Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices 30683

be of interest to our constituents/

stakeholders. The constituent fax list

consists of industry, trade, and farm

groups, consumer interest groups, allied

health professionals, scientific

professionals, and other individuals that

have requested to be included. Through

these various channels, FSIS is able to

provide information to a much broader,

more diverse audience. For more

information and to be added to the

constituent fax list, fax your request to

the Congressional and Public Affairs

Office, at (202) 720–5704.

Done at Washington, DC on May 24, 2001.

F. Edward Scarbrough,

U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius.

[FR Doc. 01–14473 Filed 6–5–01; 1:59 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

[Docket No. 00–035N]

FSIS—A Public Health Approach to

Processing Inspection

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and

Inspection Service (FSIS) will hold a

public meeting, which is intended to be

the first in a series, on an FSIS initiative

to improve its inspection of processed

meat and poultry products. At the first

meeting, the Agency will provide an

overview of the Agency’s use of risk

analysis in protecting public health. The

Agency will also review its Strategic

Plan for 2000–2005, and discuss its

view of the key attributes of a public

health regulatory agency. The Agency

will then discuss the next steps that it

proposes to take to develop an

inspection system that minimizes the

risks from processed products while

making optimal use of processing

inspection resources, and will invite

comments on these next steps and on

how best to achieve the Agency’s

objectives.

DATES: The public meeting is scheduled

for June 7, 2001, from 9:00 am to 4:00

pm.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Holiday Inn—Capitol, 550 ‘‘C’’

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024.

Comments: FSIS welcomes comments

at any time on the topics to be discussed

at the public meeting, and particularly

on the Agency’s strategic plan. Please

send an original and two copies of

comments to the Food Safety and

Inspection Service Docket Clerk: Docket

#00–035N, Room 102 Cotton Annex

Building, 300 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20250. Comments may

also be sent by facsimile to (202) 205–

0381. The comments and the official

transcript of the meeting, when it

becomes available, will be kept in the

Docket Clerk’s office at the above

address. FSIS has made copies of the

FSIS Strategic Plan for 2000–2005

available in the docket room and on the

FSIS website at ‘‘http://

www.fsis.usda.gov/OM/planning/

sp2005.htm’’. Copies will also be

available at the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Jane Roth, Director, Program Evaluation

and Improvement Staff, Office of Policy,

Program Development and Evaluation,

at (202) 720–6735. Registration for the

meeting will be on-site. Persons

requiring a sign language interpreter or

other special accommodation should

notify Ms. Sheila Johnson at (202) 690–

6498 by June 1, 2001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

FSIS administers the Federal Meat

Inspection Act, the Poultry Products

Inspection Act, and the Egg Products

Inspection Act. The Agency’s activities

are intended to prevent the distribution

in interstate or foreign commerce, for

human food purposes, of adulterated or

misbranded meat, poultry, and egg

products, including products that may

transmit diseases or that may be

otherwise injurious to health.

In recent years, the Agency has placed

increased emphasis on its public health

protection role. Throughout the 1990’s,

the Agency’s most important goal was

an improved food safety inspection

system, exemplified by the Pathogen

Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical

Control Point (PR/HACCP) regulations

which were fully implemented last year.

FSIS has consistently sought the

enhancement of public health by

minimizing foodborne illness from

meat, poultry, and egg products. The

Agency has worked toward achieving

this by measures intended to reduce

pathogens on raw products, by

strengthening relationships with public

health agencies at the Federal and State

levels, food safety information and

training at every point in the food

production and marketing chain, and by

promoting international cooperation in

the field of food safety.

The Agency’s Strategic Plan for 2000–

2005 proposes that FSIS continue to

focus its operations and resources on

food safety and continue to strengthen

the scientific basis for its regulatory

activities and initiatives.

FSIS wants the views, suggestions and

comments of all of its food safety

constituencies, and the general public

on the approaches it is considering or

should consider to achieve its mission.

Public Meeting

At the first public meeting, on June 7,

2001, FSIS officials will review the

Agency’s Strategic Plan for 2000–2005,

and will discuss the basic public health

objectives and the strategy for achieving

these objectives. They will also discuss

the role of risk analysis especially with

respect to the optimal use of processing

inspection resources; the next steps that

FSIS proposes to take toward

minimizing the risk to consumers of

foodborne illness; and the coordination

of the Agency’s efforts with

international authorities, other Federal

agencies, and State and local

authorities. Finally, the Agency will

open the discussion and solicit

comment from the attendees.

The following summarizes the major

themes that will be discussed at the first

meeting.

FSIS Strategic Plan 2000–2005

In its Strategic Plan for 2000–2005,

FSIS has proposed a long-range program

for protecting the public health by

improving the Agency’s effectiveness as

a public health regulatory agency. In

order to do this, the Agency has

established as its strategic goal the

protection of the public health by

significantly reducing the prevalence of

foodborne hazards from meat, poultry,

and egg products. To achieve this goal,

the Agency will use the risk analysis

model—consisting of risk-assessment,

risk-management, and riskcommunication segments—

recommended by the National Academy

of Sciences to regulatory agencies. This

model is reflected in the objectives the

Agency seeks to meet in achieving its

strategic goal.

The first objective is to provide

national and international leadership by

building within the Agency a risk

assessment capability, supported by the

latest research and technology, that can

be applied to meat, poultry, and egg

products. Risk assessment will help the

Agency improve its operations to better

ensure the safety of meat, poultry, and

egg products. Better risk assessment is

needed to strengthen the scientific basis

for food safety polices and regulatory

decisions.

The second objective is to create a

coordinated national and international

system to manage, from farm-to-table,

the food safety risks that may be

30684 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices

presented by meat, poultry, and egg

products. Risk managers weigh, in the

context of the social and economic

environment, the scientific and

technical evidence gathered through

risk assessments. The conclusions they

draw enable them to better direct efforts

to reduce, eliminate, or control risks to

public health.

FSIS, working with all stakeholders in

the farm-to-table continuum, must

ensure that public health risks are

identified, and that steps are taken to

prevent, eliminate, or minimize those

risks. The Agency needs to play a more

focused and creative role in managing

the risks associated with producing,

processing, transporting, storing,

retailing, and delivering meat, poultry,

and egg products to consumers. It also

needs to support more rigorous

application of risk management

strategies at the international level so

that products imported into the United

States will meet standards equivalent to

those that apply to domestic products.

The third objective is to conduct a

comprehensive national and

international risk communication

program that is an open exchange of

information and opinion on risk among

risk assessors, risk managers, and the

public. The risk communication

program should promote public

confidence in food safety through

effective, open, and timely information

exchange and science-based education

on decisionmaking with respect to foodsafety risks, limits to total risk

elimination, and prevention and

protection strategies. The program

would emphasize both education and

explanation of issues involved in

considering stakeholder views,

knowledge, and receptiveness to Agency

risk assessments and risk-management

decisions.

The fourth objective is to create and

maintain an FSIS infrastructure to

support the risk assessment, risk

management, and risk communication

objectives. To enhance public health,

FSIS will have to conduct science-based

food inspection and invest in the

elements of risk analysis, food safety

technology, scientific methods, and

business process re-engineering, along

with workforce training, development,

hiring, and retention. New methods of

inspection will be based increasingly on

science and will require a more

scientifically trained workforce.

In striving to improve food safety and

to achieve the goals and objectives of

the strategic plan, FSIS believes that it

can substantially improve its

effectiveness as a public health

regulatory agency.

Key Attributes for a Public Health

Regulatory Agency

FSIS believes that a public health

regulatory agency should embody at

least eight key attributes. The first

attribute is a public health orientation.

FSIS acquires its public health

orientation from its legislative mandate

to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg

products distributed in commerce are

wholesome, not adulterated, and

properly marked, labeled, and packaged.

FSIS exercises its responsibilities by

maintaining inspection in

approximately 6,000 plants that

slaughter cattle, swine, sheep, goats,

horses, mules, other equines, and

poultry, or that prepare a wide range of

further processed products, such as

hams, sausages, stews, egg-based mixes,

and frozen dinners. The Agency carries

out a wide range of scientific support,

inspection and compliance, and

international activities in fulfilling its

public health mission.

The second attribute is a regulatory

strategy built on science-based systems

to achieve public health goals. These

systems include the Pathogen

Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical

Control Point (PR/HACCP) regulations,

which require establishments to develop

and carry out sanitation standard

operating procedures and HACCP plans

and meet process control criteria for

generic Escherichia coli and pathogen

reduction performance standards for

Salmonella. FSIS is also developing a

capability to conduct food safety risk

assessments on which to base its

regulatory programs. Another example

is the Agency’s participation, with the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

and the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC), in FoodNet, an active

surveillance network for foodborne

disease that provides national estimates

of the burden and sources of specific

foodborne diseases in the United States.

The third attribute is adopting

measures of success to gauge progress in

achieving its public health goals. Such

measures are contained in the Agency’s

strategic plan. The Agency’s measures

for risk management include percentage

reductions in the prevalence of

Salmonella on raw meat and poultry

products, percentage reductions in the

prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in

ready-to-eat meat and poultry products,

and the number of risk management

policies and decisions made that are

based on risk assessments.

The fourth attribute is an open and

inclusive manner for the conduct of

business, as evidenced by public

meetings with constituency groups on

issues that bear on the Agency’s goals.

From the beginning of its development

of the PR/HACCP regulations to the

present, FSIS has carried out its public

health regulatory initiatives in an open

and transparent manner. The Agency

plans to continue this public process for

future public health initiatives,

including its risk assessments.

The fifth attribute is that the

assurance that each of its organizational

elements contribute to the achievement

of the Agency’s public health goals. For

FSIS, this means that public healthrelated activities have a priority claim

on its inspection, laboratory,

administrative, and other resources.

The sixth attribute is the employment

of public health professionals. FSIS

employs a growing number of

individuals with specialized

qualifications, including consumer

safety officers, epidemiologists,

microbiologists, biostatisticians, risk

analysts, chemists, toxicologists,

veterinary medical officers, and medical

officers.

The seventh attribute is the

development of external relationships to

mobilize other public health resources.

Already mentioned is the FoodNet

collaboration with CDC and FDA. In

epidemiological investigations, FSIS

collaborates with these and other

Federal agencies and with State and

local governments. In drug residue

investigations, FSIS may work with

FDA. In investigations of zoonotic

disease outbreaks, FSIS may work with

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service or State

veterinarians.

The eighth attribute is the use of

scientific data to make decisions and

allocate resources. In support of its

inspection program, FSIS conducts

directed sampling for drug and other

chemical residues and microbial

pathogens, gathers or makes use of

existing data on prevalence and

enumeration of microbes, investigates

conditions of consumer and retail

storage, gathers handling and

preparation data, follows reports of

scientific studies by ARS and other

researchers, and uses data from its own

or others’ risk assessments in making

regulatory and resource allocation

decisions.

FSIS’ strategic plan specifies a

program for strengthening each of the

foregoing attributes. However, the

Agency is and will continue to be open

to any ideas or suggestions that will

help meet future challenges wherever

they arise.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices 30685

Next Steps Toward Farm-to-Table Food

Safety Assurance

Last year, FSIS completed its phased

implementation of the PR/HACCP

regulations in all official establishments.

Since then, the Agency has turned its

attention to determining how to

improve the quality and effectiveness of

industry food safety programs,

including HACCP, and how to improve

the Agency’s effectiveness as a public

health regulatory agency. The Agency

has been paying increased attention to

regulatory reform, in-plant staffing

patterns, residue control in a HACCP

environment, and overall improvements

in the Agency’s ability to respond to

future food safety problems.

FSIS has addressed a number of food

safety and regulatory reform issues that

were deferred while the PR/HACCP

regulations were being put in place. For

example, the Agency has advanced the

process of converting command-andcontrol requirements to performance

standards by issuing a final rule on

sanitation and a proposed rule on

processed, ready-to-eat meat and

poultry products.

The Agency is following the principle

of risk-based program design in the

reform of its program management

infrastructure in both slaughtering and

further processing environments.

Program infrastructure is a broad area

that encompasses assignment of work,

expertise and training, data analysis and

decisionmaking, communication, and

workplace environment.

The Agency has completed significant

work on its HACCP-based inspection

models project (HIMP) for slaughter

plants. This project involves testing a

new inspection system under which

FSIS targets its resources on carcass

conditions that have human health

implications. The Agency has also

begun to study how it can more

effectively use its processing inspection

resources by targeting areas where the

inherent hazards of products and

processes to public health are greatest.

The Agency is initiating new

activities and data reports for addressing

the hazard to public health posed by

products and operations. The Agency

intends to rely increasingly on

microbiological sampling programs and

on the use of epidemiological data on

foodborne outbreaks in which meat,

poultry, or egg products have been

implicated. The Agency also plans to

move to a system of team inspection,

involving the use of personnel with

different types of expertise, to assess the

performance of HACCP systems and to

deal with food safety problems. FSIS is

designing a dynamic process for

responding to and addressing public

health problems. As envisioned, this

process will rely on a variety of data

sources, interdisciplinary teams, and

coordination with State and other

Federal agencies.

The Agency is also developing plans

to intensify its efforts at both ends of the

farm-to-table chain. For example, FSIS

is exploring the possibility of using

veterinary medical officers in ways that

would enhance the reliability and

effectiveness of farm-to-table food-safety

controls.

One idea the Agency is exploring is

that of ensuring the availability to

District Managers (DMs) of public health

data resources and personnel that would

improve the ability of the DMs to carry

out the Agency’s public health strategy.

The DMs will play a central,

coordinating role under the Agency’s

reform plans. Possible resources that

can be made available to the DMs

include special surveys and reviews by

teams of specialists; inspection

management and enforcement reports;

and the results of sampling for

Salmonella and other pathogens. Also

available to them will be districtspecific resources, such as personnel

with special expertise, risk evaluation

data for products and processes, and

current information on plant

construction, management issues, and

pending enforcement actions.

The Agency is developing a plan for

delivering HACCP-related training to its

personnel through work-unit meetings.

The Agency recognizes that it must

improve the ability of its personnel to

understand their regulatory authorities,

to assess the effectiveness of

establishment sanitation standard

operating procedures and HACCP plans,

and to identify hazards to public health

on which action must be taken.

Risk Analysis-Based Approach to

Improving Processing Inspection in a

Public Health Regulatory Agency

As mentioned above in the context of

the Agency’s strategic plan, FSIS has

chosen a risk analysis-based approach to

achieve its strategic goal of reducing the

likelihood and prevalence of foodborne

hazards in meat, poultry, and egg

products. Risk analysis, which consists

of risk assessment, risk management,

and risk communication, is recognized

as a logical and systematic approach to

food safety both nationally, for example,

by the National Academy of Sciences,

and internationally, for example, by the

Codex Alimentarius Commission. A risk

analysis-based approach to inspection

will ensure that hazards to consumers

from meat, poultry, and egg products

will be minimized.

FSIS is considering the types of

information and data needed for a riskanalysis based improvement of

processing inspection systems. The

Agency believes that the information

would include the likely hazards

associated with meat, poultry and egg

products for each establishment; the

processes each establishment uses to

produce the product; and the volume of

product produced by each

establishment. The Agency is also

evaluating CDC reports on foodborne

illness by location, population segment,

organism, and type of food product

implicated in the spread of illness. The

Agency is studying how it can use such

data to determine the magnitude of

hazards and the possibility of consumer

exposure to those hazards.

The Agency is also trying to

determine its future data needs as it

moves toward a more risk analysisbased processing inspection system. The

Agency believes it will need more

information on such things as retail and

consumer behavior patterns (e.g.,

storage, handling and cooking of food),

dose-response relationships (e.g., among

susceptible populations), and

consumption patterns (i.e., frequency

and serving size consumed), as well as

a better understanding of the growth

and decline of microbial populations.

Implications for Processing Inspection

As the Agency’s risk analyses produce

more and better quality data and

information on the public health risks of

food products that are subject to the

Agency’s regulations, the Agency will

use the data and information to reassess

its inspection of the processing of meat

and poultry products. FSIS has been

documenting and analyzing the

accomplishments of the current

processing inspection system,

particularly as that system has been

operated in the PR/HACCP

environment. In evaluating the current

system, the Agency has already found

that there are areas where the allocation

of processing inspection resources

potentially limits the public health

effectiveness of the Agency.

FSIS is beginning to explore changes

in processing inspection that may be

needed to enable the Agency to meet the

goals and objectives of its Strategic Plan

and to fully function as a public health

regulatory agency. FSIS is considering

ways of optimizing processing

inspection in the light of risk analysis.

The Agency is also considering how to

use the information from risk analyses

to provide its managers with the

appropriate decision-making tools, data,

and personnel resources that they

would need to carry out the Agency’s

30686 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices

public health strategy at the field

management level.

Additional Public Notification

Public awareness of all segments of

policy development is important.

Consequently, in an effort to better

ensure that minorities, women, and

persons with disabilities are aware of

this public meeting, FSIS will announce

it and provide copies of this Federal

Register publication in the FSIS

Constituent Update. FSIS provides a

weekly FSIS Constituent Update, which

is communicated via fax to over 300

organizations and individuals. In

addition, the update is available on line

through the FSIS web page located at

http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is

used to provide information on FSIS

policies, procedures, regulations,

Federal Register notices, FSIS public

meetings, recalls, and any other types of

information that could affect or would

be of interest to our constituents/

stakeholders. The constituent fax list

consists of industry, trade, and farm

groups, consumer interest groups, allied

health professionals, scientific

professionals, and other individuals that

have requested to be included. Through

these various channels, FSIS is able to

provide information to a much broader,

more diverse audience. For more

information and to be added to the

constituent fax list, fax your request to

the Congressional and Public Affairs

Office, at (202) 720–5704.

Done at Washington, DC on: May 31, 2001.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–14474 Filed 6–5–01; 1:59 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Holmes/Chipmunk Timber Sale

Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, will prepare

an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) for the Holmes/Chipmunk Area.

The Record of Decision will disclose

how the Forest Service has decided to

manage approximately 34,000 acres of

Federal land. The proposed action

would provide approximately 25 to 35

million board feet of timber to local and

regional timber markets, final harvest

approximately 4,000 acres of 60+ year

old aspen experiencing substantial

mortality from blow down, decay, and

old age, treat approximately 500 acres of

red and white pine communities

through prescribed burning and hand

release treatments, and provide access

to non-federally owned lands within the

project boundaries. A range of

alternatives responsive to significant

issues will be developed, including a

no-action alternative. The proposed

project is located on the LaCroix Ranger

District, Cook MN, Superior National

Forest. In addition, the LaCroix Ranger

District may create temporary openings

greater than 40 acres under 36 CFR

219.27(d)(ii).

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of this project should be received by

July 27, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please send written

comments to: LaCroix Ranger District,

Superior National Forest, Attn: Holmes/

Chipmunk EIS, 320 N HWY 53, Cook,

MN 55723.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Constance Chaney, District Ranger, or

John Galazen, Team Leader, LaCroix

Ranger District, Superior National

Forest, 320 N HWY 53 Cook, MN 55723,

telephone (218) 666–0020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public

participating will be an integral

component of the study process and

will be especially important at several

points during the analysis. The first is

during the scoping process. The Forest

Service will be seeking information,

comments, and assistance from Federal,

State and local agencies, individuals,

and organizations that may be interested

in, or affected by, the proposed

activities. The scoping process will

include: (1) Identification of potential

issues, (2) identification of issues to be

analyzed in depth, and (3) elimination

of insignificant issues or those which

have been covered by a previous

environmental review. Written

comments will be solicited through a

scoping package that will be sent to the

project mailing list and to the local

newspaper. For the Forest Service to

best use the scoping input, comments

should be received by July 23, 2001.

Issues identified for analysis in the EIS

include the potential effects of the

project on and the relationship of the

project to: age class distribution, species

composition, reforestation, Shipstead

Newton Nolan areas, temporary roads,

Proposed Management Area 8.4

(inventoried candidate special

management complexes), and others.

Based on the results of scoping and

the resource capabilities within the

Project Area, alternatives, including a

no-action alternative, will be developed

for the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is

projected to be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

in May 2002. The Final EIS is

anticipated in November 2002.

The comment period on the Draft EIS

will be a minimum of 45 days from the

date the EPA publishes the Notice of

Availability in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, it is important to give

reviewers notice of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of Draft EISs 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)).

Environmental objections that could

have been raised at the Draft EIS stage

may be waived or dismissed by the

courts (City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803

F.2nd 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 very

important that those interested in this

Proposed Action, participate by the

close of the 45-day comment period, so

that substantive comments and

objections are made available to the

Forest Service at a time when they can

be meaningfully considered and

responded to in the Final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns of the Proposed Action,

comments during scoping and on the

Draft EIS should be as specific as

possible and refer to specific pages or

chapters. Comments may address the

adequacy of the Draft EIS or the merits

of the alternatives formulated and

discussed. In addressing these points

reviewers may wish to refer to the

Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act in 40 CFR

1503.3. Comments received in response

to this solicitation, including names and

addresses of those who comment, will

be considered part of the public record

on this Proposed Action and will be

available for public inspection.

Comments submitted anonymously will

be accepted and considered. Pursuant to

7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request

the agency to withhold a submission,

from the public record, by showing how

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

permits such confidentiality. Requesters

should be aware that, under FOIA,

confidentiality may be granted in only

very limited circumstances, such as to

protect trade secrets. The Forest Service

will inform the requester of the agency’s