This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

48971 

Vol. 82, No. 203 

Monday, October 23, 2017 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

[Docket No. AMS–LPS–17–0046] 

United States Standards for Grades of 

Pork Carcasses 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice, request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) is seeking 

public comment on revisions to the 

United States Standards for Grades of 

Pork Carcasses (pork standards). The 

last revision to the pork standards 

occurred in 1985 and the standards no 

longer accurately reflect value 

differences in today’s pork products. 

Modern pork production is 

characterized by products with 

improved color and higher marbling 

content, two factors that have been 

consistently identified by researchers as 

the main components affecting pork 

eating quality. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

December 22, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments 

electronically at https://

www.regulations.gov. Written comments 

should be sent to: Pork Carcass 

Revisions, Standardization Branch, 

Quality Assessment Division; Livestock 

Poultry and Seed Program, AMS, USDA; 

1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 

3932–S, STOP 0258; Washington, DC 

20250–0258. Comments may also be 

emailed to porkcarcassrevisions@

ams.usda.gov. All comments should 

reference docket number AMS–LPS–17– 

0046, the date of submission, and the 

page number of this issue of the Federal 

Register. All comments received will be 

posted without change, including any 

personal information provided, and will 

be made available for public inspection 

at the above physical address during 

regular business hours. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bucky Gwartney, International 

Marketing Specialist, Standardization 

Branch, QAD, LPS, AMS, USDA; 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., Room 

3932–S, STOP 0258; Washington, DC 

20250–0258; phone (202) 720–1424; or 

via email at Bucky.Gwartney@

ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 

of 1946, as amended, directs and 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

‘‘to develop and improve standards of 

quality, condition, quantity, grade, and 

packaging and recommend and 

demonstrate such standards in order to 

encourage uniformity and consistency 

in commercial practices’’ (7 U.S.C. 

1622(c)). AMS is committed to carrying 

out this authority in a manner that 

facilitates the marketing of agricultural 

commodities. While the pork standards 

do not appear in the Code of Federal 

Regulations, they—along with other 

official standards—are maintained by 

USDA at https://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

grades-standards. Copies of official 

standards are also available upon 

request. To propose changes to the pork 

standards, AMS utilizes the procedures 

it published in the August 13, 1997, 

Federal Register (62 FR 43439), which 

in 7 CFR part 36. 

Background 

Official USDA grade standards and 

associated voluntary, fee-for-service 

grading programs are authorized under 

the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 

as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.). The 

primary purpose of USDA grade 

standards, including the pork standards, 

is to divide the population of a 

commodity into uniform groups (of 

similar quality, yield, value, etc.) to 

facilitate marketing. In concert, the 

Federal voluntary, fee-for-service 

grading programs are designed to 

provide an independent, objective 

determination as to whether a given 

product is in conformance with the 

applicable USDA grade standard. USDA 

quality grades provide a simple, 

effective means of describing product 

that is easily understood by both buyers 

and sellers. No voluntary USDA grading 

program currently exists for pork 

carcasses or parts. 

USDA recognizes that the pork 

standards must be relevant to be of 

value to stakeholders and, therefore, 

recommendations for changes in the 

standards may be initiated by USDA or 

by interested parties at any time to 

achieve that goal. The pork standards 

were first developed in the early 1930s, 

with revisions over the years to reflect 

improvements made in the industry and 

changes in the marketplace. The current 

pork standards were last updated in 

1985 and are based on a combination of 

muscle and fat thickness (including 

belly) that is then formulated into an 

expected percent yield. In the late 1980s 

and early 1990s, the pork industry 

reacted to growing consumer demand 

for increased leanness of pork cuts, 

investing in changes to meet this 

demand primarily by means of 

improved genetics and swine diet 

formulations. By the early 2000s, the 

pork industry had become so proficient 

at producing consistently lean pork that 

additional leanness in pork would begin 

to degrade other consumer desires 

related to pork quality. 

In contrast to decades past, modern 

consumers have shifted away from 

prioritizing leanness as the primary 

attribute in selecting pork for purchase. 

Instead, today’s consumers seek high 

quality marbling (fat streaking within 

the cut of meat) for superior taste. In 

addition, consumers are increasingly 

demanding consistency in pork 

products in terms of other quality 

attributes, in particular in color of the 

lean. 

Pork Quality Initiative 

Standards for grades enable buyers to 

obtain product that meets their 

individual needs, such as a restaurant 

choosing the highest quality pork to 

provide its customers a very consistent 

level of palatability. At the same time, 

standards for grades are important in 

transmitting information to producers to 

help ensure informed decisions are 

made. For example, the market 

preference and price paid for a 

particular grade of pork could be 

communicated to producers so they can 

adjust their production accordingly. In 

such a case, if the price premium being 

paid for a high grade of pork merits 

producers making the investments 

required in genetics and feeding to 

produce more of that grade, such 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
48972 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 

1Cannon, J.E., J.B. Morgan, F.K. McKeith, G.C. 

Smith, S. Sonka, J. Heavner and D.L. Meeker. 1996. 

Pork chain quality audit survey: Quantification of 

pork quality characteristics. J. Muscle Foods 7, 29– 

44. 

2Meisinger, D.J. 2003. The national pork quality 

benchmarking study. Proceedings abstracts of the 

56th American Meat Science Association 

Reciprocal Meat Conference. Columbia, MO. 

3National Pork Producers Council Pork Quality 

Solutions Team. 1998. Pork Quality Targets. In Pork 

Facts. #04366—10/98. NPPC. Des Moines, IA. 

4USDA, 1985. Official United States standards for 

grades of pork carcasses. Agricultural Marketing 

Service, United States Dept. Agric., Washington, 

DC. 

marketing decisions can be made with 

justification. 

The underlying interest in a potential 

pork quality grading system is not new 

to the industry. Many studies have 

measured pork populations and 

measured their innate quality 

characteristics. A study by Cannon et. 

al., 1996,1 showed that up to 10 percent 

of the carcasses evaluated in a 

nationwide audit had pale, soft, and 

exudative (PSE) characteristics, 

resulting in significant potential losses 

for the pork chain. In the 2002–2003 

Benchmarking Value in the Pork Supply 

Chain project, Meisinger, 2003,2 noted, 

‘‘Industry must develop clear economic 

signals for easily and objectively 

measuring ‘quality’ along the 

production chain to facilitate 

coordinated focus on generating pork to 

meet domestic and global, seasonal and 

geographical, consumer demands for 

fresh, enhanced, processed, consumerfriendly, value-added, and ready-to-eat 

products.’’ In 1998, the National Pork 

Producers Council 3 published color and 

marbling guidelines for pork products. 

According to these guidelines, a quality 

pork product with good eating quality 

should be in the color range of 3 to 5 

(the entire range is 1–6) and have a 

marbling range of 2 to 4 (the entire range 

is 1–10). Recently, the National Pork 

Board updated those goals and stated 

that by 2020, the percentage of pork loin 

chops scoring below a color score of 3 

would be reduced by 10 percentage 

points (from 55 to 45 percent), as 

compared with the 2012 retail study. 

The pork industry and the academic 

community have long used several 

parameters to measure quality 

characteristics, including color and 

marbling scores, pH, tenderness, and 

drip loss, with the intent of ultimately 

improving these characteristics over 

time. More recent attention has focused 

on the use of color and marbling, in 

combination, to segregate pork into like 

quality groupings that would deliver a 

more consistent, palatable product. 

Evolution of the Pork Standards 

Tentative standards for grades of pork 

carcasses and fresh pork cuts were 

issued by USDA in 1931 and slightly 

revised in 1933. New standards for 

grades of barrow and gilt carcasses were 

proposed by USDA in 1949. These 

standards represented the first 

application of objective measurements 

as guides to grades for pork carcasses. 

Slight revisions were made in the 

proposed standards prior to their 

adoption as the Official United 

Standards for Grades of Barrow and Gilt 

Carcasses, effective September 12, 1952. 

The official standards were amended 

in July 1955, by changing the grade 

designations Choice No. 1, Choice No. 2, 

and Choice No. 3, to U.S. No. 1, U.S. No. 

2, and U.S. No. 3, respectively. In 

addition, the backfat specifications were 

reworded slightly to reflect the reduced 

fat thickness requirements and to allow 

more uniform interpretation of the 

standards. 

On April 1, 1968, the official 

standards were again revised to reflect 

the improvements made since 1955 in 

pork carcasses. The minimum backfat 

thickness requirement for the U.S. No. 

1 grade was eliminated and a new U.S. 

No. 1 grade was established to properly 

identify the superior pork carcasses then 

being produced. The former No. 1, No. 

2, and No. 3 grades were renamed No. 

2, No. 3, and No. 4, respectively. The 

former Medium and Cull grades were 

combined and renamed U.S. Utility. 

Also, the maximum allowable 

adjustment for variations-from-normal 

fat distribution and muscling was 

changed from one-half to one full grade 

to more adequately reflect the effect of 

these factors on yields of cuts. 

In addition, the text of the 

‘‘Application of Standards’’ section was 

reworded to more clearly define the 

grade factors and clarify their use in 

determining the grade. On January 14, 

1985, the barrow and gilt carcass grade 

standards were once again updated to 

reflect improvements in pork carcasses 

and changes in the pork slaughter 

industry since 1968.4 A 1980 grade 

survey found that over 70 percent of the 

pork carcasses being produced were in 

the U.S. No. 1 grade, indicating a large 

amount of variation in yield that was 

not being accounted for by the grades. 

The changes simplified the standards by 

basing the grade on the backfat 

thickness over the last rib with a single 

adjustment for muscling. In addition, 

the grade lines were tightened to more 

adequately sort the pork carcasses being 

produced among several grades. Some 

minor changes in the wording of the 

quality requirements were also made. 

Between 1985 and today, the pork 

industry and the pork carcasses and 

products that it produces have 

undergone significant change. The pork 

industry reacted to the consumer 

demand for leaner pork by making 

changes in genetics and nutrition. 

Unfortunately, during that period when 

production strategies focused on 

producing leaner pork, marbling and 

color became less important. However, 

research indicates that today’s 

consumers are interested in a more 

consistent pork product with a greater 

focus on marbling and the color of the 

products. The pork industry is working 

to meet this demand, again by making 

changes within the genetic and nutrition 

systems. 

The use of the current USDA pork 

grade standards in an official capacity 

has been non-existent since the mid1970s, and the ability to differentiate 

pork into quality groupings and values 

has been a critical missing link. In the 

absence of a meaningful USDA pork 

grade standard, pork packers and 

processors have taken the initiative to 

sort the darker colored, higher-marbling 

pork for many export markets where 

demand is extremely high and 

associated price premiums exist. They 

also have developed branded programs 

with selection criteria that use both 

color and marbling to identify premium 

pork products. These programs 

generally seek higher color scores (4–5) 

and marbling scores (3–5). 

Today’s Quality Attributes 

The U.S. is the second largest pork 

producing country in the world. Its 

production exceeds domestic 

consumption and, therefore, products 

need to be exported. Exports have 

continued to increase, with many 

markets demanding high quality pork 

that has certain color and marbling 

characteristics. These quality 

characteristics have been routinely used 

in processing plants to sort the higher 

quality pork for both export and for 

foodservice establishments that are 

demanding these traits. A revision to the 

grade standards is needed that reflects a 

new population of pork products that 

have better color and a higher marbling 

content, and is able to differentiate 

products into quality categories that can 

fill the demand in many different 

market segments. These two factors 

have been consistently identified by 

numerous researchers as the 

components affecting pork eating 

quality, as verified through checkofffunded research. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 48973 

5Pork Insights. 2014. Prepared for the National 

Pork Board. 

6Lusk, J., G. Tonsor, T. Schroeder and D. Hayes. 

2016. Consumer Valuation of Pork Chop Quality 

Information. Prepared for the National Pork Board. 

This study also found that taste was the most 

important attribute for consumers when purchasing 

chops. 

7Newman, D. 2015. National pork retail 

benchmarking study. National Pork Board Research 

abstract: #11–163. 

8Moeller, S.J., R. Miller and H. Zerby. 2008. 

Effects of pork quality and cooked temperature on 

consumer and trained sensory perception of eating 

quality in no-enhanced and enhanced pork loins. 

National Pork Board Research abstract: #06–139 and 

#07–005. 

9Tonsor, G.T., and T.C. Schroeder. 2013. 

‘‘Economic Needs Assessment: Pork Quality 

Grading System.’’ Available at: http://

www.agmanager.info/ag-policy/livestock-policy/ 

economicneeds-assessment-pork-quality-gradingsystem. 

10National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). 1999. 

Official color and marbling standards. NPPC, Des 

Moines, IA. 

11Homm, J.W., A.T. Waylan, J.A. Unruh, and R.C. 

Johnson. 2006. Influence of chop location within a 

loin on boneless pork longissimus quality. J. Muscle 

Foods 17, 221–236. 

In one consumer study (Pork Quality 

Insights, 2014 5) that looked at purchase 

criteria for fresh pork, the data showed 

that ‘‘quality and freshness’’ and color 

were key factors in fresh pork 

purchases. In general, consumers related 

a darker color to a higher quality 

product. Another study (Lusk et al., 

2016 6) looked at how consumers value 

pork chop quality information. It found 

that the majority of the consumers used 

chop color to assess quality and said 

that color is more important than 

marbling. However, 30 to 40 percent of 

consumers misperceived lighter, lower 

quality pork products to be of higher 

quality than they actually were. 

Furthermore, when consumers 

evaluated pork chop products based on 

quality levels, the products bearing 

quality grades using Prime, Choice, and 

Select tended to generate higher sales 

and, therefore, more revenue for the 

chop producers. However, when 

presented with lighter-colored, lower 

quality pork chop products, 20 to 30 

percent of consumers still preferred 

these products based on their lighter 

color, even when these products 

conspicuously bore a USDA quality 

label indicating that they were lower 

quality. Therefore, color may be more 

influential than a grade level in some 

consumer decision making, which 

indicates that there are key 

opportunities within a revised pork 

quality standard to highlight the 

importance of color. 

Recent research by Newman et al., 

2015,7 as part of a National Retail 

Benchmarking audit, indicated that the 

quality of loin chops at retail was 

inconsistent and needed improvement. 

The range in color score for the retail 

chops was 1 to 6 with an average of 

slightly above 3. In addition, marbling 

scores also ranged from 1 to 6 with 2.5 

as an average. An analysis of the data 

after they were sorted into various color 

and marbling combinations resulted in 

the following break points: HIGH— 

Color 4–5, Marbling ≥4; MEDIUM— 

Color 3, Marbling ≥3; LOW—Color 2, 

Marbling ≥2. These would result in the 

following percentages of the retail 

population: 2.1, 45.1, and 22, 

respectively. The pork population 

studied by Moeller, 2008,8 also showed 

a range and average for color and 

marbling scores similar to that found in 

the retail benchmarking study. There is 

evidence that the color and marbling 

score averages and the percentages in 

the total population would be higher 

without the exclusion of products being 

sorted for quality branded programs and 

sold at foodservice establishments or 

being exported from this data set. 

A study by Tonsor et al., 2013,9

looked at the important criteria needed 

for a viable, trusted pork quality grading 

system. The research indicates that a 

quality grading system would need to 

focus on product attributes that can be 

measured accurately and objectively at 

the speed of commerce (e.g., plant line 

speeds), facilitate product sorting by 

grade, relate directly to those product 

characteristics valued by buyers and 

consumers, and be trusted by potential 

users. In addition, a well-functioning 

pork quality grade system would 

provide important economic signals to 

the industry and encourage the 

production of higher quality pork 

products. These improvements would 

also lead to increased demand for pork, 

both domestically and internationally. 

A working example of these criteria is 

the USDA beef quality grading system. 

The beef quality grade standards are 

widely adopted by the beef industry and 

are globally recognized. The USDA 

Prime and Choice beef grades are widely 

recognized by consumers, both 

domestically and abroad, as premium 

products that demand a higher value 

and also deliver a consistent eating 

experience. These grade groupings also 

result in an economic signal that is sent 

up and down the beef products chain, 

affecting the way producers implement 

genetic and nutritional changes. In 

addition, the adoption of instrument 

grading technologies has allowed the 

industry and USDA graders to stay in 

tune with plant line speeds and 

demands for consistent grade 

application. 

The accurate measurement of color 

and marbling scores is important for a 

pork quality grading system. Published 

color and marbling scorecards and 

visual aids have been a primary 

subjective method for putting pork 

quality into categories, whether for 

research trials or at processing plants. 

Color evaluation has been performed 

using one of many objective color 

analyses. There has also been recent 

research on the ability to objectively 

measure pork quality through 

instrumentation. In a large modern pork 

processing facility, some form of 

instrumentation would be needed for 

pork quality evaluation at current line 

speeds. 

The National Pork Board has 

indicated it is in the process of revising 

the current pork color and marbling 

score cards.10 These cards will most 

likely contain additional information 

regarding the color parameters for each 

color range and would still be based on 

a 10th rib cross-section of the 

longissimus dorsi. The challenge with 

having this measurement location is that 

most processing facilities do not make 

that cross-section cut, and therefore it 

cannot be measured. Homm, et al., 

2006,11 evaluated the influence of chop 

location on subsequent color and 

marbling scores. They found that color 

and marbling were consistent with the 

central portions of the loin. There was 

more variability in the anterior and 

posterior portions, with anterior chops 

being generally darker, posterior chops 

generally lighter, and both ends having 

more marbling than centrally located 

chops. These results indicated that the 

location being measured for color and 

marbling is important and could be 

problematic when a 10th rib crosssection is not available. Current research 

being done with various instrumental 

measurements is showing promise in 

measuring lean color and marbling 

along the ventral portion of the loin 

where the back ribs have been removed, 

which could become a reliable indicator 

for color and marbling levels. 

Proposed Changes to the Pork 

Standards 

Printed below beginning with section 

54.131 is the proposed text for a revised 

pork standard. While the preamble 

describing the history of the standards 

is not reprinted here, the body of the 

actual proposed standard (sections 

54.131 through 54.135) is shown in its 

entirety. Should any updates to the pork 

standard occur, the preamble will be 

updated accordingly. The current 

standard, including the preamble, can 

be viewed at https://www.ams.usda.gov/ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
48974 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 

12 Information concerning such devices and their 

use may be obtained from AMS’ Livestock, Poultry, 

and Seed Program.’’ 

13Carcasses with less than slightly firm lean are 

not eligible for quality grading. 

sites/default/files/media/Pork_

Standard%5B1%5D.pdf. 

As discussed, the proposed revised 

standard identifies marbling and color 

as the primary considerations for quality 

designations, instead of lean/fat and 

yield as exists in the current standard. 

Further, the proposed revised standard 

excludes the provision for grading of 

sow carcasses, maintaining the official 

standards for barrows and gilts only. 

§ 54.131 Scope 

The standards for grades of pork are 

written primarily in terms of carcasses. 

However, they also are applicable to the 

grading of sides and primal cuts, such 

as the ham, loin, or shoulder. To 

simplify the phrasing of the standards, 

the words ‘‘carcass’’ and ‘‘carcasses’’ are 

used also to mean ‘‘side’’ or ‘‘sides.’’ 

§ 54.132 Bases for Pork Carcass 

Standards 

The official standards for pork carcass 

grades provide for segregation according 

to (a) class, as determined by the 

apparent sex condition of the animal at 

the time of slaughter, and (b) grade, 

which reflects the quality of lean in the 

carcass. A quality grade applied to a 

carcass will be associated with all cuts 

for that carcass, as long as the associated 

cuts are traceable through fabrication 

and labeling. 

§ 54.133 Pork Carcass Classes 

The five classes of pork carcasses, 

comparable to the same five classes of 

slaughter hogs, are: barrow, gilt, sow, 

stag, and boar. The official pork quality 

standards provide for the grading of 

barrow and gilt carcasses; grades are not 

provided for sow, stag, or boar 

carcasses. 

(a) Barrow. A barrow is a male swine 

castrated when young and before 

development of the secondary physical 

characteristics of a boar. 

(b) Gilt. A gilt is a young female swine 

that has not produced young and has 

not reached an advanced stage of 

pregnancy. 

(c) Sow. A sow is a mature female 

swine that usually shows evidence of 

having reproduced or having reached an 

advanced stage of pregnancy. 

(d) Boar. A boar is an uncastrated 

male swine. 

(e) Stag. A stag is a male swine 

castrated after development or 

beginning of development of the 

secondary physical characteristics of a 

boar. Typical stags are somewhat coarse 

and lack balance—the head and 

shoulders are more fully developed than 

the hindquarter parts, bones and joints 

are large, the skin is thick and rough, 

and the hair is coarse. 

§ 54.134 Application of Standards for 

Grades of Barrow and Gilt Carcasses 

(a) Grades for barrow and gilt 

carcasses are based on two general 

quality characteristics (1) the color of 

the exposed lean and (2) the amount of 

marbling associated with the lean. 

(b) There are three general levels of 

quality recognized: (1) Prime, Choice, 

and Select. The quality (color and 

marbling) of the lean is best evaluated 

by a direct observation of its 

characteristics in the cut surface of the 

longissimus dorsi. Quality of the lean is 

described in terms of characteristics of 

the longissimus dorsi, at either the 10th 

rib cross-section or other cross-sections 

within the loin that expose a surface of 

the longissimus dorsi for evaluation, or 

the exposed lean on the ventral side of 

the boneless loin after removal of the 

back ribs. The surface area of the 

longissimus dorsi should be at least 4 

square inches to be acceptable for 

evaluating color and marbling 

characteristics. 

(c) USDA uses photographs and other 

objective aids or devices designated by 

the Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) in the correct interpretation and 

application of the standards.12 Official 

pork color and marbling standards are 

maintained by the National Pork Board 

and will be used as official references 

for the USDA pork quality grades. 

Objective aids can also include 

predictive instrumentation technologies 

that evaluate color and/or marbling 

scores and meet thresholds for accuracy 

and precision of the predictions. 

(d) To determine the grade of a 

carcass, the longissimus dorsi must be 

present at a minimum of 4 square inches 

and exposed for subjective and/or 

objective evaluation to allow a visual or 

instrumental assessment of color and 

marbling levels. This exposure can be 

done multiple ways: 

(1) Exposing a cross-section of the 

longissimus dorsi at the 10th rib, or 

other location between approximately 

the 4th rib, posterior to the scapula 

(blade bone), and the longissimus dorsi 

cross-section anterior to the ilium (hip 

bone), or 

(2) Exposing the longissimus dorsi on 

the ventral side of the boneless loin after 

removal of the back ribs. 

Carcasses not presented in one of these 

manners are not eligible for quality 

grading. 

For barrow and gilt carcasses, the cut 

surface of the longissimus dorsi shall be, 

at a minimum, slightly firm to be 

assessed for color and marbling levels. 

Lean firmness is essential for both the 

eating experience and in the fabrication 

process. Barrow and gilt carcasses 

meeting the minimum lean firmness are 

eligible to be graded on color and 

marbling levels. Barrow and gilt 

carcasses having less than slightly firm 

lean are not eligible for pork quality 

grading. 

For barrow and gilt carcasses, quality 

of the lean is evaluated by considering 

its color and marbling in a cut 

longissimus dorsi surface. Barrow and 

gilt carcasses will be assessed for their 

color and marbling levels based on the 

published standards by the National 

Pork Board. The color levels are 

evaluated on a scale from one to six and 

the marbling levels are evaluated on a 

scale of one to ten. 

The firmness requirement of slightly 

firm is the same for all grades and a 

minimum requirement for application of 

a grade, regardless of the extent to 

which marbling may exceed the 

minimum of a grade. 

§ 54.135 Specifications for Official 

United States Standards for Grades of 

Barrow and Gilt Carcasses 

(a) The quality grade of a barrow or 

gilt carcass is determined on the basis 

of the following: lean color score and 

lean marbling score. 

The relationship between color, 

marbling, and quality grade is shown in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1—PORK CARCASS QUALITY GRADE BASED ON LEAN COLOR AND MARBLING 13

Quality grade Lean color 

score Lean marbling score 

USDA Prime .............................................................................................................................. 4–5 Greater than or equal to 4. 

USDA Choice ............................................................................................................................. 3 Greater than or equal to 2. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Notices 48975 

TABLE 1—PORK CARCASS QUALITY GRADE BASED ON LEAN COLOR AND MARBLING 13—Continued 

Quality grade Lean color 

score Lean marbling score 

USDA Select .............................................................................................................................. 2 Greater than or equal to 2. 

(b) The following descriptions 

provide a guide to the characteristics of 

barrow and gilt carcasses in each grade. 

(1) USDA Prime—Barrow and gilt 

carcasses in this grade have at least a 

slightly firm lean, a color score of 4 or 

5, and a marbling score of 4 or greater. 

(2) USDA Choice—Barrow and gilt 

carcasses in this grade have at least a 

slightly firm lean, a color score of 3, and 

a marbling score of 2 or greater. 

(3) USDA Select—Barrow and gilt 

carcasses in this grade have at least a 

slightly firm lean, a color score of 2, and 

a marbling score of 2 or greater. 

Request for Comments 

AMS is soliciting comments from 

stakeholders about potential changes to 

the U.S. Standards for Grades of Pork 

Carcasses. This could also include any 

current and/or on-going research or 

industry practice that has relevance to 

this standard. AMS also invites 

comments about how those changes 

would be implemented in a voluntary 

pork grading system. 

Dated: October 18, 2017. 

Bruce Summers, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22934 Filed 10–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

October 18, 2017. 

The Department of Agriculture has 

submitted the following information 

collection requirement(s) to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Comments are 

requested regarding (1) Whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of burden including 

the validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments regarding this information 

collection received by November 22, 

2017 will be considered. Written 

comments should be addressed to: Desk 

Officer for Agriculture, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov 

or fax (202) 395–5806 and to 

Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, 

OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 

20250–7602. Copies of the 

submission(s) may be obtained by 

calling (202) 720–8958. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless the collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number and the agency informs 

potential persons who are to respond to 

the collection of information that such 

persons are not required to respond to 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Title: Assessing the Child Nutrition 

State Administrative Expense 

Allocation Formula. 

OMB Control Number: 0584 New. 

Summary of Collection: USDA’s Food 

and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers 

Child Nutrition Programs (CNP) that 

provide healthy food to children 

including the National School Lunch 

Program, School Breakfast Program, 

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 

Special Milk Program, and the Food 

Distribution Program for schools. State 

agencies are responsible for oversight 

and administration of the CNPs, 

including monitoring program 

operations and distributing Federal cash 

reimbursements and USDA Foods. CNPs 

are operated by a variety of local public 

and private providers that enter into 

agreements with State agencies, 

including school food authorities, local 

government agencies, nonprofit 

sponsoring organizations, child care 

centers, and adult care centers, among 

others. States receive Child Nutrition 

State Administrative Expense (SAE) 

funds from the Federal government to 

help cover their administrative costs. 

SAE funds are appropriated annually to 

USDA FNS under the authority of 

Section 7(a) of the Child Nutrition Act 

of 1966. The Act sets forth the total 

amount of funds available for SAE and 

a formula for allocating the majority of 

the funds to States—commonly referred 

to as the ‘‘nondiscretionary’’ allocation. 

It also provides USDA with authority to 

decide how to allocate remaining funds, 

i.e., the ‘‘discretionary’’ allocation. FNS 

is conducting the study to assess the 

effectiveness of the current formula 

used for SAE allocations. 

Need and Use of the Information: The 

data will be used to assess the 

effectiveness of the current SAE 

allocation formula, identify and 

examine factors that influence State 

spending, and develop and test a range 

of possible alternatives to improve the 

SAE allocation formula. 

Description of Respondents: State, 

Local, or Tribal Government. 

Number of Respondents: 88. 

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: 

One-time. 

Total Burden Hours: 228. 

Ruth Brown, 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22925 Filed 10–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Utilities Service 

Information Collection Activity; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites 

comments on this information 

collection for which RUS intends to 

request approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by December 22, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, 

Program Development and Regulatory 

Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, 

Room 5164—South Building, 

Washington, DC 20250–1522. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES