36086 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 128 / Thursday, July 8, 2021 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

[Docket No. FSIS–2014–0034] 

Availability of Revised Compliance 

Guidelines for Controlling Salmonella 

and Campylobacter in Raw Poultry 

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

response to comments. 

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing 

the availability of revised guidelines to 

assist poultry establishments in 

controlling Salmonella and 

Campylobacter in raw poultry. The 

Agency has revised the content of the 

guidelines in light of new scientific and 

technical information, public comments 

received on the 2015 guideline, and the 

Agency’s decision to issue two separate 

guidelines—one on controlling 

Salmonella and the other on controlling 

Campylobacter. The guidelines provide 

‘‘best practice’’ recommendations that 

poultry establishments may follow to 

reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter 

contamination of raw products. 

ADDRESSES: Downloadable versions of 

the revised guidelines are available at 

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

fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/ 

guidelines. The Agency has not 

published hard copies of these 

documents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel A. Edelstein, Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Policy and 

Program Development, FSIS; Telephone: 

(202) 205–0495. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 16, 2015, FSIS 

published a Federal Register notice (80 

FR 78166) announcing the availability 

of and opportunity to comment on a 

revised Agency compliance guideline 

for controlling Salmonella and 

Campylobacter in raw poultry. This 

revision was the fourth edition of the 

guideline the Agency had developed to 

assist establishments that slaughter or 

process raw poultry products to 

minimize or prevent the risk of 

Salmonella and Campylobacter in their 

operations. 

Updated Guidelines 

FSIS has updated the guideline 

contents to reflect the most recent best 

practices, supported by current peerreviewed literature and analyses of FSIS 

data. Updates include information on 

using neutralizing agents in sampling to 

prevent carryover of antimicrobial 

substances and a current list of 

antimicrobials for establishment use. 

Also included are improvements in the 

information on pre-harvest practices, 

with a comprehensive revision of the 

litter/bedding section. With the updated 

information, establishments of various 

sizes and configurations have practical 

options for reducing and inhibiting the 

growth of pathogens commonly found 

in raw poultry. 

In response to the comments, FSIS 

also reviewed the recommendations in 

the previous version of the guideline 

and assessed each section for utility and 

effectiveness. The resulting changes 

include a complete revision of the 

sections on litter and bedding and 

updates to FSIS data on the rate at 

which Salmonella or Campylobacter 

contamination can be attributed to 

source materials of different 

composition. Also, the Agency is now 

issuing the revised document as two 

separate guidelines, one focused on 

control of Salmonella, and the other on 

Campylobacter. The guidelines are 

posted at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

policy/fsis-guidelines. Although 

comments will no longer be accepted 

through regulations.gov on these 

guidelines, FSIS will update these 

documents as necessary if new 

information becomes available. 

Comments and Responses 

FSIS received fifteen comments in 

response to the December 16, 2015, 

Federal Register notice and guideline. 

The commenters included consumer 

and industry associations, individuals, 

and firms that specialize in providing 

technology and services to the regulated 

industry. The comments and the 

Agency’s responses, discussed below, 

have been grouped by topic area. 

Pre-Harvest 

Comment: A poultry industry 

association remarked that 

considerations and sampling for 

Salmonella and Campylobacter should 

not affect the Hazard Analysis and 

Critical Control Point (HACCP) system 

of the receiving establishment. The 

same association stated that, while good 

husbandry practices are important, the 

goal of obtaining pathogen-free flocks 

and many of the recommendations for 

doing so are unrealistic and 

unnecessary. According to the 

association, the Agency should revise 

the discussion of pre-harvest practices 

in the guideline to reflect currently 

available, commercially proven methods 

that can be practically implemented. 

Response: Information about preharvest conditions and particularly, 

pathogen levels on incoming flocks, can 

inform the establishment’s hazard 

analysis and decisions on controls to 

include in its HACCP plan. In the 

guideline, FSIS acknowledges that there 

may be no single pre-harvest 

intervention that eliminates Salmonella 

and Campylobacter as pre-harvest 

hazards. The Agency recommends 

instead a multi-hurdle approach 

involving successive interventions that 

can have a cumulative effect in reducing 

the pathogen contamination of birds. 

The Agency has modified some 

language in the pre-harvest section of 

the guideline to reflect current scientific 

literature. 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association said that another area of 

concern is the recommendation to 

change bedding between each flock. 

According to the poultry industry 

association, that is not always the best 

way to control Salmonella growth 

because new litter can be a bigger risk 

factor for Salmonella than old litter, 

depending on the pH profile involved. 

The poultry industry association argued 

that the section on transportation crate 

maintenance is similarly impractical. 

Response: Litter, or bedding, can be 

considered a potential reservoir for 

contamination with Salmonella and 

other pathogens. The presence or 

absence of contamination in litter is 

among the pre-harvest conditions of 

which a prudent establishment should 

be aware, along with clean transport 

crates. FSIS has updated the pre-harvest 

and transportation sections of the 

guideline with practical suggestions, 

based on informative studies, and also 

updated the section on scheduled 

slaughter (taking account of pathogen 

loads on incoming flocks). 

Sanitation 

Comment: An animal health and foodsafety technology and services provider 

recommended changes in the guideline 

discussion of cleaning procedures by 

adding, after the removal of debris, drypickup of gross soils and pre-rinsing to 

remove remaining soil before using a 

cleaning agent, such as a detergent. This 

commenter also recommended that the 

guideline include a table (provided by 

the commenter) showing the factors to 

consider when choosing a sanitizer for 

a particular application. 

Response: FSIS has accepted the 

recommended edits to the discussion of 

cleaning procedures in the sanitation 

section. The Agency has also removed 

some outdated references that the 

commenter noted and added the table of 

sanitizer characteristics. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 128 / Thursday, July 8, 2021 / Notices 36087 

1See Hinton, et al., (ARS) abstract for 

International Association for Food Protection 

(2004), ‘‘Comparison of psychrotrophic bacterial 

flora of fresh and marinated chicken breast fillets 

during refrigerated storage.’’ 

2See R. Thanissery and D.P. Smith, ‘‘Effect of 

Marinade Containing Thyme and Orange Oils on 

Broiler Breast Fillet and Whole Wing Aerobic 

Bacteria During Refrigerated Storage,’’ in The 

Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23 (2): 228– 

232; May 2014 

3See FSIS. 2007. ‘‘Pennsylvania Firm Recalls 

Beef Products for Possible E. coli O157:H7’’ Recall 

Release. Available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

wps/wcm/connect/5a217ede-de72-474a-b384- 

6643a8ac12f8/Recall_019_2007_

Release.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. 

4Beers KL, Cook PE, Coleman CW, and Waldroup 

AL. 2010. Efficacy of ultraviolet light systems for 

control of microorganisms in poultry and beef brine 

and marinade solutions. Poult Sci. 89 (ESupplement 1): 615. 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association said that the guideline 

includes prescriptive practices that are 

neither reasonable nor necessary and 

that are not conducive to chicken 

processing. For example, the association 

stated that sanitizing hand-held knives 

between each carcass is not reasonable, 

nor would it result in significant 

pathogen reduction on final products. 

According to the association, 

sanitization between each carcass would 

increase handling time and create more 

opportunity for pathogen outgrowth, 

thereby increasing food-safety risks. 

Response: The guideline recommends 

sanitizing knives in 180-degree water or 

an antimicrobial solution after cutting or 

trimming each carcass, which should 

result in the reduced transfer of 

pathogens from one carcass to the next. 

FSIS guidance is intended to offer 

practical solutions to food safety 

problems, with some recommendations 

likely more useful in small and very 

small establishments and others more 

suitable for large establishments. Most 

of the information in this guidance 

should be useful to all establishments, 

including small and very small 

establishments. Although bacterial 

outgrowth is not a result of time alone, 

it would certainly be one consideration 

for an establishment contemplating this 

factor in its process. 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association added that other 

recommendations in the guidelines, 

such as that to limit solution reuse 

during injection marinating to prevent 

contamination, is not supported by 

scientific evidence. 

Response: FSIS updated the 

guidelines to include citations to 

scientific studies indicating that 

marination of non-heat-treated poultry 

parts can result in larger bacterial 

populations on the poultry,1 depending 

on the type of marinade used.2 Injection 

or other contact across carcasses can 

introduce a potential point for crosscontamination. A prime example in the 

guidance showing this mechanism of 

internalizing pathogens is an outbreak 

of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in beef 

steaks that occurred in 2007.3

Establishments should consider the 

effects of injected solutions in their 

hazard analyses (9 CFR 417.2(a)) and 

support all decisions made in the 

hazard analysis, 9 CFR 417.5(a)(1). At 

this step in a process, an establishment 

could address the risk in several ways, 

depending on its process. One approach 

described in the guidelines is the use of 

an ultraviolet light intervention applied 

to the marinade solution between uses.4

Additionally, the formulation of a 

marinade may include antimicrobial 

components, to achieve a specific pH or 

antimicrobial activity; examples of 

acceptable ingredients for this use are 

listed in the lookup table of FSIS 

Directive 7120.1, ‘‘Safe and Suitable 

Ingredients.’’ 

Lotting Practices 

Comment: A poultry industry 

association asked the Agency to revise 

its recommendations on lotting 

practices to remove the emphasis on 

‘‘microbiological independence’’ 

relating to pathogens that do not legally 

adulterate raw product by their presence 

alone, or per se. 

Response: FSIS did not make changes 

to its recommendations on lotting 

practices. Concepts related to 

microbiological independence, or the 

unlikelihood of cross-contamination, 

apply to all pathogens. Considering 

lotting practices in such cases can help 

to maximize the value of testing and 

process control throughout production. 

Under HACCP, establishments may test 

for pathogens to verify that they are 

adequately addressing microbial 

hazards. 

Also, as discussed in the December 6, 

2012, Federal Register Notice on 

HACCP-plan reassessment for notready-to-eat (NRTE) comminuted 

poultry products (77 FR 72686, at 

72689), when a NRTE product is 

credibly linked to an outbreak of illness 

caused by a pathogen, FSIS may 

consider the product to be adulterated, 

even if the pathogen does not adulterate 

the implicated NRTE product per se. 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association said that, in addition to the 

above concerns regarding 

microbiologically-based lotting 

practices, the Agency should be aware 

that: Lot-traceback information may be 

commercially sensitive; separation in 

time and space is difficult in 

establishments running multiple lines 

and mixing flocks; and microbiological 

testing takes days to complete—too late 

for processed poultry already in 

commerce. For these reasons, according 

to the poultry industry association, the 

Agency should remove these 

recommendations from the guideline. 

Response: As mentioned in the 

previous response, in situations where 

pathogenic organisms in NRTE products 

have been linked to foodborne illness 

outbreaks, FSIS has deemed the 

products to be adulterated. FSIS and 

members of the regulated industry have 

been interested in preventing situations 

like those. Accordingly, the guideline 

contains recommendations for lot 

separation, traceback, and 

microbiological testing. These 

approaches to monitoring, tracking, and 

controlling potentially contaminated 

products can help in preventing 

pathogen spread and illness outbreaks. 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association said that recordkeeping 

recommendations must be relevant to 

establishment operations and must 

allow for flexibility according to 

establishment size and resources. 

Response: The recordkeeping 

recommendations in the guideline are 

premised on the assumption that the 

establishment already has records that 

meets the HACCP, Sanitation Standard 

Operating Procedures, and other 

regulatory requirements. Establishments 

have significant flexibility in meeting 

these recordkeeping requirements and 

recordkeeping will vary in technical and 

other aspects from establishment to 

establishment. Additionally, the 

guideline sets out recordkeeping 

elements that are associated with 

sampling and testing and that are fairly 

basic and general. As such, FSIS has not 

revised the recordkeeping guidance. 

Process Control 

Comment: A poultry industry 

association requested that the Agency 

clarify key concepts and terms used in 

the guidance. For example, the 

association said that, while FSIS states 

throughout the guidance that 

establishments should reduce pathogens 

to ‘‘acceptable levels,’’ the guideline is 

not clear enough about what those 

acceptable levels are. The poultry 

industry association suggested that FSIS 

use its pathogen reduction performance 

standards as examples of acceptable 

levels and state that other metrics than 

prevalence might be used in evaluating 

acceptable levels. 

Response: In the context used in the 

guidelines, ‘‘acceptable levels’’ of 

pathogens are defined by an 

establishment for use as control 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
36088 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 128 / Thursday, July 8, 2021 / Notices 

5 IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2009. Review of the 

Use of Process Control Indicators in the FSIS Public 

Health Risk-Based Inspection System: A Letter 

Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies 

Press. P.12. 

6Available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

guidelines/2015-0013. 

parameters in its HACCP system. These 

upper and lower control limits may use 

prevalence to measure control of a 

hazard over time. As defined in the 

2009 review of FSIS public health riskbased systems by the Institute of 

Medicine, ‘‘[a] process is in control 

when, within the limits of a stable and 

predictable process variation, all 

hazards are controlled to an acceptable 

level.’’ 5

Data collected initially by the 

establishment can be used in process 

mapping for HACCP validation. The 

establishment can compare pathogen 

levels on incoming and final product to 

determine whether the process is 

achieving the desired reduction in 

microbial loads. Then, if the pathogen 

testing results demonstrate that the 

process is functioning correctly, the 

establishment can use the testing results 

for indicator bacteria to set a maximum 

limit for each indicator at each 

collection point. FSIS agrees with the 

commenter, however, that where the 

Agency’s pathogen-reduction 

performance standards apply, an 

acceptable level would be one that is at 

or below the pathogen limit of a 

standard. Just as in the 2015 guidance, 

the updated guidance continues to 

advise an establishment seeking to 

reduce microbial hazards to consider 

FSIS’s applicable Salmonella and 

Campylobacter performance standards 

for carcasses, parts, and comminuted 

poultry. 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association said that, additionally, the 

guideline frequently instructs 

establishments to reevaluate their 

processes if they are resulting in ‘‘high 

numbers’’ of Campylobacter or 

Salmonella subtypes more commonly 

associated with human illness, without 

defining what the Agency views as a 

‘‘high level’’ of these serotypes. Further, 

the poultry industry association argued 

that serotypes have little or no practical 

impact on HACCP systems. According 

to the commenter, a good HACCP 

system should work to control all 

Salmonella serotypes or Campylobacter 

species regardless of their serotype. 

Response: Under HACCP, criteria for 

additional testing or actions are defined 

by the establishment. These criteria 

could be derived from the 

establishment’s own baseline data, as 

well as the frequency at which serotypes 

of human-health concern are identified 

in that baseline. While FSIS agrees that 

HACCP systems should address all 

pathogens, FSIS uses characterization 

data, including serotypes of increased 

human health concern, to prioritize 

further evaluation and assessment of an 

establishment’s HACCP system. 

Specifically, if an establishment does 

not meet FSIS performance standards, 

as part of the public health review 

evaluation (PHRE), FSIS will assess 

whether the Agency has found frequent 

serotypes of public health concern in 

the establishment’s product. If so, FSIS 

will also likely conduct a food safety 

assessment (FSA) at the establishment. 

Comment: A poultry industry 

association noted that the 2015 

guidance appears to conflate the terms 

‘‘prevalence’’ and ‘‘load’’ when referring 

to recommendations for decreasing 

Salmonella and Campylobacter. 

According to the poultry industry 

association, the ‘‘prevalence’’ of a 

pathogen on raw poultry product is a 

distinctly different microbial sampling 

metric than the ‘‘load,’’ or quantity, of 

pathogen on a raw poultry product. The 

prevalence of a pathogen refers to the 

presence or absence of a pathogen, 

regardless of quantity and is usually 

expressed as a percentage or rate of 

occurrence over time. By contrast, the 

microbial load of a pathogen refers to 

the concentration of bacteria (for 

example, in colony-forming units) in or 

on a unit of product. Yet, according to 

the poultry industry association, the 

guideline uses the terms ‘‘prevalence’’ 

and ‘‘load’’ interchangeably when 

recommending practices to decrease the 

‘‘prevalence’’ or ‘‘load’’ of Salmonella 

and Campylobacter on raw poultry 

products. The poultry industry 

association argued that these two 

metrics are not, in fact, interchangeable. 

Since FSIS had reiterated that the 

Agency will focus on the presence of 

Salmonella or Campylobacter rather 

than on load, the poultry industry 

association recommended that the 

Agency revise the guidance for 

consistency in referring to ‘‘prevalence’’ 

rather than ‘‘load.’’ According to the 

poultry industry association, the 

guidance should refer to ‘‘prevalence’’ 

rather than ‘‘load.’’ 

Response: FSIS disagrees that it 

conflated the terms ‘‘prevalence’’ and 

‘‘load’’ and did not make the poultry 

association’s recommended changes to 

the guidelines. Establishments are not 

limited to considering only prevalence, 

which may be derived from qualitative 

test results over time, when designing 

and implementing a HACCP system. 

Available tools for enumeration can 

help inform a prudent establishment so 

that it can consider the impact of 

pathogen load, or the actual levels of 

contamination in positive samples, 

along with the prevalence information 

in order to improve process-control 

systems. 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association offered several 

recommendations intended to improve 

discussion in the guidance of data 

analysis techniques. Thus, in the area of 

process mapping, the poultry industry 

association recommended that FSIS give 

establishments the flexibility to use 

process indicators that reliably reflect 

their operations and environments. The 

poultry industry association also 

suggested edits to make the text more 

consistent with tables that show median 

values for indicator organisms on 

poultry carcasses and parts. The poultry 

industry association remarked that 

linking a product with human illness is 

not necessarily evidence of a loss of 

control by the establishment that 

prepared the product. The poultry 

industry association also stated that the 

use of (microbiological) performance 

standards is not the only way to 

evaluate process controls. The 

commenter also stated that the ‘‘moving 

window’’ approach to monitoring and 

assessing whether establishments meet 

performance standards and use of the 

category-ranking system has not been 

evaluated for assessing process control. 

Response: Establishments are free to 

choose appropriate microbiological 

indicators for determining processcontrol effectiveness. FSIS has removed 

some of the material about sampling for 

specific indicator organisms, including 

the sections regarding median indicator 

values, as more detail is provided in the 

FSIS Compliance Guideline: 

Modernization of Poultry Slaughter 

Inspection—Microbiological Sampling 

of Raw Poultry 6 to assist small and very 

small establishments that may not have 

their own baseline information. 

While microbiological performance 

standards may not be the only measures 

of process control, they do help focus 

industry attention on the public health 

aspects of poultry processing and the 

need to improve processes as necessary 

to prevent foodborne illnesses. During 

the past two years, FSIS has been 

employing the ‘‘moving window’’ dataframe for microbiological test results on 

poultry products as a way of 

determining whether establishments 

meet performance standards over time. 

FSIS has evaluated the technique as a 

more consistent replacement for 

sampling sets that can better identify 

trends, such as seasonality, over time. 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association recommended that FSIS 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 128 / Thursday, July 8, 2021 / Notices 36089 

7Available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/ 

wcm/connect/bab10e09-aefa-483b-8be8- 

809a1f051d4c/7120.1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. 

adjust its picture caption concerning 

optimal application of antimicrobial 

spray to a conveyor belt and products 

on the belt. The poultry industry 

association also noted that application 

of the spray does reduce pathogens even 

if the coverage of the spray is less than 

complete. 

Response: FSIS has modified the 

language of the caption in question in 

the guidance to clarify the point that not 

all the belt is being treated. The Agency 

acknowledges that there will be some 

pathogen-reduction effects like those in 

the illustration but recommends that the 

spray adequately cover the belt and 

products. 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association stated that the 2015 

guidance instructed establishments to 

evaluate their process if they 

encountered ‘‘high numbers’’ of 

serotypes of public health concern. 

According to the poultry industry 

association, the Agency should instead 

advise establishments to work at 

controlling all species of Salmonella or 

Campylobacter, regardless of serotype. 

Response: The guidance encourages 

establishments to control all Salmonella 

and Campylobacter throughout their 

process. Establishments should consider 

all available information about hazards 

identified from their operations. This 

may include information about the 

point in the process where hazards are 

most often recovered, the lot or flock 

information, and characterization of the 

hazard recovered, including serotype. 

FSIS provides Salmonella serotype 

results to establishments to facilitate 

their efforts in identifying the 

appropriate response, which could 

include both serotype-specific 

interventions at pre-harvest (e.g., 

vaccines) as well as Salmonella controls 

in the establishment. 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association said in the section of the 

guidance on sampling and testing, it 

appeared that the Agency expected 

sampling and testing results for 

pathogens to be available in real time to 

assess bacterial load just before 

processing. The poultry industry 

association noted that this is not 

possible. 

Response: FSIS has clarified the 

language in this section of the guidance 

to note that these testing options would 

need to be performed with adequate 

time allowed for the results to be used 

as effective tools. A number of rapidtesting methodologies may be fit-forpurpose for this use. 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association stated that the Agency 

should provide additional information 

relating to its exploratory sampling 

results for raw, comminuted chicken in 

the guidance. The associated noted that 

Table 6 presents the prevalence rates of 

Salmonella and Campylobacter in 

mechanically separated chicken and 

ground and comminuted chicken 

products, organized by whether the 

source material had bone or skin in it. 

According to the poultry industry 

association, it would be useful to know 

how many samples were available for 

each of the statistics generated for the 

percent prevalence for these products, 

given the limited number of samples in 

the 2015 guideline dataset. 

Response: FSIS has updated the 

statistics reported in Table 6 of the 

guidance with additional data points to 

strengthen the analysis. These updated 

tables represent 934 comminuted turkey 

samples and 2,688 comminuted chicken 

samples, more than 10 times the data 

points for chicken and 40 times the data 

points for turkey versus the data points 

used for the 2015 guidance. Analyses of 

FSIS comminuted poultry exploratory 

sampling results shows that it is more 

likely that comminuted chicken will be 

positive for Salmonella when its source 

materials contain both bone and skin 

(56.0%). However, for Campylobacter, 

comminuted chicken products made 

from bone-in and skinless source 

materials were highest. Comminuted 

chicken made from deboned and 

skinless source materials had the lowest 

prevalence for both pathogens (34.8% 

for Salmonella, and 1.7% for 

Campylobacter). Statistical analyses, 

including that for independence and for 

significance, were used to evaluate the 

data before compiling the relative risk 

tables that have been updated in this 

edition of the guidance. 

Antimicrobial Interventions 

Comment: An environmental 

advocacy group questioned the 

Agency’s continued support for food 

irradiation. 

Response: The guidance includes 

irradiation among the safe and effective 

physical interventions available. While 

FSIS does not recommend the use of 

specific interventions or lethality 

treatments, food irradiation has been 

demonstrated to be both safe and 

effective in controlling pathogens. FSIS 

and the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) regulations authorize its use in 

the treatment of ready-to-cook poultry (9 

CFR 424.22(c), citing 21 CFR 179.26)). 

Comment: The same advocacy group 

noted that the Agency continues to 

recommend the use of various chemical 

agents to reduce the levels of 

Salmonella and Campylobacter in 

poultry processing. It asked about the 

role played by the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) in 

determining permissible exposure levels 

(PELs) for these substances and their 

impact on FSIS inspectors and on plant 

employees. 

Response: While FSIS does not 

recommend the use of specific 

interventions, many chemical products 

have been demonstrated to be both safe 

and effective. Chemical substances used 

in the processing of meat, poultry, and 

egg products are approved by both FDA 

and FSIS before they can be used in 

official establishments. They are listed 

in the on-line table referred to in FSIS 

Directive 7120.1, ‘‘Safe and Suitable 

Ingredients used in the Production of 

Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products,’’ 7

which is updated regularly. 

FSIS does not allow the use of 

chemicals in a manner that may be a 

health risk to inspection personnel. 

Inspectors in every establishment verify 

that establishments use only approved 

chemicals as ingredients and only 

within approved limits, as outlined in 

FSIS Directive 7120.1. In addition, the 

Agency has a network of occupational 

safety and health experts in its 

inspection districts and distributes 

information on health hazards to its 

workforce. The information includes the 

OSHA PELs and other exposure limits 

applying to chemicals that may be used 

in meat, poultry, and egg products 

plants. (See https://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

wps/portal/informational/aboutfsis/ 

audience-employees/employee-safety/ 

environmental-safety-health.) 

Comment: A poultry industry 

association advised FSIS to replace the 

‘‘requirement’’ to wait ‘‘at least 60 

seconds’’ for drip time before collecting 

a product sample with ‘‘a drip time 

appropriate to prevent excessive 

antimicrobial carryover.’’ According to 

the poultry industry association, 

establishments are familiar with the 

antimicrobial treatments applied to 

products in their operations and the 

appropriate neutralization periods for 

each treatment. 

Response: FSIS has edited the 

language in the guidance to be more 

inclusive of the many antimicrobial 

interventions available and the 

manufacturers’ instructions specific to 

each. 

Comment: A poultry industry 

association recommended that the 

guidance reflect differences between 

Salmonella and Campylobacter. 

According to the association, the 

guideline’s assertion (in the section on 

actions to take in response to test 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
36090 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 128 / Thursday, July 8, 2021 / Notices 

results) that an intervention to prevent, 

eliminate, or reduce Salmonella will 

also reduce or prevent Campylobacter is 

not scientifically accurate. 

Response: The Agency has modified 

the language in question to account for 

the different effects of different 

interventions. Also, the Agency has 

divided the guidance into two separate 

documents—one addressing 

Salmonella, the other Campylobacter— 

with the aim of accounting for 

differences between the pathogens and 

ensuring that recommended controls 

will be effective. FSIS also revised the 

guidance to include additional literature 

supporting controls for the pathogens. 

The updated references may assist 

establishments in identifying the best 

process controls for Salmonella and 

Campylobacter in their operations. 

FSIS agrees that an intervention for 

controlling one microorganism will not 

necessarily have a similar effect on the 

other. For example, hard freezing is 

likely to be more effective against 

Campylobacter than Salmonella. On the 

other hand, vaccine development for 

controlling Salmonella in flocks is 

clearly in advance of that for controlling 

Campylobacter. 

New Technology Review 

Comment: The poultry industry 

association said that FSIS has 

recommended several interventions that 

the industry has sought but that are still 

awaiting review or approval by FSIS. 

According to the poultry industry 

association, the Agency should consider 

an expedited review and approval 

process. 

Response: The Agency does not have 

a backlog of new technology 

submissions. The Agency reviews a new 

technology to determine whether it may 

express its ‘‘non-disapproval’’ for use of 

the technology. The technology should 

be safe to use, compliant with pertinent 

regulations, not interfere with 

inspection procedures, and help the 

establishment achieve the objectives of 

its HACCP system. FSIS has made 

available a guideline to assist the 

industry in preparing and submitting 

new-technology notifications and 

protocols to the Agency (See https://

www.fsis.usda.gov/guidelines/2015- 

0012). By following the advice in the 

guideline, the submitter can assist the 

Agency in completing its review within 

a reasonable timeframe. FSIS Directive 

7,120.1, on ’’Safe and Suitable 

Ingredients,’’ is updated every month to 

incorporate newly approved entries, 

including new interventions (See 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/ 

connect/bab10e09-aefa-483b-8be8- 

809a1f051d4c/7120.1.pdf?MOD=

AJPERES). 

Additional Public Notification 

Public awareness of all segments of 

rulemaking and policy development is 

important. Consequently, FSIS will 

announce this notice on-line through 

the FSIS web page located at: http://

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

topics/regulations/federal-register. 

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 Constituent Update is 

available on the FSIS web page. 

Through 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/subscribe. Options 

range from recalls to export information, 

regulations, directives, and notices. 

Customers can add or delete 

subscriptions themselves and have the 

option to password protect their 

accounts. 

USDA Non-Discrimination Statement 

In accordance with Federal civil 

rights law and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its 

Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or 

administering USDA programs are 

prohibited from discriminating based on 

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, 

gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, 

disability, age, marital status, family/ 

parental status, income derived from a 

public assistance program, political 

beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by USDA 

(not all bases apply to all programs). 

Remedies and complaint filing 

deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign 

Language, etc.) should contact the 

responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the 

Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. 

Additionally, program information may 

be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination 

complaint, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form, AD– 

3027, found online at https://

www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-aprogram-discrimination-complaint and 

at any USDA office or write a letter 

addressed to USDA and provide in the 

letter all of the information requested in 

the form. To request a copy of the 

complaint form, call (866) 632–9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to 

USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–9410; (2) fax: (202) 690–7442; 

or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider, employer, and lender. 

Done, at Washington, DC. 

Paul Kiecker, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14554 Filed 7–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Proposed New Fee Site 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of new fee site. 

SUMMARY: The Payette National Forest is 

proposing to charge a new fee at four 

cabins including Paddy Flat, Burgdorf, 

Warren Bunkhouse, and Warren Ranger 

cabins. These units are currently not in 

use by the public. Rentals of other 

cabins on the Payette National Forest 

have shown people appreciate and 

enjoy the availability of rental cabins. 

DATES: Comments will be accepted 

through September 30, 2021. New fees 

would go into effect in the spring of 

2022, if possible. 

ADDRESSES: Payette National Forest, 

Attention: Linda Jackson, 500 N Mission 

St., McCall, Idaho 83638 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Simpson, Recreation Specialist, 

208–634–0757. Information about 

proposed fee changes can also be found 

on the Payette National Forest website: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/payette. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement 

Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108–447) directed 

the Secretary of Agriculture to publish 

a six-month advance notice in the 

Federal Register whenever new 

recreation fee areas are established. A 

market analysis indicated that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1