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

14668

Vol. 60, No. 53

Monday, March 20, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. 94–022E]

RIN 0583–AB86

Use of the Term ‘‘Fresh’’ on the

Labeling of Raw Poultry Products

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period; solicitation of

comments.

SUMMARY: On January 17, 1995, the Food

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

proposed to amend the Federal poultry

products inspection regulations to

prohibit the use of the term ‘‘fresh’’ on

the labeling of raw poultry products

whose internal temperature has ever

been below 26° F. FSIS is extending the

comment period on the proposal for 60

days in order to: Allow time for public

review and comment on the findings of

the Agriculture Research Service’s

(ARS) evaluation of the sensory,

chemical, and physical properties of

raw poultry products that have been

exposed to and held at temperatures

from 0° F to 40° F; allow the National

Advisory Committee on Microbiological

Criteria for Foods the opportunity to

comment on the proposed rule; and

solicit public comments on options for

reconciling the FSIS proposal to require

a ‘‘previously frozen’’ disclosure on

product whose internal temperature has

ever been below 26° F with existing

FSIS regulations that require poultry

labeled as ‘‘frozen’’ to have been chilled

to an internal temperature of 0° F or

below.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

in triplicate to Diane Moore, Docket

Clerk, Room 3171, South Building, Food

Safety and Inspection Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington,

DC 20250. Oral comments should be

directed to Mr. Charles R. Edwards,

(202) 254–2565.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles R. Edwards, Director, Product

Assessment Division, Regulatory

Programs, Food Safety and Inspection

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC 20250, Area Code (202)

254–2565.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 17, 1995, FSIS published a

proposed rule (60 FR 3454) to amend

the Federal poultry products inspection

regulations to prohibit the use of the

term ‘‘fresh’’ on the labeling of raw

poultry products whose internal

temperature has ever been below 26° F.

The proposal would require such

poultry products to be labeled with a

descriptive term reflecting the fact that

the product had been ‘‘previously

frozen.’’ The proposed action would

help ensure that poultry products

distributed to consumers are not labeled

in a false or misleading manner and are

not misbranded. Such action would also

meet consumer expectations that the

term ‘‘fresh’’ should not be applied to

raw poultry products that have been

subjected to processes that would cause

such products to become chilled to

temperatures below 26° F.

Interested persons were given until

March 20, 1995, to submit comments on

the proposed regulatory amendments.

FSIS has received requests from two

trade associations to extend the

comment period for the proposed rule.

The trade associations have requested

that FSIS extend the comment period to

allow the public time to obtain and

review the findings of the Agricultural

Research Service’s (ARS) evaluation of

the sensory, chemical, and physical

properties of raw poultry products that

have been exposed to and held at

temperatures from 0° F to 40° F, with

respect to their written comments on the

proposed rule. The ARS report was not

available for public review in the FSIS

Docket Clerk’s office at the time the

‘‘fresh’’ labeling proposal was published

and, thus, its availability was not stated

in the rulemaking docket. The report is

now available for public review in the

FSIS Docket Clerk’s office, and FSIS

concludes it is reasonable to allow

additional time for interested parties to

obtain, review, and comment on it.

Further, FSIS has previously stated its

intention to seek comments from the

National Advisory Committee on

Microbiological Criteria for Foods on

the Agency’s conclusion stated in the

preamble to the proposed rule that

‘‘there should be no increased

microbiological safety risks associated

with the growth of pathogenic

microorganisms,’’ by changing the

labeling definition for ‘‘fresh’’ poultry.

The next meeting of the Committee will

be held in mid-April and, thus, an

extension of the comment period is

necessary to allow the Committee’s

views to be received within the

comment period.

Finally, in this notice, FSIS is

soliciting comments on options for

reconciling the element of its ‘‘fresh’’

labeling proposal that would require

product whose internal temperature has

ever been below 26° F to bear a

‘‘previously frozen’’ disclosure with

existing FSIS regulations (9 CFR

381.129(b)(3) and 381.66(f)(2)) that

require poultry labeled as ‘‘frozen’’ to

have been chilled to an internal

temperature of 0° F or below. Under the

proposal, product chilled to an internal

temperature of 0° F or below could be

labeled as ‘‘frozen’’ or ‘‘previously

frozen,’’ as the case may be.

FSIS has received a comment noting

the conflict between the proposal and

the existing regulatory definition of

‘‘frozen.’’ FSIS is aware that the

products directly affected by its ‘‘fresh’’

labeling proposal, which are frequently

frozen to temperatures in the range of

20° F to 25° F and sold in a thawed state

have different attributes than product

frozen to an internal temperature of 0°

F or below. The product chilled to

temperatures in the range of 20° F to 25°

F is hard-to-the-touch and thus ‘‘frozen’’

in common consumer parlance, even

though only about 80 percent of the

water in that product is frozen. Further,

although the product exhibits a longer

shelf life than product held at higher

temperatures, e.g., 28° F to 32° F, the

product will spoil in several weeks. In

the product frozen to 0° F or below, over

99 percent of the water in the product

is in a frozen state, microbial growth is

stopped, and the product can last a year

or more, depending on packaging and

storage temperature, without

discernable quality changes. The

purpose of the existing definition of

‘‘frozen’’ is to ensure that poultry

products labeled simply as ‘‘frozen’’

would be suitable for long-term storage

and subsequent use. The terms
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 14669

‘‘frozen,’’ as currently defined in FSIS

regulations, and ‘‘previously frozen,’’ as

proposed by FSIS for use on poultry

products held below 26° F and

subsequently sold in a thawed state,

both would provide truthful and useful

information to consumers. FSIS is

concerned that the existence of two

definitions which make use of the word

‘‘frozen’’ could be confusing to industry

and consumers. FSIS believes that the

existing definition and the Agency’s

proposed use of the term ‘‘previously

frozen’’ need to be reconciled. The

Agency invites comments on how this

can be accomplished. FSIS has

identified three possible options as

follows:

a. Use a term or phrase other than

‘‘previously frozen’’ to identify products

in the temperature range from above 0°

F to below 26° F. In its proposed rule,

FSIS requested comments on other

descriptive terms to describe the nature

of the product. However, as of this time,

no satisfactory substitute terms have

been suggested. FSIS has identified

other possible terms that do not use the

unqualified word ‘‘frozen.’’ Such terms

include: ‘‘previously semi-frozen,’’

‘‘held semi-frozen,’’ ‘‘previously

partially frozen,’’ ‘‘previously chilled to

semi-solid state,’’ ‘‘shipped/stored/

handled semi-frozen (insert optional

statement, e.g., to preserve quality),’’ or

‘‘previously frosted.’’ FSIS continues to

be interested in receiving comments on

alternate terms including those that do

not contain the unqualified word

‘‘frozen.’’

b. Eliminate the current requirement

that poultry products labeled as

‘‘frozen’’ must be brought to an internal

temperature of 0° F or below and require

use of the term ‘‘frozen’’ to identify all

poultry products whose internal

temperature has ever been below 26° F.

This option would eliminate any

confusion that might be caused by

having more than one temperature

associated with products whose labels

make use of the word ‘‘frozen,’’ and

satisfy the need to label appropriately

all products that have been chilled to

the point where they are hard-to-thetouch. Such action would in no way

prevent manufacturers from continuing

current practices regarding freezing to 0°

F for long-term storage or from making

supportable claims about the storage life

or appropriate ‘‘use by’’ date for their

products. However, such action might

require adjustment in government and

industry purchasing standards, codes of

practice, or product specifications that

evolved from the current freezing

regulations. FSIS does not believe that

elimination of the 0° F requirement for

labeling a product ‘‘frozen’’ would pose

a safety concern. However, purchasers

who expect that a product was frozen

for long-term preservation based on use

of the term ‘‘frozen’’ on the labeling

might be misled in the absence of

explanatory labeling, if the shelf life and

quality differs from products frozen to

0° F or below because the product was

not actually brought to such low

temperatures.

c. Use the proposed term ‘‘previously

frozen’’ on labeling of products with

internal temperatures above 0° F and

below 26° F but require use of a term

other than ‘‘frozen’’ or ‘‘previously

frozen’’ on the labeling of products that

are frozen to 0° F or below. The latter

products could be labeled with a phrase

such as ‘‘frozen for long-term

preservation’’ in order to distinguish

them clearly from chill pack products

whose temperatures were at one time in

the lower 20-degree Fahrenheit range.

This labeling option differentiates the

two types of frozen products so that the

product labeled ‘‘previously frozen’’

would not be confused with the deepfrozen product. The descriptive term for

the 0° F product reflects the purpose of

the processing procedure and can be

linked to the special qualities associated

with these products.

FSIS is interested in receiving

comments on these options and any

others that would appropriately

reconcile the existing definition of

‘‘frozen’’ and the proposed use of the

term ‘‘previously frozen.’’

For all these reasons, FSIS is

extending the comment period on its

‘‘fresh’’ labeling proposal for 60 days.

The comment period will close May 19,

1995.

Done at Washington, DC, on: March 15,

1995.

Michael R. Taylor,

Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety.

[FR Doc. 95–6817 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

RIN 3150–AE97

Shutdown Operation of Nuclear Power

Plants; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Members of the staff of the

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

will meet with commenters (or their

representatives) who responded to

Federal Register, 59 FR 52707; October

19, 1994, regarding the proposed rule

‘‘Shutdown and Low-Power Operations

for Nuclear Power Reactors.’’ The staff

will discuss comments and receive

feedback on the impact of potential staff

responses regarding the proposed rule.

The meeting will be open for interested

members of the public, petitioners,

intervenors, or other parties to attend as

observers pursuant to ‘‘Open Meeting

Statement of NCR Staff Policy,’’ 43 FR

28058, June 28, 1978.

DATES: The meeting will be Friday,

April 7, 1995 from 9 a.m.–3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the United States Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Auditorium, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Warren C. Lyon, Senior Reactor Systems

Engineer, Reactor Systems Branch,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001,

Telephone: 301–415–3892.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

preliminary agenda for the proposed

meeting is:

9:00—Introduction (Purpose of

shutdown rule, Applicability/

limitations)

9:15—Summary of Comments to

Proposed Rule 59 FR 52707; October

19, 1994

9:30—Staff Decisions (Shutdown rule,

Maintenance Rule, Codification of

industry initiatives, Fire, Technical

specifications, Outage plans and

controls, Fuel storage pool, Safety

related vs. non-safety related, Single

failure, Regulatory analysis,

Regulatory guide, Re notice in Federal

Register)

10:15—Items Covered By Rule (General

content of rule and philosophy;

Structures, systems, and components;

Reliability and redundancy; Planning;

Procedures; Training; Controls;

Reactivity; Reactor coolant system;

Subcooled decay heat removal;

Containment; Adequate core cooling;

Contingency plan; Implementation)

13:15—Discussion—Issues

(Maintenance rule—guidance for

shutdown operation; The meaning of

redundancy [Credit for passive heat

removal, gravity feed, & operator

response; Electrical power systems];

Containment; Analysis and test needs;

Others)

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15 day

of March 1995.