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

64767

Vol. 62, No. 236

Tuesday, December 9, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 381 and 441

[Docket No. 97–052N]

Retained Water in Poultry Products;

Protocols for Obtaining Data on Meat

and Poultry Chilling Processes

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and

Inspection Service (FSIS) is notifying

the public of its interest in receiving and

reviewing protocols for obtaining data

on chilled, ready-to-cook poultry

products and simultaneously requesting

comments on the principles which it

has tentatively identified to guide its

review of those protocols. The data may

be used: to benchmark the effectiveness

of washing, chilling, and draining

operations in minimizing pathogen

growth and moisture retention in

poultry products; and to develop

proposed new regulations limiting

retained moisture in poultry products.

FSIS views the data collection as a

necessary step in strengthening the basis

for its regulations in the wake of a

recent Federal District Court decision

setting aside as ‘‘arbitrary and

capricious’’ the regulatory limits on

moisture absorption and retention in

ready-to-cook whole chickens and

turkeys. FSIS and the poultry industry

have relied on these limits for many

years to gauge the effectiveness of

chilling processes in meeting the

regulatory objective of minimizing

moisture retention in poultry products.

Any new regulatory limits on moisture

retention must be based on sound data.

The Agency is willing to review

protocols developed according to the

specifications published in this

document or alternative protocols that

may be suggested by commenters.

In view of a recent petition from a

meat and poultry industry association,

FSIS is also willing to review similar

protocols for obtaining data on

processes for the chilling of raw meat

carcasses and parts.

DATES: Comments on the protocol

specifications discussed in this

document should be received on or

before January 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

two copies of comments to FSIS Docket

Clerk, DOCKET #97–052, Room 102

Cotton Annex Building, 300 12th Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20250–3700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Patricia F. Stolfa, Assistant Deputy

Administrator for Regulations and

Inspection Methods Development, FSIS,

Room 402 Annex Building, Washington,

DC 20250–3700; (202) 205–0699.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FSIS

carries out the mandates of the Federal

Meat Inspection Act (FMIA; 21 U.S.C.

601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products

Inspection Act (PPIA; 21 U.S.C. 451 et

seq.) to ensure that meat, meat food, and

poultry products prepared for interstate

and foreign commerce are wholesome,

not adulterated, and properly marked,

labeled, and packaged. The Agency

maintains continuous inspection

oversight of operations in meat and

poultry slaughtering and processing

establishments. Among the

requirements enforced by the Agency

are those having to do with the postevisceration handling and storage of

carcasses and parts.

Dressed carcasses typically move

through washes and sprays to remove

slaughter debris and foreign matter

before being conveyed to chilled,

refrigerated, or frozen. FSIS regulations

governing the chilling of livestock and

poultry carcasses reflect accepted

commercial practices. Prior to shipment,

livestock carcasses have traditionally

been air-chilled and shipped in

refrigerated trucks or railroad cars; they

are commonly divided into primal and

subprimal parts at the slaughtering

establishment, cut-up, or boned-out and

boxed before being shipped frozen or

refrigerated. Prior to shipment, livestock

carcasses are usually held in large

cooling rooms and may be subject to

spraying or ‘‘misting’’ processes

intended to prevent them from

shrinking. It is technologically feasible

and commercially practical to air-chill

livestock carcasses, combining this

process with a spray system in a manner

that, on average, does not result in an

increase in the carcass weight. The

regulations affecting chilled livestock

carcasses and parts concern the

sanitation conditions of storage or

transport.

Poultry carcasses have traditionally

been immersion-chilled and are shipped

as chill-packed, ice-packed, or frozen.

The poultry chilling regulations require

that carcasses be chilled to 40 °F or less

within a specified time after slaughter

and limit the amount of retained water

in product.

Poultry carcasses are chilled in

immersion chilling tanks filled with

water or water and ice to remove animal

heat and inhibit microbial growth.

Modern chillers are equipped with

refrigeration units and systems for

controlling water flow volume,

direction, and agitation. They are

efficient and effective, but inevitably,

immersion-chilled poultry carcasses

absorb water, mostly under the skin.

The absorption of water during chilling

has been considered acceptable in good

commercial practice since the 1940’s as

a trade-off to gain the food-safety

benefits of rapid chilling. The

immersion chilling of poultry was

considered good commercial practice in

1957, when Congress enacted the

Poultry Products Inspection Act (21

U.S.C. 451 et seq.) (PPIA).

The Department promulgated

regulations limiting moisture absorption

in poultry in 1959, 1961, and 1970

(December 1, 1959, 24 FR 9566; July 19,

1961, 26 FR 6471; October 7, 1970, 35

FR 739). The regulations, covering the

various kinds and weight classes of

frozen, ice-packed, and chilled poultry,

allow processors flexibility in adjusting

their chilling systems as long as the

maximum water absorption limits are

not exceeded. Each processor

establishes procedures to comply with

the chilling and water absorption

control requirements. Inspectors sample

carcasses each day from each chilling

system before washing and after

chilling, and with limited draining time

to determine if the poultry is in

compliance with the absorbed moisture

limits. If the moisture limits are

exceeded, the poultry is retained until

enough moisture has drained to allow

the birds to be in compliance.

As a practical matter, establishments

must keep their overall moisture

absorption averages below the

maximum limitations to meet the water

absorption limits on a day-to-day basis.
64768 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1From the ‘‘Summary Report’’ in RTI Report:

Comparison of USDA Meat and Poultry

Regulations. Title 9 CFR: Subchapter A, Subchapter

C, June 1993.

The average percentage below the limits

varies from establishment to

establishment, depending on the

individual operation. Most poultry

establishments consistently comply

with the water control requirements.

The moisture retention limits and

other differences between the meat and

poultry inspection regulations have

become a focus of attention. Early in

1996, for example, FSIS received a

petition from several national livestock

industry associations concerning

perceived inequities between the meat

and poultry regulations. Among other

issues, the petitioners questioned the

difference between water absorption

allowances for meat and for poultry.

FSIS has studied the regulations to

determine where the regulatory

treatment of different species can be

made the same. In 1992, FSIS

commissioned the Research Triangle

Institute (RTI) to compare the two sets

of regulations. In June 1993, RTI issued

a comprehensive report, which

attributed the differences on water

absorption to ‘‘traditional industry

practice.’’1 FSIS has also adopted a

regulatory reform plan that will lead to

a consolidated set of regulations that

apply to all inspected species. The

Agency’s ‘‘Pathogen Reduction; Hazard

Analysis and Critical Control Points

Systems’’ (PR/HACCP) final rule (61 FR

38806; July 25, 1996) and the recent

proposed rulemaking on sanitation (62

FR 45046; August 25, 1997) are

examples of initiatives in this plan.

In 1994, a group of poultry consumers

and red meat producers brought an

action against the Department in a

Federal District Court challenging

several differences in the regulatory

requirements for meat and poultry,

including the regulations which allow

the absorption and retention of water in

chilled poultry.

Plaintiffs in Kenney et al. v. Glickman

alleged that poultry products containing

absorbed water were both economically

adulterated and misbranded within the

meaning of the PPIA. They also alleged

that the regulations violated the

Administrative Procedure Act because

they were arbitrary and capricious when

compared to the regulatory prohibition

on absorbed water in meat carcasses.

The Court found that poultry containing

absorbed water was not economically

adulterated or misbranded under the

PPIA. However, the Court also found

that the regulation specifying moisture

absorption and retention limits for

ready-to-cook poultry that is to be

frozen, cooked, or consumer-packaged

as whole poultry (9 CFR 381.66(d)(2))

was arbitrary and capricious because the

rulemaking record failed to adequately

explain how the particular water

retention levels were set and why meat

and poultry should be treated

differently.

Need for Current Data on Chilling and

Moisture Retention

The Court left in place the general

requirement at 9 CFR 381.66(d)(1) for

establishments to minimize moisture

absorption and retention in poultry at

the time of packaging. The Court also

left standing the regulations at 9 CFR

381.66 (d)(3)–(d)(6) controlling the

amount of retained moisture in chickens

and turkeys that are to be cut up or icepacked. But the Court’s decision left

FSIS with no regulatory maximum limit

for retained moisture in chilled or

frozen whole poultry carcasses.

FSIS believes it is necessary to clarify

what percentages, if any, are permissible

in raw meat and poultry, and under

what circumstances. Otherwise, the

controversy that was brought to a head

in the Kenney case will remain

unresolved—a situation the Agency

considers unsatisfactory. FSIS needs

better quantitative information before

considering whether to amend the

current requirements limiting moisture

retention in poultry products, and

particularly in ready-to-cook whole

birds. For example, FSIS needs baseline

data reflecting the performance

capabilities of technology now in use in

inspected establishments. The data

should be collected under acceptable

protocols in accordance with the

specifications described below.

On October 2, 1997, the American

Meat Institute, a trade association

representing meat and poultry

slaughtering and processing

establishments, petitioned the

Department to allow incidental levels of

moisture in meat and poultry as part of

chilling practices that improve food

safety. In view of this petition, FSIS also

is willing to consider data on processes

for the chilling of meat carcasses and

parts. The data should be collected

under acceptable protocols in

accordance with the specifications

described below, as applicable in meat

establishments.

Protocol for Gathering Moisture

Retention Data

A protocol should state a purpose.

The Agency would prefer that the

purpose be to determine the amount or

percentage of moisture absorption and

retention that is inevitable using a

particular chilling system while

achieving the regulatory pathogen

reduction performance standard for

Salmonella (for chickens) as set forth in

the PR/HACCP final rule and the time/

temperature requirements set forth in 9

CFR 381.66.

The protocol should state the type of

washing and chilling system used by the

establishment. For poultry

establishments, the main chiller types,

identified by the mechanism used to

transport the birds through the chiller or

to agitate the water in the chiller, are the

drag-through, the screw type, and the

rocker-arm type.

The protocol should also describe the

configuration of the chiller system

components, modifications of the

components, and steps in the chilling

process. The description should include

the number of chillers in a series and

arrangements of chilling system

components, and the number of

evisceration lines feeding into a chiller

system. If there is a pre-chilling step in

the process, its purpose and the type of

equipment used should be accurately

described. Any mechanical or design

changes made to the chilling equipment

should be described.

All special features in the chilling

process, such as antimicrobial

treatments, should be described. Also,

the length and velocity of the dripping

line should be described, as well as the

time allowed for dripping. Any special

apparatus, such as a mechanism for

squeezing excessive moisture from

chilled birds, should be explained.

Next, the protocol should contain a

description of variable factors in the

chilling system that affect water

absorption and retention. Such factors

are typically considered to be the time

in chiller water, the water temperature,

and agitation. The protocol should

consider air agitation, where applicable.

Additional factors that may affect

water-absorption and retention are

scalding temperature and the pressure

or amount of buffeting applied to birds

by feather removal machinery, and the

resultant loosening of the skin. Another

factor that should be considered is the

method used to open the bird for

evisceration. Commenters may suggest

additional factors that should be

considered.

The protocol should also state the

standards to be met by the chilling

system. For example, the chilling

system may be designed simply to

achieve a reduction in temperature of

ready-to-cook poultry to less than 40 °F.

within the time limit specified by the

regulations, or in less time. As to the

standard for pathogen minimization, the

Salmonella pathogen reduction
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64769

standards, as set forth in the PR/HACCP

final rule, have been suggested.

Although there is not yet an applicable

Salmonella standard for turkeys,

commenters are free to suggest a

practicable standard for use in gathering

data on turkeys under the protocols here

suggested. Commenters are also free to

suggest the use of other microbiological

targets, such as a standard for reduction

in generic E. coli counts or reductions

in numbers of other microorganisms.

Finally, the protocol should describe

the testing methods to be employed both

for measuring water absorption and

retention and for sampling and testing

product for pathogen reductions. With

respect to the latter, FSIS recommends

the methods to be used for E. coli and

Salmonella testing under the PR/

HACCP final rule. The number of

samples, the type of samples, the

sampling time period and the type of

testing or measurement should be

included in the protocol. There also

should be a provision for reporting data

obtained, summarizing the results and

drawing conclusions.

FSIS requests that interested parties

submit their comments on the foregoing

protocol specifications at their earliest

opportunity, and preferably by the date

indicated in the DATES section of this

document. Should FSIS decide to issue

a notice of proposed rulemaking on

retained moisture, sound, readily

available data will be needed during the

comment period to avoid a protracted

rulemaking.

Done at Washington, DC: December 3,

1997.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator, Food Safety Inspection

Service.

[FR Doc. 97–32193 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 226

[Regulation Z; Docket No. R–0992]

Truth in Lending

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Proposed rule; official staff

interpretation.

SUMMARY: The Board is publishing for

comment proposed revisions to the

official staff commentary to Regulation

Z (Truth in Lending). The commentary

applies and interprets the requirements

of Regulation Z. The proposed update

addresses increased rates for credit card

accounts triggered by events such as late

payments or exceeding credit limits. It

provides guidance on ‘‘same-as-cash’’

transactions in open-end plans. It also

addresses how creditors may determine

whether credit is an open-end plan or a

closed-end transaction. In addition, the

proposed update discusses issues such

as the treatment of annuity costs in

reverse mortgage transactions and

transaction fees imposed on checking

accounts with overdraft protection.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

Docket No. R–0992, and may be mailed

to William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, 20th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20551.

Comments also may be delivered to

Room B–2222 of the Eccles Building

between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m.

weekdays, or to the guard station in the

Eccles Building courtyard on 20th

Street, N.W. (between Constitution

Avenue and C Street) at any time.

Comments may be inspected in Room

MP–500 of the Martin Building between

9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays,

except as provided in 12 CFR 261.8 of

the Board’s Rules Regarding Availability

of Information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

Subparts A and B (open-end credit),

Jane E. Ahrens, Senior Attorney, or

Obrea O. Poindexter, Staff Attorney; for

Subparts A, C, and E (closed-end credit

and reverse mortgages), Ms. Ahrens or

James A. Michaels, Senior Attorney, or

Michael E. Hentrel, Staff Attorney;

Division of Consumer and Community

Affairs, Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, at (202) 452–

3667 or 452–2412; for users of

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

(TDD) only, Diane Jenkins at (202) 452–

3544.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The purpose of the Truth in Lending

Act (TILA; 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) is to

promote the informed use of consumer

credit by providing for disclosures about

its terms and cost. The act requires

creditors to disclose the cost of credit as

a dollar amount (the finance charge) and

as an annual percentage rate (the APR).

Uniformity in creditors’ disclosures is

intended to assist consumers in

comparison shopping. The TILA

requires additional disclosures for loans

secured by a consumer’s home and

permits consumers to rescind certain

transactions that involve their principal

dwelling. The act is implemented by the

Board’s Regulation Z (12 CFR Part 226).

The Board’s official staff commentary

(12 CFR Part 226 (Supp. I)) interprets

the regulation, and provides guidance to

creditors in applying the regulation to

specific transactions. The commentary

is a substitute for individual staff

interpretations; it is updated

periodically to address significant

questions that arise. The Board expects

to adopt revisions to the commentary in

final form in March 1998; to the extent

the revisions impose new requirements

on creditors, compliance would be

optional until October 1, 1998, the

effective date for mandatory

compliance.

II. Proposed Revisions

Subpart A—General

Section 226.2—Definitions and Rules of

Construction

2(a) Definitions

2(a)(2) Advertisement

Comment 2(a)(2)–1 is revised to

address communications to consumers

about existing accounts. In response to

requests for guidance, the proposed

comment provides examples of

communications that are and are not

advertisements.

2(a)(18) Downpayment

Proposed comment 2(a)(18)–3 gives

guidance on how a creditor discloses

the downpayment in a credit sale if a

trade-in is involved and if the amount

of the existing lien on the trade-in

exceeds its value. The comment clarifies

that creditors should disclose zero and

not a negative amount.

2(a)(20) Open-end Credit

The Board has been asked by

Attorneys General of several states to

provide additional guidance concerning

how to determine whether credit is an

open-end plan or a closed-end

transaction. The Attorneys General are

concerned that some retailers selling

big-ticket items have established

questionable ‘‘revolving charge

accounts’’ to finance the purchase of

such items, resulting in consumers

making major purchases without

adequate information about the true cost

of the transactions. Proposed comment

2(a)(20)–3 includes factors that

creditors, particularly those engaged in

credit sales, should consider in

determining the difference between an

open-end plan and a closed-end

transaction. Proposed comment

2(a)(20)–5 clarifies when a line of credit

is not self-replenishing.