not require 

condemnation of the entire carcass 

except for lesions associated with 

visceral leukosis. The proposed rule 

provides for a 300-bird inspection of 

young chickens with the viscera (77 

CFR 4421–4422). If the inspector finds 

signs or symptoms associated with 

visceral leukosis, then the entire flock 

would be inspected for the disease. All 

growers vaccinate birds for visceral 

leukosis. Therefore, it is seen only on 

rare occasions if the vaccine fails. 

Comment: How does the proposed 

rule address other consumer protection 

(OCP) issues, such as digestive tract 

contents found on products, that may 

affect internal parts of the carcass? 

FSIS response: There is a difference 

between fecal material and ingesta as 

digestive tract contents. We have no 

evidence to show that ingesta carries the 

same microbes as fecal contamination. 

Under the proposal, FSIS would enforce 

OCP processing defects that are 

associated with digestive tract contents, 

other than fecal contamination, in 

enforcing the ready-to-cook (RTC) 

poultry standard. 

Comment: Where would the 

establishment’s critical control point 

(CCP) for visible fecal contamination be 

located? 

FSIS response: FSIS does not 

prescribe where establishments must 

locate CCPs. The CI would be located 

before the chiller. Visible fecal 

contamination would need to be 

removed before the carcass is presented 

to the CI. The VI would be conducting 

verification checks for fecal 

contamination off-line. If the VI detects 

fecal contamination offline, the plant 

has exceeded the zero tolerance for 

visible fecal contamination. 

The present inspection system is 

similar to the proposed system in that 

there are inspectors located upstream, 

and zero tolerance is enforced at a point 

at final wash, before the carcass enters 

the chiller. However, under the 

proposed new system the CI is more 

likely to observe visible fecal 

contamination because the carcasses 

would be free from animal diseases and 

trim and processing defects. 

Comment: Under the proposed rule, 

can FSIS take regulatory action 

throughout the entire dressing process? 

FSIS Response: The proposed rule 

would require that establishments 

develop, implement, and maintain 

procedures to address contamination by 

enteric pathogens and fecal material 

throughout the entire slaughter and 

dressing process. Through inspection 

activities, FSIS would ensure that the 

establishment’s procedures are effective, 

and the Agency would take appropriate 

regulatory action when necessary. 

Comment: Would there be an 

approval process for the establishment’s 

procedures to prevent contamination 

with enteric pathogens and fecal 

material? 

FSIS response: There would be no 

pre-approval of an establishment’s 

procedures. However, establishments 

would need to ensure that their 

procedures for preventing 

contamination are effective. To verify 

that an establishment’s procedures are 

effective, FSIS would consider: (1) The 

microbiological data that the 

establishment would be required to 

collect pre-chill and post-chill to 

demonstrate process control; (2) 

presence of visible fecal contamination; 

and (3) FSIS sampling results for 

Salmonella and Campylobacter. 

Comment: What was the basis for the 

baseline sampling numbers presented in 

the preamble to the proposed rule (74 

FR 4442)? 

FSIS response: The estimates for 

sampling come from the economic 

analysis and reflect what we estimate to 

be the amount of sampling that plants 

would conduct if the proposed rule is 

adopted by the Agency. We are not 

proposing to prescribe how often 

establishments must test. 

Establishments would need to 

determine the frequency and type of 

sampling that would be sufficient to 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24875 

demonstrate that they are maintaining 

process control. 

Comment: Why is FSIS not mandating 

a frequency for testing? 

FSIS response: As stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, FSIS is 

proposing to require that an 

establishment’s sampling frequency be 

adequate to monitor the effectiveness of 

its process control for enteric pathogens 

(77 FR 4428). The frequency with which 

establishments would need to conduct 

such testing would depend on a number 

of factors, including their production 

volume, the source of their flocks, their 

slaughter and dressing process, and the 

consistency of their microbial test 

results over time. Because the testing 

frequency would be an integral part of 

an establishment’s HACCP system 

verification procedures, establishments 

would need to collect and maintain data 

to demonstrate that their testing 

frequency is adequate to verify the 

effectiveness of their process control 

procedures. 

Comment: Why did the Agency 

propose two points for microbiological 

testing instead of three? 

FSIS response: As noted in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, FSIS had 

considered requiring testing at three 

points in the process, i.e., re-hang, prechill and post-chill (77 FR 4428). The 

proposed rule provides for testing at 

pre-chill and post-chill because the 

Agency tentatively concluded that 

verification testing conducted at these 

two points would provide the evidence 

establishments need to verify that their 

process control measures are effective in 

preventing carcasses from becoming 

contaminated with pathogens. In the 

preamble to the proposed rule, the 

Agency explained that it considered 

requiring a third verification test at the 

re-hang position to monitor the 

incoming load of pathogens but 

tentatively decided that it was not 

necessary to impose the additional costs 

that would be associated with testing at 

this point (77 FR 4428). FSIS also 

considered requiring only one 

verification test at any position along 

the production line to provide 

maximum flexibility but concluded this 

approach may not be sufficient to 

monitor the effectiveness of an 

establishment’s procedures to prevent 

contamination throughout the slaughter 

and dressing operation. The Agency 

requests comments on these 

alternatives. 

Comment: Can CI inspectors stop or 

slow the line? 

FSIS response: If the CI observes a 

condemnable condition, either food 

safety or generalized OCP condition 

requiring condemnation of the entire 

carcass, the CI would be authorized to 

stop the line to prevent such carcasses 

from entering the chiller. The CI would 

communicate the findings to the VI and 

inspector-in-charge (IIC). The IIC would 

consider available data to reset the line 

speed. Line speed would be determined 

by IIC’s assessment of the frequency of 

carcass defects identified by the CI and 

the VI and the plant’s control of its 

processes. 

Comment: Would offline inspectors 

be available to visually inspect carcasses 

under the proposed new system. 

FSIS response: The off-line VI would 

be checking carcasses to verify that they 

do not contain food safety-related 

contamination or defects. 

Comment: How many HACCP 

verification activities would occur 

under the new system versus the old 

system? 

FSIS Response: HACCP and sanitation 

verification activities would be a higher 

fraction of inspection activities under 

the proposed new inspection system as 

the Agency reduces its focus on quality 

and other OCP defects. 

Comment: What is the relationship 

between the ready-to-cook (RTC) 

poultry standard in the proposed rule 

and the existing Finished Product 

Standards (FPS)? 

FSIS response: Poultry products that 

comply with the FPS meet the 

definition of RTC poultry under the 

existing regulations; i.e., they are 

suitable for cooking without the need 

for further processing. The FPS have 

been in place for many years and were 

used to inform the OCP standards in the 

HIMP pilot. These OCP standards reflect 

OCP performance in establishments 

before HIMP. Establishments operating 

under HIMP maintained OCP defect 

levels that average about half the 

corresponding OCP performance 

standards. Therefore, FSIS has 

determined that it is not necessary to 

require that establishments operating 

under the proposed new inspection 

system meet prescriptive OCP 

performance standards in order to 

produce RTC poultry. Under the 

proposed rule, establishments operating 

under the proposed new inspection 

system would have the flexibility to 

implement the process controls that 

they have determined would best allow 

them to produce RTC poultry. 

Comment: What happens to the 

carcasses and parts that are rejected by 

the plant? 

FSIS response: All regulations that 

apply to condemned carcasses/parts 

would still apply under the new 

inspection system, e.g., denaturing and 

diverting away from human food. The 

off-line VI would verify that the plant is 

properly disposing of inedible and 

condemned carcasses and parts. 

Comment: For OCP defects under 

HIMP, there is a moving window in 

which there is non-compliance if the 

plant exceeds OCP standards. What 

about under the proposed rule? 

FSIS response: The Agency is moving 

away from using the moving window to 

meet OCP performance standards. 

Under the proposed rule, establishments 

would determine how they would 

document that they are producing RTC 

poultry. The Agency is not prescribing 

where or how establishments would 

address OCP defects. 

Comment: If establishments under the 

proposed new inspection system are 

permitted to increase the line speed, 

would the CI continue to detect 

problems? 

FSIS response: Analysis of HIMP data 

shows that CIs are able to detect fecal 

contamination and septicemia/toxemia 

at line speeds of up to 175 birds per 

minute (bpm) for young chickens. 

Comment: Did the Agency consider 

the effects of faster line speeds on 

worker safety? 

FSIS response: FSIS did consider 

potential effects on safety. The Agency 

is prepared to address worker safety 

within the bounds of its regulatory 

authority and will coordinate with the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) as the 

regulatory process moves forward. The 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) study 

described in the proposed rule is a start 

to determine what the current baseline 

performance indicators for worker safety 

in plants are before an increase in line 

speeds. We will use the NIOSH 

assessment tool and consider ways that 

we can supplement the NIOSH study. 

We are interested in comments on the 

effects of line speed and worker safety. 

Comment: Why did the Agency 

propose to reduce the length of the CI 

inspection station so that there is no 

room for a helper? 

FSIS response: Helpers are necessary 

under the existing inspection systems 

because the inspectors are sorting, and 

the birds have more defects. The 

proposed rule does not preclude an 

establishment from assigning a helper, 

but because the birds presented to the 

CI would have fewer defects, there is no 

need for a helper. Therefore, under the 

proposed rule, the requirement for the 

helper stand at the inspection CI 

inspection station would be removed. 

Comment: The Salmonella results in 

the HIMP report compare HIMP plants 

with comparison plants. How many of 

the HIMP plants, and how many of the 

comparison plants, had received 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24876 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

waivers for on-line reprocessing (OLR) 

in each year since the HIMP pilot 

began? Is it possible that OLR was 

responsible for lower Salmonella 

positive rates? 

FSIS response: Before November 

2011, FSIS did not track the date of 

implementation of approved waivers for 

OLR systems. In November 2011, all 

establishments with existing waivers 

were required to participate in the 

Salmonella Initiative Project (SIP) or 

forfeit their waivers. FSIS is able to 

track the dates that OLR waivers were 

implemented under SIP. Based on 

information obtained under SIP, as of 

March 2011, 15 of the 20 HIMP plants 

had waivers for OLR (75%), and 61 of 

the 64 comparison plants had waivers 

for OLR (95.3%). 

2. Issues Raised by the Trade 

Association 

Comment: Can FSIS clarify how 

visible fecal contamination would be 

handled under the new poultry 

inspection system? 

FSIS response: An important aspect of 

the proposed rule is the provision that 

requires that all poultry establishments 

develop procedures to prevent fecal 

contamination and contamination by 

enteric pathogens throughout the entire 

process and not just cleaning up the 

birds at the end of the process. These 

written procedures would need to be 

incorporated into the HACCP system. 

Therefore, FSIS would not just be 

checking at the end of the line to verify 

that the establishment’s procedures for 

preventing contamination are effective. 

FSIS would be conducting verification 

activities throughout the entire process 

to assess whether the process is in 

control, including proper 

implementation and effective corrective 

actions. Findings of fecal contamination 

throughout the process would indicate a 

lack of process control. The proposed 

rule also requires that all poultry 

slaughter establishments have 

procedures to prevent carcasses with 

visible fecal contamination from 

entering the chiller, and that they 

incorporate these procedures into their 

HACCP system. FSIS would consider 

these procedures to be ineffective if a 

contaminated carcass entered the 

chiller. 

Comment: How were the line speeds 

referenced in the proposed rule 

determined? Do you have any additional 

data on how maximum line speeds for 

turkey plants were determined? 

FSIS response: The line speeds were 

based on our experience under HIMP. 

We are interested in comments and data 

on the proposed line speeds. 

Comment: What are the expectations 

for validation under the proposed rule, 

particularly for the proposed changes to 

the time and temperature chilling 

requirements? 

FSIS response: The validation 

requirement under the proposed rule 

would be the same as what is required 

under the existing regulations (9 CFR 

417.4(a)). There would not be any 

special validation requirement under 

the new poultry slaughter rule. 

Comment: Should establishments 

continue to apply for SIP waivers if they 

are interested in pursuing new 

technologies in their slaughter 

operations, or should they wait until 

FSIS issues a final rule on the new 

poultry inspection system? 

FSIS response: Establishments should 

continue to request waivers of 

regulations that impact slaughter 

operations, such as OLR and alternative 

chilling procedures, if they are 

interested in operating under such 

waivers. Existing SIP waivers would 

continue until FSIS implements the 

final rule. If a waiver is not addressed 

in any final rule resulting from this 

proposal, then it would remain in effect 

until another final rule is published. 

Comment: What is pre-chill? When 

would the pre-chill testing occur? Is 

post-chill testing supposed to be 

conducted after the final intervention? 

FSIS response: Pre-chill occurs just 

before the chilling operation, at the end 

of the evisceration process. The prechill testing is intended to monitor the 

effectiveness of all process controls up 

to the point of the chilling operation. 

Therefore, pre-chill testing should be 

conducted before the chiller, at the end 

of the evisceration process. Post-chill 

testing would be at the same point in 

the process as it is now for FSIS 

Salmonella and Campylobacter 

verification testing, that is, after all 

interventions. 

Comment: What would the 

parameters for faster or slower line 

speeds be? 

FSIS response: The on-line inspector 

would be authorized to stop the line to 

prevent adulterated carcasses from 

entering the chiller. The IIC would be 

authorized to slow the line. This is the 

same as in current HIMP and non-HIMP 

establishments. The on-line CI and offline VI would communicate and inform 

the IIC if they observe excessive food 

safety or non-food safety- related 

defects, and the IIC would assess the 

need to reduce the line speed or take 

other appropriate measures. 

Comment: If the final rule becomes 

effective, would plants be able to start 

running at the faster line speeds right 

away or would there be a gradual 

increase in line speeds? 

FSIS response: To operate at faster 

line speeds, plants would need to 

comply with all of the requirements in 

any final rule that results from this 

rulemaking. The establishment’s 

maximum line speed would depend on 

the ability of the establishment to 

maintain process control, and whether 

conditions are affecting the ability of the 

CI to properly inspect. 

Implementation of the Proposed New 

Inspection System 

1. Proposed Implementation Approach 

In the preamble to the proposed rule, 

FSIS invited interested persons to 

submit comments on how the Agency 

should implement the new poultry 

inspection system if it finalizes the 

proposed rule. The Agency specifically 

requested comment on whether it 

should phase-in the implementation of 

the final rule to provide additional time 

for small and very small establishments 

to adjust their operations to comply 

with the new requirements (77 FR 

4408). The Agency also requested 

comments on how it can make the 

phased implementation most effective. 

In this document, FSIS is providing 

additional information on how it 

intends to implement the new poultry 

inspection system to solicit more 

focused comments on this issue. 

The Agency has tentatively decided 

that if it finalizes the proposed rule, it 

would then provide a time period in 

which all young chicken and turkey 

slaughter establishments would have an 

opportunity to contact the Agency to 

indicate whether they are interested in 

operating under the proposed new 

inspection system. Those 

establishments that choose to operate 

under the new inspection system would 

then inform the Agency concerning 

when they wish to begin implementing 

the new inspection system in their 

facilities. The Agency is considering 

giving establishments six months to 

decide whether they would operate 

under the new inspection system and 

up to 3 years to switch to the new 

system. FSIS requests comments on this 

proposed implementation approach and 

the proposed time periods. 

2. Issues Raised on Implementation 

Comment: How would the district 

offices direct their resources to 

implement the final rule? 

FSIS response: The FSIS 

implementation plan would be 

coordinated from headquarters through 

the districts to ensure resource 

availability and fair and equitable 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24877 

implementation across all interested 

establishments. 

Comment: Does the Agency anticipate 

making additional resources available to 

implement a final rule, even if only on 

a temporary basis? 

FSIS response: As discussed in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, there 

would be two consumer safety inspector 

(CSI) positions for every slaughter 

evisceration line assigned to 

establishments that choose to adopt the 

new poultry slaughter inspection 

system, one CI and one VI (77 FR 4421– 

4422). This represents a reduction in the 

number of inspectors because under the 

existing system, inspectors conduct 

sorting activities. At this time, the 

Agency does not anticipate that 

additional resources would be needed to 

implement the new poultry inspection 

system but would make additional 

resources available, such as guidance for 

industry and training to FSIS inspectors, 

as needed to ensure smooth 

implementation of the final rule. 

Comment: In the preamble to the 

proposed rule, the Agency estimated 

that 219 poultry slaughter 

establishments would choose to operate 

under the proposed new inspection 

system. How does the Agency intend to 

implement the proposed new system in 

all 219 establishments in a smooth and 

fair manner? 

FSIS Response: The Agency is 

interested in comments on the 

implementation phase-in and would use 

comments to inform implementation 

planning, including strategies for 

recruitment, staffing, training, and other 

actions needed to ensure FSIS readiness 

to implement the proposed rule in an 

efficient and fair manner. The Agency 

intends to begin implementing the 

proposed NPIS when it finalizes the 

rule. However, implementation would 

not take place at all eligible plants at the 

same time. It would be phased in over 

time to ensure proper FSIS inspection 

force readiness to successfully 

implement the new system. 

Comment: How does the Agency 

intend to train inspectors in the new 

inspection system and familiarize them 

with the new requirements? 

FSIS response: Inspectors assigned to 

work in poultry slaughter 

establishments converting to the 

proposed new inspection system would 

receive training on the new system 

before the establishments they are 

assigned to convert to the new system. 

The Agency is considering various 

approaches to ensure effectiveness and 

uniformity in its workforce training. 

Comment: Is the Agency planning to 

provide any type of standardized 

programs to assist in training the 

establishment sorters in disease 

recognition and disposition for 

trimmable defects or is this 

responsibility being left up to the 

establishments? 

FSIS response: As noted in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, FSIS 

plans to convert the current instructions 

that it provides to Agency inspectors 

into guidance for industry to use to train 

plant sorters. 

Comment: Does the Agency anticipate 

developing a framework by which 

establishments or inspectors can receive 

quick and consistent clarification on 

requirements or feedback on 

inspectional decisions from 

headquarters? 

FSIS response: The Agency would 

continue to provide technical support to 

its workforce and industry through its 

standard channels. For example, FSIS 

would continue to encourage referring 

questions to its Policy Development 

Division through askFSIS at http:// 

askfsis.custhelp.com or by telephone at 

1–800–233–3935. The Agency would 

develop appropriate instructions to 

inspectors as well as appropriate 

compliance guides. 

Worker Safety Issues 

FSIS’s direct legal authority with 

respect to regulating working conditions 

extends only to inspection personnel. 

The Department of Labor’s OSHA is the 

lead Federal agency responsible for 

establishment worker safety issues. 

However, FSIS recognizes the 

importance of establishment worker 

safety and is interested in additional 

information about the potential 

intersection of increased line speeds 

and worker safety. 

As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, FSIS has asked NIOSH to 

evaluate the effects of increased line 

speed by collecting data from one to five 

non-HIMP plants that requested waivers 

from line speed restrictions under the 

Salmonella Initiative Project (SIP) (77 

FR 4422). NIOSH expressed its 

willingness to evaluate the effects of 

increased production volume on 

employee health, with a focus on 

musculoskeletal disorders and acute 

traumatic injuries. NIOSH will prepare 

a report based on its findings of short- 

, intermediate-, and long-term effects 

from the process modifications. We 

expect that the NIOSH report will also 

make recommendations to the Agency 

as appropriate. FSIS, in collaboration 

with OSHA, will consider the available 

data on employee effects collected from 

NIOSH activities when implementing 

the final rule resulting from the 

proposal. 

To facilitate further evaluation of this 

issue, FSIS requests specific comments 

on the effects of increased line speeds 

and production volume on worker 

safety. The Agency is particularly 

interested in comments on the 

availability of records or studies that 

contain data that NIOSH may be able to 

use to assist the Agency in analyzing the 

effects of increased line speed on the 

safety and health of employees 

throughout the establishment, including 

effects prior to and following the 

evisceration line. The Agency is 

interested in the availability of records 

and studies that include documentation 

on employees’ work, injuries, and 

illnesses, as well as plant production, 

both before and after establishments 

made changes to their operations to 

increase production volume. Such 

records and studies include, but are not 

limited to: 

• Human resources and payroll data 

for all employees on hours worked per 

year, department, job title, hire date, 

separation date, and position 

responsibilities; 

• OSHA logs, workers’ compensation 

claims, first reports of injury or illness, 

dispensary logs and records, and other 

injury or illness narratives for all 

employees; and 

• Daily production hours; 

• Results of ergonomic or industrial 

engineering studies, such as time-andmotion analyses that document the 

actual pace of work or physical stresses 

on workers; and 

• Any self-assessments of worker 

safety conducted by establishments. 

Comments on this issue should 

describe the type of data available, 

whether the data are available in an 

electronic or paper format, where the 

records are maintained, (e.g., at the 

establishment or at corporate 

headquarters), and any other 

information that can be used to assess 

the utility of the data. The comments 

should provide information, including 

contact information, on how FSIS or 

NIOSH can gain access to the data or 

studies. 

In addition, FSIS will continue its 

collaboration with NIOSH and OSHA, 

developing guidance materials on 

measures that establishments could 

adopt and implement to promote and 

better ensure worker safety. To facilitate 

the development of such guidance, FSIS 

requests comments on best practices 

and other measures that establishments 

can take to protect workers throughout 

the plant, including possible protective 

factors such as increasing the size of the 

workforce, rotating assignments, 

increased automation, or improved tools 

and techniques. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24878 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Additional Public Notification 

FSIS will announce the availability of 

this Federal Register notice on-line 

through the FSIS Web page located at 

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_

policies/Proposed_Rules/index.asp. 

FSIS also will make copies of this 

Federal Register publication available 

through the FSIS Constituent Update, 

which is used to provide information 

regarding FSIS policies, procedures, 

regulations, Federal Register notices, 

FSIS public meetings, and other types of 

information that could affect or would 

be of interest to our constituents and 

stakeholders. The Update is 

communicated via Listserv, a free email 

subscription service consisting of 

industry, trade, and farm groups, 

consumer interest groups, allied health 

professionals, scientific professionals, 

and other individuals who have 

requested to be included. The Update 

also is available on the FSIS Web page. 

Through Listserv and the Web page, 

FSIS is able to provide information to a 

much broader, more diverse audience. 

In addition, FSIS offers an email 

subscription service which provides 

automatic and customized access to 

selected food safety news and 

information. This service is available at 

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

news_&_events/email_subscription/. 

Options range from recalls to export 

information to regulations, directives 

and notices. Customers can add or 

delete subscriptions themselves, and 

have the option to password protect 

their accounts. 

Done in Washington, DC on April 23, 2012. 

Alfred V. Almanza, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10111 Filed 4–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 16 

[CPCLO Order No. 008–2012] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Department 

of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register, the 

Bureau of Prisons (Bureau or BOP), a 

component of the Department of Justice, 

has published a notice of a revised 

Privacy Act system of records, Inmate 

Central Records System (JUSTICE/BOP– 

005). In this notice of proposed 

rulemaking, the Bureau proposes to 

amend its Privacy Act regulations for 

the Inmate Central Records System 

(JUSTICE/BOP–005) by now exempting 

this system from subsections (c)(3) and 

(4); (d); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H), and (I), 

(5), and (8); (f); and (g) of the Privacy 

Act of 1974 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) 

and (k) for the reasons set forth in the 

following text. The exemptions are 

necessary to avoid interference with the 

law enforcement and functions and 

responsibilities of the Bureau. 

Public comment is invited. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

May 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to 

the Privacy Analyst, Office of Privacy 

and Civil Liberties, National Place 

Building, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 

20530, or by facsimile 202–307–0693. 

To ensure proper handling, please 

reference the CPCLO Order number in 

your correspondence. You may review 

an electronic version of the proposed 

rule at http://www.regulations.gov. You 

may also submit a comment via the 

Internet by using the comment form for 

this regulation at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Please include the 

CPCLO Order number in the subject 

box. 

Please note that the Department is 

requesting that electronic comments be 

submitted before midnight Eastern 

Standard Time on the day the comment 

period closes because http:// 

www.regulations.gov terminates the 

public’s ability to submit comments at 

that time. Commenters in time zones 

other than Eastern Standard Time may 

want to consider this so that their 

electronic comments are received. All 

comments sent via regular or express 

mail will be considered timely if 

postmarked on the day the comment 

period closes. 

Posting of Public Comments: Please 

note that all comments received are 

considered part of the public record and 

made available for public inspection 

online at http://www.regulations.gov 

and in the Department’s public docket. 

Such information includes personally 

identifying information (such as name, 

address, etc.,) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

If you want to submit personally 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online or made available in the 

public docket, you must include the 

term ‘‘PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also place 

all the personally identifying 

information you do not want posted 

online or made available in the public 

docket in the first paragraph of your 

comment and identify what information 

you want redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online or made available in the 

public docket, you must include the 

term ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted online or made 

available in the public docket. 

Personally identifying information 

and confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be redacted and the comment, in 

redacted form, will be posted online and 

placed in the Department’s public 

docket file. Please note that the Freedom 

of Information Act applies to all 

comments received. If you wish to 

inspect the agency’s public docket file 

in person by appointment, please see 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. 

Darnell Stroble, Attorney-Advisor, 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, 202–514– 

9180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Notice section of today’s Federal 

Register, the Bureau published a revised 

Privacy Act system of records notice, 

Inmate Central Records System 

(JUSTICE/BOP–005). This system assists 

the Attorney General and the Bureau of 

Prisons in meeting statutory 

responsibilities for the safekeeping, care 

and custody of incarcerated persons. It 

serves as the primary record system on 

these individuals and includes 

information critical to the continued 

safety and security of federal prisons 

and the public. 

In this rulemaking, the Bureau 

proposes to exempt this Privacy Act 

system of records from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k). Although this 

system of records was previously 

exempt from certain provisions of the 

Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j)(2), the Bureau is seeking 

additional exemptions pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), adding exemptions 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), and 

consolidating the exemptions together 

in one location of the Code of Federal 

Register. Therefore, the proposed rule 

seeks to delete all references of the 

Inmate Central Records System 

(JUSTICE/BOP–005) from paragraphs (a) 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS