Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices 55569

DC 20503, and to Linda McDonald,

FSA, APFO, USDA, 2222 West 2300

South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119–2020.

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the collection of information

contained in these proposed regulations

between 30 and 60 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment

to OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives in within 30 days

of publication.

All responses to this notice will be

summarized and included in the request

for OMB approval. All comments will

also become a matter of public record.

Signed at Washington, DC on October 19,

1997.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency.

[FR Doc. 97–28303 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

[Docket No. 97–057N]

Notice of Change in Inspection

Procedures; Adoption of a Hands-off

Inspection Procedure for Lambs

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the American Sheep Industry

Association, the Food Safety and

Inspection Service (FSIS) is changing its

inspection procedures for lambs.

Currently, inspectors palpate the

carcasses of lambs for the purpose of

detecting and removing carcasses with

diseases such as Caseous lymphadenitis.

Under the new procedure, there will be

hands-off inspection of lambs in order

to reduce the risk and hands-on

inspection methods may spread or add

microbial contamination to carcasses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Alice Thaler, Chief, Concepts &

Design Branch, Inspection Methods

Development Division, Office of Policy,

Program Development, and Evaluation,

Food Safety and Inspection Service,

Department of Agriculture, Washington,

DC 20250–3700; telephone, (202) 205–

0005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Traditionally, meat inspectors have

palpated the carcasses of lambs as part

of their post-mortem evaluation of these

animals. The American Sheep Industry

Association recommended that we end

this practice for food safety reasons. The

primary justification for this longstanding hands-on inspection procedure

was to detect and remove carcasses with

diseases such as Caseous lymphadenitis.

In determining the desirability of such

a procedure for lambs, FSIS considered

two questions: (1) Will diseased

carcasses of parts be more likely to

reach consumers in a hands-off system?;

and (2) Are current hands-on inspection

methods likely to be spreading or

adding contamination to carcasses?

Comparing Hands-on and Hands-off

Procedures

The first issue deals with the benefits

of a hands-on system. What is the risk

that a diseased carcass or diseased parts

would be passed for food and reach the

consumer if FSIS instituted a hands-off

inspection procedure?

The second issue was to determine

whether current inspection techniques

used on lambs cause inspectors to

spread or add contamination to

carcasses. Although there is no data on

this specific question, we believe that

data from other food handling and

health care industries indicate that the

hands-on procedures could contaminate

lamb carcasses or spread such

contamination.

Caseous lymphadenitis is the primary

disease detected by carcass palpation,

and it is not a public health concern. In

the United States, there are six plants

that slaughter 80 percent of the lambs.

From Fiscal Years 1987 to 1996, these

six plants slaughtered 26,347,480 lambs

and yearlings. (Present data do not

distinguish between lambs and

yearlings.) The plants condemned 1,203

animals in the same 10-year period for

Caseous lymphadenitis, a 0.0046

percent condemnation rate. It is

unknown how many carcasses were

detected on post-mortem and trimmed,

and then passed for food.

Seven of the diseases routinely

present in lambs are of public health

concern: Actinobacillosis,

Campylobacteriosis, Contagious

ecthyma, Echinococcosis, Leptospirosis,

Salmonella dysentery, and

Toxoplasmosis. However, none of them

require carcass palpation for diagnosis.

The American Sheep Industry

Association believes that hands-on

inspection methods spread or add

contamination to carcasses, including

pathogenci microorganisms such as

Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and

Salmonella. The Agenc7y evaluated

existing information to determine its

adequacy and reviewed literature

regarding the documented spread of

contamination by hands in other

industries. (See References at end of

document.) Evidence from other food

handling and health care industries

supports these concerns. (Gould and

Ream 1996; Wenzel and Pulverer 1995).

FSIS accepts the documentation in

allied fields, which argues that the

palpation of lamb carcasses is

inconsistent with our food safety

philosophy that FSIS must return

carcasses presented for inspection with

unchanged or lower food safety risk

factors.

Conclusion

The primary reason for carcass

palpation in lambs is to detect Caseous

lymphadenitis. This disease is not in

public health concern and has an

extremely low condemnation rate.

Although it has not been proven directly

that palpation by inspectors causes

microbial contamination or actually

spreads such contamination, compelling

evidence from allied industries

indicates that hands do spread or add

microorganisms. The risk of

contamination using a hands-on

procedure exceeds the risk of diseased

carcasses being missed using a hands-off

procedure for lambs.

Therefore, FSIS is proceeding to adopt

a hands-off inspection method for

lambs. This process involves a number

of steps, including consultation with

employee organizations. FSIS intends to

complete the process within the next 12

months.

FSIS will monitor condemnation rates

in the six plants to identify the impact,

if any, of the change. Further, the

Agency intends to look at the

implications of hands-of inspection

procedures with regard to the

production of all meat and poultry

products.

Done at Washington, DC, on October 17,

1997.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

References

1. Snider, O.P., Jr., HACCP—An Industry

Food Safety Self-Control Program—Part VI,

Dairy Food & Environ. Sanitation, June 1992;

12(6):362–365.

2. Almeida, R.C., Kuaye, A.Y., Serrano,

A.M., de Almeida, P.F., Evaluation and

Control of the Microbiological Quality of

Hands in Food Handlers, Revista de Saude

Publica (Brazil), Aug. 1995; 29(4):290–4.

3. Bell, R.G., Hathaway, S.C., The Hygienic

Efficiency of Conventional and Inverted

Lamb Dressing Systems. Journal of Applied

Bacteriology (New Zealand). Sep. 1996;

81(3):225–34AB.

4. Gould, D., Ream, E., Nurses’ Infectioncontrol Practice: Hand Decontamination, the

Use of Gloves and Sharp Instruments.

International Journal of Nursing Studies

(U.K.). Apr. 1996; 33(2):143–60AB.
55570 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices

5. Wenzel, R., Pulverer, G., Methicillinresistant Staphylococcus homiletics on the

Hands of Health Care Workers: A Route of

Transmission or a Source? Journal of

Hospital Infection (Germany). Nov. 1995;

31(3):195–120AB.

6. Kaltenthaler, E.C., Elsworth, A.M.,

Schweiger, M.S. Mara, D.D., Brfaunholttz,

D.A., Faecal Contamination on Children’s

Hands and Environmental Surfaces in

Primary Schools in Leeds. Epidemiology and

Infection (U.K.). Dec. 1995; 115(3):527–34.

7. Sengupta, P.G., Sicar, B.K., Mandal, S.K.

Mukhopadhyay, A.K., Nair, G.B., et al.,

Epidemiology of Vibro cholerae 0139 with

Special References to Intrafamilial

Transmission in Calcutta. Journal of Infection

(India). Jul. 1995; 31(1):45–7.

8. Gerding, D.N., Johnson, S., Peterson,

L.R., Mulligan, M.E., Silva, J.A., Jr.,

Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea and

Colitis. Infection Control & Hospital

Epidemiology, Aug. 1995; 457–77AB.

9. Urano, T., Noguchi, K., Jiang, G.,

Tsukumi, K., Survey of Pseudomonas

aeruginosa Contamination in Human Beings

and Laboratory Animals. Experimental

Animals (Japan). Jul. 1995; 44(3):233–9.

[FR Doc. 97–28366 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Intent To Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement, Canal Hoya Timber

Sale, Tongass National Forest, Stikine

Area, Wrangell, Alaska

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent; revision.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare

a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale located

on the Stikine Area of the Tongass

National Forest. This Notice of Intent

revises the Notice of Intent published

December 23, 1996 (page 67530) by

describing changes to the purpose and

need and the schedule for decision. A

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

is being prepared to respond to the new

management direction and standards

and guidelines of the Tongass National

Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan (Forest Plan) released in May 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments,

suggestions or questions concerning the

analysis and Environmental Impact

Statement should be sent to Scott

Posner, Canal Hoya Team Leader,

Wrangell Ranger District, Stikine Area,

Tongass National Forest, P.O. Box 51,

Wrangell, Alaska, 99929, phone (907)

874–2323.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Canal

Hoya Study Area includes Value

Comparison Unit 520 and 521 on the

mainland in Southeast Alaska,

approximately 30 miles southeast of

Wrangell, Alaska.

The Tongass National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan of May

1997 provides the overall guidance

(land use designations, goals, objectives,

management prescriptions, standards

and guidelines) to achieve the desired

future condition for the area in which

this project is proposed. This revised

Forest Plan allocates portions of the

study area to two management

prescriptions; Timber Production and

Modified Landscape. The new standards

and guidelines in the revised Forest

Plan provide increased protection for

riparian areas, beach fringe, brown bear

foraging areas and wetland soils, which

affect the assumptions on which the

purpose and need in the original Notice

of Intent were based.

The purpose and need for the project

is to respond to the goals and objectives

identified by the Forest Plan for the

timber resource and to move the Canal

Hoya Study Area towards the desired

future condition. The Forest Plan

identified the following goals and

objectives: (1) manage the timber

resource for production of saw timber

and other wood products from suitable

timber lands made available for timber

harvest, on an even-flow, long-term

sustained yield basis and in an

economically efficient manner (Revised

Forest Plan page 2–4; (2) seek to provide

a timber supply sufficient to meet the

annual market demand for Tongass

National Forest timber, and the demand

for the planning cycle (page 2–4); and 3)

maintain and promote industrial wood

production from suitable timber lands,

providing a continuous supply of wood

to meet society’s needs (page 3–144).

The Canal Hoya Timber Sale will be

designed to produce desired resource

values, products, and conditions in

ways that also sustain the diversity and

productivity of ecosystems (page 2–1).

The Canal Hoya Timber Sale is now

expected to provide a range of volume

to the timber industry from 10 to 17

million board feet. The range of

alternatives to be considered in the

Environmental Impact Statement will be

determined during analysis and reflect

issues raised during scoping.

The Proposed Action provides for: (1)

construction of approximately 10 miles

of specified road and additional

temporary road; (2) harvest of

approximately 750 acres of timber; and,

(3) construction of a log transfer facility

east of the Canal Creek estuary and

another log transfer facility east of the

Hoya Creek estuary. The log transfer

facilities could use a floating, removable

structure. This level of development

would result in the harvest of

approximately 14 million board feet of

sawlog and utility timber volume.

A number of public comments have

been received on this project. Based on

comments from the public and other

agencies during the scoping effort, the

following significant issues have been

identified. How will the design of the

sale affect:

(1) Harvest economics?

(2) Scenic and tourism values?

(3) Bears that also use the Anan

Wildlife Viewing Area?

(4) Wildlife habitat and species

conservation?

(5) Freshwater and marine resources?

(6) Forest soils?

These issues were used to design

alternatives to the proposed action and

to identify the potential environmental

effects of the proposed action and

alternatives. The draft Environmental

Impact Statement is scheduled for

publication in January 1998 and the

Final Environmental Impact Statement

and Record of Decision is scheduled for

publication in May 1998.

The Forest Service believes, at this

stage, it is important to alert reviewers

about several court rulings related to

public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of Draft Environmental

Impact Statements must structure their

participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553, 1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement stage but that are not

raised until after completion of the Final

Environmental Impact Statement may

be waived or dismissed by the courts

(City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016,

1022, 9th Cir. 1986; and Wisconsin

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp.

1334, 1338, E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of

these court rulings, it is important that

those interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the draft

Environmental Impact Statement 45 day

comment period so that substantive

comments and objections are made

available to the Forest Service at a time

when it can meaningfully consider them

and respond to them in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement.

No other revisions are made to the

original Notice of Intent published

December 23, 1996.

Patricia A. Grantham,

Acting Forest Supervisor, Stikine Area.

[FR Doc. 97–28384 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M