[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64767-64769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32193]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 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.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 64767]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 381 and 441

[Docket No. 97-052N]


Retained Water in Poultry Products; Protocols for Obtaining Data 
on Meat and Poultry Chilling Processes

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is notifying the 
public of its interest in receiving and reviewing protocols for 
obtaining data on chilled, ready-to-cook poultry products and 
simultaneously requesting comments on the principles which it has 
tentatively identified to guide its review of those protocols. The data 
may be used: to benchmark the effectiveness of washing, chilling, and 
draining operations in minimizing pathogen growth and moisture 
retention in poultry products; and to develop proposed new regulations 
limiting retained moisture in poultry products. FSIS views the data 
collection as a necessary step in strengthening the basis for its 
regulations in the wake of a recent Federal District Court decision 
setting aside as ``arbitrary and capricious'' the regulatory limits on 
moisture absorption and retention in ready-to-cook whole chickens and 
turkeys. FSIS and the poultry industry have relied on these limits for 
many years to gauge the effectiveness of chilling processes in meeting 
the regulatory objective of minimizing moisture retention in poultry 
products. Any new regulatory limits on moisture retention must be based 
on sound data. The Agency is willing to review protocols developed 
according to the specifications published in this document or 
alternative protocols that may be suggested by commenters.
    In view of a recent petition from a meat and poultry industry 
association, FSIS is also willing to review similar protocols for 
obtaining data on processes for the chilling of raw meat carcasses and 
parts.

DATES: Comments on the protocol specifications discussed in this 
document should be received on or before January 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and two copies of comments to FSIS 
Docket Clerk, DOCKET #97-052, Room 102 Cotton Annex Building, 300 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Patricia F. Stolfa, Assistant 
Deputy Administrator for Regulations and Inspection Methods 
Development, FSIS, Room 402 Annex Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; 
(202) 205-0699.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FSIS carries out the mandates of the Federal 
Meat Inspection Act (FMIA; 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act (PPIA; 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) to ensure that 
meat, meat food, and poultry products prepared for interstate and 
foreign commerce are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, 
labeled, and packaged. The Agency maintains continuous inspection 
oversight of operations in meat and poultry slaughtering and processing 
establishments. Among the requirements enforced by the Agency are those 
having to do with the post-evisceration handling and storage of 
carcasses and parts.
    Dressed carcasses typically move through washes and sprays to 
remove slaughter debris and foreign matter before being conveyed to 
chilled, refrigerated, or frozen. FSIS regulations governing the 
chilling of livestock and poultry carcasses reflect accepted commercial 
practices. Prior to shipment, livestock carcasses have traditionally 
been air-chilled and shipped in refrigerated trucks or railroad cars; 
they are commonly divided into primal and subprimal parts at the 
slaughtering establishment, cut-up, or boned-out and boxed before being 
shipped frozen or refrigerated. Prior to shipment, livestock carcasses 
are usually held in large cooling rooms and may be subject to spraying 
or ``misting'' processes intended to prevent them from shrinking. It is 
technologically feasible and commercially practical to air-chill 
livestock carcasses, combining this process with a spray system in a 
manner that, on average, does not result in an increase in the carcass 
weight. The regulations affecting chilled livestock carcasses and parts 
concern the sanitation conditions of storage or transport.
    Poultry carcasses have traditionally been immersion-chilled and are 
shipped as chill-packed, ice-packed, or frozen. The poultry chilling 
regulations require that carcasses be chilled to 40  deg.F or less 
within a specified time after slaughter and limit the amount of 
retained water in product.
    Poultry carcasses are chilled in immersion chilling tanks filled 
with water or water and ice to remove animal heat and inhibit microbial 
growth. Modern chillers are equipped with refrigeration units and 
systems for controlling water flow volume, direction, and agitation. 
They are efficient and effective, but inevitably, immersion-chilled 
poultry carcasses absorb water, mostly under the skin. The absorption 
of water during chilling has been considered acceptable in good 
commercial practice since the 1940's as a trade-off to gain the food-
safety benefits of rapid chilling. The immersion chilling of poultry 
was considered good commercial practice in 1957, when Congress enacted 
the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) (PPIA).
    The Department promulgated regulations limiting moisture absorption 
in poultry in 1959, 1961, and 1970 (December 1, 1959, 24 FR 9566; July 
19, 1961, 26 FR 6471; October 7, 1970, 35 FR 739). The regulations, 
covering the various kinds and weight classes of frozen, ice-packed, 
and chilled poultry, allow processors flexibility in adjusting their 
chilling systems as long as the maximum water absorption limits are not 
exceeded. Each processor establishes procedures to comply with the 
chilling and water absorption control requirements. Inspectors sample 
carcasses each day from each chilling system before washing and after 
chilling, and with limited draining time to determine if the poultry is 
in compliance with the absorbed moisture limits. If the moisture limits 
are exceeded, the poultry is retained until enough moisture has drained 
to allow the birds to be in compliance.
    As a practical matter, establishments must keep their overall 
moisture absorption averages below the maximum limitations to meet the 
water absorption limits on a day-to-day basis.

[[Page 64768]]

The average percentage below the limits varies from establishment to 
establishment, depending on the individual operation. Most poultry 
establishments consistently comply with the water control requirements.
    The moisture retention limits and other differences between the 
meat and poultry inspection regulations have become a focus of 
attention. Early in 1996, for example, FSIS received a petition from 
several national livestock industry associations concerning perceived 
inequities between the meat and poultry regulations. Among other 
issues, the petitioners questioned the difference between water 
absorption allowances for meat and for poultry.
    FSIS has studied the regulations to determine where the regulatory 
treatment of different species can be made the same. In 1992, FSIS 
commissioned the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to compare the two 
sets of regulations. In June 1993, RTI issued a comprehensive report, 
which attributed the differences on water absorption to ``traditional 
industry practice.''1 FSIS has also adopted a regulatory 
reform plan that will lead to a consolidated set of regulations that 
apply to all inspected species. The Agency's ``Pathogen Reduction; 
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Systems'' (PR/HACCP) final 
rule (61 FR 38806; July 25, 1996) and the recent proposed rulemaking on 
sanitation (62 FR 45046; August 25, 1997) are examples of initiatives 
in this plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ From the ``Summary Report'' in RTI Report: Comparison of 
USDA Meat and Poultry Regulations. Title 9 CFR: Subchapter A, 
Subchapter C, June 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1994, a group of poultry consumers and red meat producers 
brought an action against the Department in a Federal District Court 
challenging several differences in the regulatory requirements for meat 
and poultry, including the regulations which allow the absorption and 
retention of water in chilled poultry.
    Plaintiffs in Kenney et al. v. Glickman alleged that poultry 
products containing absorbed water were both economically adulterated 
and misbranded within the meaning of the PPIA. They also alleged that 
the regulations violated the Administrative Procedure Act because they 
were arbitrary and capricious when compared to the regulatory 
prohibition on absorbed water in meat carcasses. The Court found that 
poultry containing absorbed water was not economically adulterated or 
misbranded under the PPIA. However, the Court also found that the 
regulation specifying moisture absorption and retention limits for 
ready-to-cook poultry that is to be frozen, cooked, or consumer-
packaged as whole poultry (9 CFR 381.66(d)(2)) was arbitrary and 
capricious because the rulemaking record failed to adequately explain 
how the particular water retention levels were set and why meat and 
poultry should be treated differently.

Need for Current Data on Chilling and Moisture Retention

    The Court left in place the general requirement at 9 CFR 
381.66(d)(1) for establishments to minimize moisture absorption and 
retention in poultry at the time of packaging. The Court also left 
standing the regulations at 9 CFR 381.66 (d)(3)-(d)(6) controlling the 
amount of retained moisture in chickens and turkeys that are to be cut 
up or ice-packed. But the Court's decision left FSIS with no regulatory 
maximum limit for retained moisture in chilled or frozen whole poultry 
carcasses.
    FSIS believes it is necessary to clarify what percentages, if any, 
are permissible in raw meat and poultry, and under what circumstances. 
Otherwise, the controversy that was brought to a head in the Kenney 
case will remain unresolved--a situation the Agency considers 
unsatisfactory. FSIS needs better quantitative information before 
considering whether to amend the current requirements limiting moisture 
retention in poultry products, and particularly in ready-to-cook whole 
birds. For example, FSIS needs baseline data reflecting the performance 
capabilities of technology now in use in inspected establishments. The 
data should be collected under acceptable protocols in accordance with 
the specifications described below.
    On October 2, 1997, the American Meat Institute, a trade 
association representing meat and poultry slaughtering and processing 
establishments, petitioned the Department to allow incidental levels of 
moisture in meat and poultry as part of chilling practices that improve 
food safety. In view of this petition, FSIS also is willing to consider 
data on processes for the chilling of meat carcasses and parts. The 
data should be collected under acceptable protocols in accordance with 
the specifications described below, as applicable in meat 
establishments.

Protocol for Gathering Moisture Retention Data

    A protocol should state a purpose. The Agency would prefer that the 
purpose be to determine the amount or percentage of moisture absorption 
and retention that is inevitable using a particular chilling system 
while achieving the regulatory pathogen reduction performance standard 
for Salmonella (for chickens) as set forth in the PR/HACCP final rule 
and the time/temperature requirements set forth in 9 CFR 381.66.
    The protocol should state the type of washing and chilling system 
used by the establishment. For poultry establishments, the main chiller 
types, identified by the mechanism used to transport the birds through 
the chiller or to agitate the water in the chiller, are the drag-
through, the screw type, and the rocker-arm type.
    The protocol should also describe the configuration of the chiller 
system components, modifications of the components, and steps in the 
chilling process. The description should include the number of chillers 
in a series and arrangements of chilling system components, and the 
number of evisceration lines feeding into a chiller system. If there is 
a pre-chilling step in the process, its purpose and the type of 
equipment used should be accurately described. Any mechanical or design 
changes made to the chilling equipment should be described.
    All special features in the chilling process, such as antimicrobial 
treatments, should be described. Also, the length and velocity of the 
dripping line should be described, as well as the time allowed for 
dripping. Any special apparatus, such as a mechanism for squeezing 
excessive moisture from chilled birds, should be explained.
    Next, the protocol should contain a description of variable factors 
in the chilling system that affect water absorption and retention. Such 
factors are typically considered to be the time in chiller water, the 
water temperature, and agitation. The protocol should consider air 
agitation, where applicable.
    Additional factors that may affect water-absorption and retention 
are scalding temperature and the pressure or amount of buffeting 
applied to birds by feather removal machinery, and the resultant 
loosening of the skin. Another factor that should be considered is the 
method used to open the bird for evisceration. Commenters may suggest 
additional factors that should be considered.
    The protocol should also state the standards to be met by the 
chilling system. For example, the chilling system may be designed 
simply to achieve a reduction in temperature of ready-to-cook poultry 
to less than 40  deg.F. within the time limit specified by the 
regulations, or in less time. As to the standard for pathogen 
minimization, the Salmonella pathogen reduction

[[Page 64769]]

standards, as set forth in the PR/HACCP final rule, have been 
suggested. Although there is not yet an applicable Salmonella standard 
for turkeys, commenters are free to suggest a practicable standard for 
use in gathering data on turkeys under the protocols here suggested. 
Commenters are also free to suggest the use of other microbiological 
targets, such as a standard for reduction in generic E. coli counts or 
reductions in numbers of other microorganisms.
    Finally, the protocol should describe the testing methods to be 
employed both for measuring water absorption and retention and for 
sampling and testing product for pathogen reductions. With respect to 
the latter, FSIS recommends the methods to be used for E. coli and 
Salmonella testing under the PR/HACCP final rule. The number of 
samples, the type of samples, the sampling time period and the type of 
testing or measurement should be included in the protocol. There also 
should be a provision for reporting data obtained, summarizing the 
results and drawing conclusions.
    FSIS requests that interested parties submit their comments on the 
foregoing protocol specifications at their earliest opportunity, and 
preferably by the date indicated in the DATES section of this document. 
Should FSIS decide to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on retained 
moisture, sound, readily available data will be needed during the 
comment period to avoid a protracted rulemaking.

    Done at Washington, DC: December 3, 1997.
Thomas J. Billy,
Administrator, Food Safety Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 97-32193 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P