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

48628 

Vol. 78, No. 154 

Friday, August 9, 2013 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2012–0014] 

RIN 0579–AD68 

Importation of Papayas From Peru 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to allow, 

under certain conditions, the 

importation of commercial 

consignments of fresh papayas from 

Peru into the continental United States. 

The conditions for the importation of 

papayas from Peru would include 

requirements for approved production 

locations; field sanitation; hot water 

treatment; procedures for packing and 

shipping the papayas; and fruit fly 

trapping in papaya production areas. 

This action would allow for the 

importation of papayas from Peru while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of quarantine pests into 

the continental United States. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before October 8, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0014- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS-2012-0014, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0014 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

Room 1141 of the USDA South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal 

reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 799–7039 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dorothy Wayson, Senior Regulatory 

Coordination Specialist, Regulatory 

Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851– 

2036. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart–Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–59, referred to below as 

the regulations) prohibit or restrict the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent the introduction 

and dissemination of plant pests that are 

new to or not widely distributed within 

the United States. The national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) of Peru 

has requested that the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

amend the regulations to allow fresh 

papayas (Carica papaya) to be imported 

from Peru into the continental United 

States. 

As part of our evaluation of Peru’s 

request, we have prepared a pest risk 

assessment (PRA), titled ‘‘Importation of 

Fresh Papaya, Carica papaya, from Peru 

into the Continental United States’’ 

(March 2012). The PRA evaluates the 

risks associated with the importation of 

papaya into the continental United 

States from Peru. Copies of the PRA may 

be obtained by contacting the individual 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT or viewed on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

The PRA identified two pests of 

quarantine significance present in Peru 

that could be introduced into the United 

States through the importation of 

papaya: The Mediterranean fruit fly 

(Medfly), Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann, 

and the South American fruit fly, 

Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann). 

Both of these pests were rated as posing 

a high risk. 

APHIS has determined that measures 

beyond standard port of arrival 

inspection are required to mitigate the 

risks posed by the plant pests associated 

with papayas from Peru. Therefore, we 

propose to require that the papayas be 

subjected to a systems approach to pest 

mitigation. This systems approach 

would require that the papayas be 

produced at places of production 

registered with the NPPO of Peru, 

would require packing procedures 

designed to exclude quarantine pests, 

and would require fruit fly trapping, 

field sanitation, and hot water treatment 

to remove pests of concern from the 

pathway. Only commercial 

consignments of papayas would be 

allowed to be imported from Peru. 

Consignments of papayas from Peru 

would also be required to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru 

stating that the papayas were grown, 

packed, and shipped in accordance with 

the proposed requirements. 

The proposed systems approach to 

pest mitigation for the importation of 

papayas from Peru has been used 

successfully to mitigate the risk 

associated with the importation of 

papayas from Central America, Brazil, 

Colombia, and Ecuador (§ 319.56–25). 

The risk management document for 

papayas from Peru evaluated the 

effectiveness of these measures against 

the quarantine pests identified in the 

PRA and concluded that the provisions 

in § 319.56–25, along with the general 

requirements for the importation of 

fruits and vegetables in the regulations, 

will be sufficient to prevent the 

introduction of those pests into the 

continental United States. Therefore, we 

propose to amend § 319.56–25 to allow 

for the importation of papayas from 

Peru. The mitigation measures for the 

proposed systems approach are outlined 

in greater detail below. 

Commercial Consignments 

The importation of fresh papayas from 

Peru would be limited to commercial 

consignments of papaya of cultivar Solo 

only. 

This condition would reduce the 

likelihood that papayas will introduce 

injurious plant pests into the 

continental United States. Commercial 

consignments are less likely to be 

infested with plant pests than 

noncommercial consignments. 

Noncommercial consignments are more 

prone to infestations because the 

commodity is often ripe to overripe, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48629 

may be of a variety with unknown 

susceptibility to pests, and is often 

grown with little or no pest control. 

Commercial consignments, as defined in 

§ 319.56–2, are consignments that an 

inspector identifies as having been 

imported for sale and distribution. Such 

identification is based on a variety of 

indicators, including, but not limited to: 

Quantity of produce, type of packaging, 

identification of grower or packinghouse 

on the packaging, and documents 

consigning the fruits or vegetables to a 

wholesaler or retailer. 

Papayas weighing 2 kilograms or less 

are considered ‘‘Solo’’ papayas. The 

limitation would ensure that the hot 

water dip treatment discussed later in 

this document is effective, as that 

treatment has not been tested on larger 

papayas. 

Registered Growers 

The papayas would have to be grown 

by a grower registered with the NPPO of 

Peru and packed for shipment to the 

continental United States (including 

Alaska) in Peru. This condition would 

ensure that papayas intended for the 

continental United States are grown in 

places of production where fruit fly 

traps are maintained and where the 

other elements of the systems approach 

described below are in place. In 

addition, grower registration allows for 

traceback and removal from the export 

program of production sites with 

confirmed pest problems, and the 

papaya orchards would be monitored by 

the NPPO to ensure that pest and 

disease-excluding sanitary procedures 

are employed. 

Harvesting Procedures 

Beginning at least 30 days before 

harvest begins and continuing through 

the completion of harvest, all trees in 

the area where the papayas are grown 

would have to be kept free of papayas 

that are one-half or more ripe (more 

than one-quarter of shell surface 

yellow), and all culled and fallen fruit 

would have to be buried, destroyed, or 

removed from the farm at least twice a 

week. 

Although papayas are a potential host 

for Medfly and South American fruit fly, 

these fruit flies typically prefer ripe 

fruits as well as culled or fallen 

papayas. Therefore, requiring that only 

green papayas (less than half ripe) be 

present on the trees and that culled and 

fallen fruit be buried, destroyed, or 

removed from the farm would reduce 

the populations of Medfly and South 

American fruit fly in the fields where 

papayas intended for importation into 

the continental United States are grown. 

Treatment 

The papayas would have to be held 

for 20 minutes in hot water at 48 °C 

(118.4 °F). This treatment is currently 

used to treat papayas imported from 

Central America, Brazil, Colombia, and 

Ecuador for fruit flies under the existing 

regulations in § 319.56–25. Hot water 

treatment mitigates the pest risk that 

could result if fruit flies lay eggs in 

papayas immediately before harvest. 

This treatment, in conjunction with 

other safeguards that would be required 

by the regulations for papayas from 

Peru, would reduce the likelihood that 

papayas will introduce Medfly and 

South American fruit fly into the 

continental United States. 

Packaging Procedures 

When packed, the papayas would 

have to be less than one-half ripe (shell 

surface no more than one-quarter 

yellow, surrounded by light green) and 

appear to be free of all injurious insect 

pests. 

This condition would reduce the risk 

of introduction of Medfly and South 

American fruit fly into the continental 

United States. Papayas that are less than 

one-half ripe (green) are not preferred 

hosts for fruit flies. Requiring papayas to 

be less than one-half ripe when packed 

thus reduces the risk of their infestation 

with Medfly or South American fruit 

fly. 

The papayas would have to be 

safeguarded from exposure to fruit flies 

from harvest to export, including being 

packaged to prevent access by fruit flies 

or other injurious insect pests during 

transit. The package containing the 

papayas would not be allowed to 

contain any other fruit, including 

papayas not qualified for importation 

into the continental United States. 

These conditions would ensure that 

papayas that have already been 

inspected and packaged for shipment to 

the continental United States are not at 

risk for fruit fly infestation. 

Fruit Fly Trapping 

Beginning at least 1 year before 

harvest begins and continuing through 

the completion of harvest, fruit fly traps 

would have to be maintained in the 

field where the papayas were grown. 

Fifty percent of the traps would have to 

be of the McPhail type, and 50 percent 

of the traps of the Jackson type. The 

traps would have to be placed at the rate 

of 1 trap per hectare and checked for 

fruit flies at least once a week by plant 

health officials of the NPPO. The NPPO 

would have to keep records of the fruit 

fly finds for each trap, updating the 

records each time the traps are checked, 

and make the records available to 

APHIS upon request. The records would 

have to be maintained for at least 1 year. 

This condition would ensure the earliest 

possible detection of increasing 

populations of fruit flies in and around 

fields where papayas are grown. 

If the average Jackson fruit fly trap 

catch is greater than seven Medflies per 

trap per week, measures would have to 

be taken to control the Medfly 

population in the production area. If the 

average Jackson trap catch exceeds 14 

Medflies per trap per week, 

importations of papayas from that 

production area would be halted until 

the rate of capture drops to an average 

of 7 or fewer Medflies per trap per week. 

If the average McPhail trap catch is 

greater than seven South American fruit 

flies per trap per week, measures would 

have to be taken to control the South 

American fruit flies population in the 

production area. If the average McPhail 

trap catch exceeds 14 South American 

fruit flies per trap per week, 

importations of papayas from that 

production area would be halted until 

the rate of capture drops to an average 

of 7 or fewer South American fruit flies 

per trap per week. 

These thresholds for Medfly and 

South American fruit fly trapping would 

help detect increasing populations of 

these fruit flies in growing areas; as 

such, this condition would help ensure 

that these fruit flies are not associated 

with imports of papayas into the 

continental United States. 

All activities would have to be 

conducted under the supervision and 

direction of plant health officials of the 

NPPO of the exporting country to help 

ensure that all activities required by the 

regulations are properly carried out. 

This requirement is found in paragraph 

(h) of § 319.56–25, which currently 

refers to the activities in paragraphs (a) 

through (h) of the section. Since 

paragraph (h) contains the supervision 

requirement, we are proposing to correct 

the reference to instead refer to 

supervision of the activities described in 

paragraphs (a) through (g) of § 319.56– 

25. 

Phytosanitary Certificate 

All shipments of papayas would have 

to be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru 

stating that the papayas were grown, 

packed, and shipped in accordance with 

the proposed requirements. This 

condition would help ensure that the 

provisions of the regulations have been 

met. In addition, as part of issuing the 

phytosanitary certificate, the NPPO 

would inspect the commodities and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48630 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

certify that they are free of quarantine 

pests. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. The analysis is 

summarized below. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

This proposed rule would allow the 

importation of fresh papaya fruit from 

Peru into the continental United States. 

Papaya is a relatively minor crop in the 

United States that is primarily grown in 

Hawaii, and to a lesser extent, in 

Florida. Very small acreages are found 

in Texas and California. 

Peru is expected to ship up to 36 

metric tons of fresh papaya to the 

United States per year. This amount 

would be equivalent to less than 0.03 

percent of net imports of fresh papaya 

by the United States in 2011. With U.S. 

net imports estimated to be at least eight 

times as large as U.S. fresh papaya 

production, any market effects of such 

a relatively negligible change in papaya 

imports are as likely to impact foreign 

suppliers as they are U.S. producers. In 

addition, effects for the majority of U.S. 

papaya producers, who are located in 

Hawaii, would be further muted by the 

proposed prohibition on entry of fresh 

papaya from Peru into that State. 

While most if not all U.S. papaya 

farms are small entities, we expect this 

proposed rule to have a very minor 

impact regardless of the size of 

operation. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule would allow 

papayas to be imported into the 

continental United States from Peru. If 

this proposed rule is adopted, State and 

local laws and regulations regarding 

papayas imported under this rule would 

be preempted while the fruit is in 

foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are 

generally imported for immediate 

distribution and sale to the consuming 

public and would remain in foreign 

commerce until sold to the ultimate 

consumer. The question of when foreign 

commerce ceases in other cases must be 

addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this 

proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive 

effect will be given to this rule, and this 

rule will not require administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Please send written comments 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 

20503. Please state that your comments 

refer to Docket No. APHIS–2012–0014. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) APHIS, using one of the methods 

described under ADDRESSES at the 

beginning of this document, and (2) 

Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, Room 

404–W, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. A 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication of this 

proposed rule. 

Allowing the importation of papayas 

into the continental United States from 

Peru will require grower registration, 

trapping records, and phytosanitary 

certificates. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments will 

help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our agency’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond (such as through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses). 

Estimate of burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 1.5 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: The NPPO of Peru and 

growers. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 51. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 1.9. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 101. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 154 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this proposed rule, please contact 

Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ 

Information Collection Coordinator, at 

(301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and 

7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

§ 319.56–25 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 319.56–25 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b), by removing the 

words ‘‘or Ecuador’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘, Ecuador, or Peru’’ in their 

place. 

■ b. In paragraph (g)(2), by adding the 

word ‘‘Peru,’’ after the word ‘‘Ecuador,’’. 

■ c. In paragraph (h), by removing the 

citation ‘‘(h)’’ and adding the citation 

‘‘(g)’’ in its place. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48631 

Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of 

August 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19314 Filed 8–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

9 CFR Part 317 

[Docket No. FSIS–2008–0017] 

Descriptive Designation for Needle- or 

Blade-Tenderized (Mechanically 

Tenderized) Beef Products 

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 Federal 

Register proposed rule, ‘‘Descriptive 

Designation for Needle- or bladetenderized (Mechanically Tenderized) 

Beef Products’’ until October 8, 2013. 

The Agency is taking this action in 

response to two requests made by trade 

associations. 

DATES: Comments are due by October 8, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested 

persons to submit comments on this 

notice. 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 on-line instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. 

Mail, including CD–ROMs: Send to 

Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 

3782, Room 8–163B, Washington, DC 

20250–3700. 

Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: 

Deliver to Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street 

SW., Room 8–163B, Washington, DC 

20250–3700. 

Instructions: All items submitted by 

mail or electronic mail must include the 

Agency name and docket number FSIS– 

2007–0017. 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. 

Docket: For access to background 

documents or to comments received, go 

to the FSIS Docket Room at Patriots 

Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8–164, 

Washington, DC 20250–3700 between 

8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Edelstein, Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Policy and 

Program Development, Telephone: (202) 

205–0495, or by Fax: (202) 720–2025. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

10, 2013, FSIS published a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register (78 FR 

34589), ‘‘Descriptive Designation for 

Needle- or blade-tenderized 

(Mechanically Tenderized) Beef 

Products.’’ 

In the rule, FSIS is proposing to 

require the use of the descriptive 

designation ‘‘mechanically tenderized’’ 

on the labels of raw or partially cooked 

needle- or blade-tenderized beef 

products, including beef products 

injected with marinade or solution, 

unless such products are destined to be 

fully cooked at an official establishment. 

FSIS is proposing that the product name 

for such beef products include the 

descriptive designation ‘‘mechanically 

tenderized’’ and an accurate description 

of the beef component. FSIS is also 

proposing to require that the print for all 

words in the product name appear in 

the same style, color, and size and on a 

single-color contrasting background. In 

addition, FSIS is proposing to require 

that labels of raw and partially cooked 

needle- or blade-tenderized beef 

products destined for household 

consumers, hotels, restaurants, or 

similar institutions include validated 

cooking instructions that inform 

consumers that these products need to 

be cooked to a specified minimum 

internal temperature, and whether they 

need to be held at that minimum 

temperature for a specified time before 

consumption, i.e., dwell time or rest 

time, to ensure that they are fully 

cooked. 

FSIS is also announcing that it has 

posted on its Web site guidance for 

developing validated cooking 

instructions for mechanically tenderized 

product. 

Two trade associations addressed 

letters to FSIS requesting an additional 

120 days to comment on the proposed 

rule and the guidance for validated 

cooking instructions. Both letters stated 

that additional time was needed to 

submit comprehensive comments 

because the Agency had asked for 

comment on not only the proposed rule 

and the guidance but also on numerous 

related issues. 

For the reason given in these requests, 

FSIS agrees to extend the comment 

period. The Agency believes that an 

additional 60-day extension is 

sufficient. The comment period for the 

proposed rule will now end on October 

8, 2013. 

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, gender, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, 

sexual orientation, and marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to 

all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large 

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s Target Center at (202) 720–2600 

(voice and TTY). 

To file a written complaint of 

discrimination, write USDA, Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call 

(202) 720–5964 (voice and TTY). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer. 

Additional Public Notification 

FSIS will announce this notice online 

through the FSIS Web page located at 

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

fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register/ 

federal-register-notices. 

FSIS will also 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 constituents and 

stakeholders. The Update is 

communicated via Listserv, a free 

electronic mail subscription service for 

industry, trade groups, consumer 

interest groups, health professionals, 

and other individuals who have asked 

to be included. The Update is also 

available on the FSIS Web page. In 

addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail 

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/wps/portal/ 

fsis/programs-and-services/emailsubscription-service. 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS