Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 37995

analysis as a basis for the NSIS Additionally, program information may DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE rulemaking, to draw conclusions on be made available in languages other worker safety in HIMP or non-HIMP than English. Food Safety and Inspection Service establishments, or to determine whether To file a program discrimination [Docket No. FSIS–2018–0033] there is an associated impact on food complaint, complete the USDA Program safety. Had FSIS developed the analysis Discrimination Complaint Form, AD– Availability of Two Revised Guidelines for any of these reasons, it would have 3027, found online at https:// for Minimizing the Risk of Shiga Toxin- more thoroughly addressed data Producing Escherichia Coli (STEC) in www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a- limitations and uncertainty, as Beef Slaughter and Processing program-discrimination-complaint and recommended by OIG. Operations Instead, FSIS published the at any USDA office or write a letter preliminary worker safety analysis addressed to USDA and provide in the AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection solely to solicit comments for use by letter all of the information requested in Service, Agriculture (USDA). OSHA and the National Institute for the form. To request a copy of the ACTION: Notice of availability and Occupational Safety and Health complaint form, call (866) 632–9992. response to comments. (NIOSH) in examining worker safety in Submit your completed form or letter to swine slaughter establishments. OSHA USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of SUMMARY: The Food Safety and and NIOSH are the Federal agencies Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing with jurisdiction over meat and poultry Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 that it has updated two of its guidelines establishment worker safety. Notably, Independence Avenue SW, Washington, for minimizing the risk of Shiga toxin- producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in FSIS stated this immediately following DC 20250–9410; (2) fax: (202) 690–7442; beef slaughter (including veal) and the discussion of the preliminary or (3) email: [email protected]. analysis in the preamble to the proposed processing operations. Additionally, USDA is an equal opportunity rule (83 FR 4796): FSIS is responding to comments on the provider, employer, and lender. guidelines. FSIS is requesting comments on the effects of faster line speeds on worker safety. Additional Public Notification ADDRESSES: Downloadable versions of Specifically, FSIS is requesting comments on the guidelines are available to view and whether line speeds for the NSIS should be Public awareness of all segments of print at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/ set at the current regulatory limit of 1,106 rulemaking and policy development is portal/fsis/topics/regulatory- hph or some other number. The Agency is important. Consequently, FSIS will compliance/guidelines. No hard copies also interested in comments on the announce this Federal Register of the guidelines have been published. availability of records or studies that contain data that OSHA or the National Institute for publication online through the FSIS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) web page located at: https:// Rachel Edelstein, Assistant may be able to use in analyzing the effects www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. Administrator, Office of Policy and of increased line speed on the safety and FSIS also will announce and provide Program Development by telephone at health of employees throughout the (202) 205–0495. establishment, including effects prior to and a link to it through the FSIS Constituent SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: following the evisceration line. Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, USDA Non-Discrimination Statement Background procedures, regulations, Federal In accordance with Federal civil On March 3, 2017, FSIS announced in Register notices, FSIS public meetings, the Constituent Update 1 the availability rights law and U.S. Department of and other types of information that Agriculture (USDA) civil rights of the FSIS Compliance Guideline for could affect or would be of interest to Minimizing the Risk of Shiga Toxin- regulations and policies, the USDA, its our constituents and stakeholders. The Agencies, offices, and employees, and producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and Constituent Update is available on the Salmonella in Beef (including Veal) institutions participating in or FSIS web page. Through the web page, administering USDA programs are Slaughter Operations (hereafter referred FSIS is able to provide information to a prohibited from discriminating based on to as the beef slaughter guideline). On much broader, more diverse audience. race, color, national origin, religion, sex, September 6, 2017, FSIS announced in gender identity (including gender In addition, FSIS offers an email the Federal Register the availability of expression), sexual orientation, subscription service which provides the FSIS Compliance Guideline for disability, age, marital status, family/ automatic and customized access to Minimizing the Risk of Shiga Toxin- parental status, income derived from a selected food safety news and Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in public assistance program, political information. This service is available at Raw Beef (including Veal) Processing beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Operations (hereafter referred to as the 2 civil rights activity, in any program or Options range from recalls to export beef processing guideline). FSIS activity conducted or funded by USDA information, regulations, directives, and published these guidelines to advise (not all bases apply to all programs). notices. Customers can add or delete small and very small establishments on Remedies and complaint filing subscriptions themselves and have the the best practices for beef slaughter and deadlines vary by program or incident. option to password protect their processing to prevent, eliminate, or Persons with disabilities who require accounts. alternative means of communication for 1 The March 3, 2017 Constituent Update is Done at Washington, DC. located at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/ program information (e.g., Braille, large Paul Kiecker, news-press-releases/constituent-update-march-3- print, audiotape, American Sign 2017. Language, etc.) should contact the Administrator. 2 FSIS Compliance Guideline for Minimizing the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET [FR Doc. 2021–15291 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am] Risk of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in Raw Beef (including Veal) Processing Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P Operations can be found at: https:// TTY) or contact USDA through the www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2017-09-06/2017- Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. 18847.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:23 Jul 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 37996 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices

reduce levels of fecal and associated O157:H7 as well as strains that have Response: As FSIS mentioned above, microbiological contamination. The certain O groups (O26, O45, O103, the Agency removed the word guidelines provided information on O111, O121, and O145) and contain two ‘‘compliance’’ from the guidelines’ addressing contamination with STEC specific virulence genes (stx and eae). titles. FSIS also included additional text and Salmonella in raw non-intact beef This addition was created to clarify throughout the documents to clarify that products and beef products intended for FSIS policy regarding STEC in relation the best practices in the documents are non-intact use. FSIS requested to product recalls; and not regulatory requirements. • comments on these guidelines. FSIS added a section on how ‘‘dry Comment: Multiple industry groups After review and consideration of all aging’’ can be used as an intervention to expressed concern regarding the comments, FSIS has made changes to reduce pathogens, including STEC. mention of cooking non-intact raw beef and clarified certain aspects of the Beef Processing Guideline products to a level of ‘‘doneness’’ (i.e., guidelines. For example, FSIS removed • rare, medium rare, and well-done), the word ‘‘compliance’’ from the titles FSIS clarified throughout the instead of listing recommended internal of the guidelines to help clarify that the document that the recommendations in cooking temperatures. The commenters guidelines are recommendations and do the guideline are not regulatory argued that doneness is not a reliable not create any new regulatory requirements; indicator for food safety and that the • FSIS removed the section on lymph requirements. The other revisions are guideline would be improved if the summarized below and are discussed in node removal; • FSIS removed all references to levels of doneness were replaced with more detail in the Agency’s responses to temperatures and descriptions. comments. The revised guidelines are Salmonella; • Response: The Agency agrees that available at the FSIS guidance web FSIS added additional examples visual observation is not a scientifically page.3 Although comments on these and scenarios using supplier-based reliable indicator of food safety. The use guidelines will no longer be accepted verification programs to illustrate of the term ‘‘doneness’’ is to explain to through www.regulations.gov, FSIS will additional verification options for the reader, using plain language, why continue to update these documents, as establishments; • STEC is an adulterant in some, but not necessary. FSIS added a brief question and answer section addressing antimicrobial all beef products. Because ‘‘rare’’ and Summary of Changes to the Guidelines interventions and retained water in beef ‘‘medium rare’’ are common descriptive terms describing levels of doneness that Beef Slaughter Guideline trim intended for grinding, based on indicate non-intact beef products have • concerns expressed by stakeholders to FSIS clarified that the Agency’s Agency leadership; and not been cooked to a validated time/ recommendations are not regulatory • FSIS added language from FSIS’ temperature combination sufficient to requirements; destroy STEC throughout a product, • Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook FSIS removed the information (MLG), stating that, when testing for FSIS did remove the term from the pertaining to lymph node harborage of STEC, if the initial screen test result is guidance. When describing products Salmonella and will make that negative for the Shiga toxin gene (stx) or that are customarily cooked by the information available in other Agency the intimin gene (eae), then the test consumer to a well-done state, FSIS documents that focus on controlling result is considered to be negative for an made specific reference to validated Salmonella as a foodborne hazard; • adulterant. This addition was created to time and temperature combinations FSIS removed best practice clarify FSIS policy regarding STEC in sufficient to destroy STEC throughout recommendations on the use of relation to product recalls. the product. chlorophyll to detect contamination on carcasses and air inflation for bunging; Comments and Responses STEC Slaughter Guideline • FSIS clarified the Agency’s FSIS received three comments on the recommendations on washing cattle to Comment: One consumer group beef slaughter guideline from an suggested that the beef slaughter reduce pathogen transfer and added industry group, a consumer group, and more information on humane handling guideline should include more a consumer. FSIS received six information on veal products and that during cattle washing; comments on the beef processing • FSIS added more information on FSIS should develop outreach materials guideline from three industry groups, pre-harvest interventions; that focus on the challenges associated two consumers, and a very small • FSIS clarified the Agency’s with preparing veal products. The establishment. Comment summaries and recommendations about when feet, consumer group cited recent recalls of Agency responses follow. eardrums, and bruises should be veal products to support their argument removed; General that FSIS should provide more guidance • FSIS provided more information to on veal products. Comment: Multiple industry groups support its recommendations on suggested that FSIS revise the Response: The Agency maintains that chilling and storage of carcasses and guidelines to clarify that the minimizing contamination of the parts; recommendations in the guidelines are carcass and maximizing • FSIS emphasized that it considers not regulatory requirements. The same decontamination efforts during the the presence of certain STEC strains to industry groups stated that FSIS slaughter process are the best ways to be adulterants when they are present in inspectors could incorrectly interpret reduce STEC and Salmonella raw non-intact beef products and raw the guidelines as regulatory contamination in all classes of beef, intact beef source materials intended for requirements instead of best practice including veal. Many of the examples in use in such non-intact beef products or recommendations. These same the beef slaughter guideline should be when the intended use is unclear. These commenters requested that FSIS change helpful to establishments that slaughter adulterant STEC strains include E. coli the titles of the guidelines to remove the veal. FSIS has already published a best- 3 phrase ‘‘compliance guidelines’’ and The FSIS guidance web page can be found at: practices document specific for veal https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/ replace it with ‘‘guidance’’ or ‘‘industry regulatory-compliance/guidelines. guidance’’ to avoid potential misuse. slaughter sanitary dressing procedures

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:23 Jul 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 37997

and antimicrobial interventions.4 A basis for determining whether a strain of Pending FSIS Test Results,9 Foodborne reference to the veal slaughter sanitary Salmonella should be considered an Pathogen Test Kits Validated by dressing document has been added to adulterant in raw meat and poultry Independent Organizations,10 and the the beef slaughter guideline. FSIS products. FSIS further explained that FSIS Microbiology Laboratory believes that information provided in the Agency does not consider ABR Guidebook (MLG).11 FSIS is not revising the beef slaughter guideline and the Salmonella to be an ‘‘added substance’’ the guidance documents in response to 2015 best practices document properly within the meaning of the adulteration this comment. addresses concerns over recent recalls provisions of the FMIA or PPIA. Comment: Multiple establishments associated with STEC in veal. FSIS is More recently, on January 18, 2020, have sent inquiries to the askFSIS not revising the guideline in response to FSIS received a petition submitted on questioning whether the required this comment. behalf of consumer advocacy groups generic E. coli testing under 9 CFR 310.25 is equivalent to STEC testing Salmonella and private individuals requesting that FSIS issue an interpretive rule to conducted for HACCP verification. Comment: A consumer group argued declare certain Salmonella serotypes to Although these questions were not that FSIS should do more to protect be per se adulterants in meat and submitted specifically as comments on consumers from Salmonella in beef. The poultry products. The petition is the guidelines, we have addressed the same consumer group argued that FSIS available on FSIS’ website.6 FSIS issue in the revisions to the guidelines, should declare antibiotic resistant (ABR) requested that interested persons submit as they are the best vehicle to Salmonella strains to be adulterants, communicate guidance to industry comments on the petition.7 The just as it declared the six strains of stakeholders. comment period closed on May 22, STEC to be adulterants in 2011. Response: FSIS has added a text box 2020. FSIS is analyzing the comments Additionally, the consumer group to the verification sections of the and developing a response to the suggested that FSIS update its slaughter and processing guidelines to petition, which it will post on its performance standards for Salmonella explain the differences between STEC website. in ground beef because the current testing conducted for HACCP standards are based on outdated studies. Regarding the comment on verification and the required generic E. Response: In 2011, the Agency Salmonella performance standards for coli testing under 9 CFR 310.25. The received a petition from the Center of ground beef, FSIS published a Federal text box explains how each serves a Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) Register notice on October 28, 2019, to separate function, and neither is a requesting that the Agency declare announce and request comments on supportable substitute for the other. proposed pathogen reduction certain strains of ABR Salmonella to be Best Practices per se adulterants, i.e. adulterants in all performance standards for Salmonella meat and poultry products, including in raw ground beef and beef Comment: One consumer group raw products. FSIS denied the petition manufacturing trimmings.8 The suggested that the beef slaughter without prejudice after determining that comment period closed January 27, guideline emphasize the importance of the data submitted with the petition was 2020. The Agency is currently reviewing preventing aerosolization of insufficient to support CSPI’s request. In the comments it received on the notice contamination during ‘‘up-pulling’’ of 2014, CSPI submitted another petition and intends to respond to comments hides, which is the action generated by on the same matter, which FSIS also and announce the final performance a machine that pulls the hide away from denied without prejudice.5 standards in a future Federal Register the carcass. In the Agency’s final response to the document. FSIS is not revising the Response: The beef slaughter 2014 petition, FSIS explained that while guidance documents in response to this guideline’s best practice section on the 2014 petition included expanded comment. dehiding as posted on September 6, 2017 already included information on factual and legal support, the data did Sampling not support giving any of the ABR preventing aerosolization due to the Salmonella strains identified in the Comment: An individual consumer excessive forces that occur when using petition a different status as adulterants submitted questions about FSIS’ mechanical hide pullers. During this than is given to Salmonella strains that sampling and testing methods for STEC process, best practices in preventing are susceptible to antibiotics under the and Salmonella. cross-contamination include establishing a maintenance program for Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 Response: FSIS did not address these the mechanical pullers that involves U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry topics in the beef slaughter guideline. monitoring pullers on an on-going basis Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 However, more information on sampling for proper adjustment, installing shields U.S.C. 453 et seq.). FSIS also explained and testing methodologies can be found or devoting an employee to holding up in the petition response that the data in the FSIS Compliance Guideline for a shield, and directing air flow away show that numerous factors, including Controlling Meat and Poultry Products genetic, environmental, and host- from the carcasses being skinned to prevent contamination of carcasses with specific factors interact to make a 6 The link to the FSIS Petitions web page is particular strain pathogenic and located at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/ the aerosols created at this step. Because virulent. Because of this complexity, petitions. FSIS concluded that antibiotic 7 The link to the January 18, 2020 petition can be 9 The FSIS Compliance Guideline for Controlling found at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/ Meat and Poultry Products Pending FSIS Test resistance alone is not an appropriate FSIS-2020-0007-0001. Results can be found at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 8 Changes to the Salmonella Verification Testing wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/ 4 Antimicrobial Intervention Implementation and Program: Proposed Performance Standards for guidelines/2013-0003. Veal Slaughter Establishments: Identified Issues Salmonella in Raw Ground Beef and Beef 10 The list of test kits that have been validated for and Best Practices can be found at: https:// Manufacturing Trimmings and Related Agency detection of relevant foodborne pathogens can be www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/ Verification Procedures can be found at https:// found at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/guidelines/ regulatory-compliance/guidelines/2015-0018. www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/28/ 2019-0008. 5 The link to the CSPI petitions and the Agency’s 2019-23473/changes-to-the-salmonella-verification- 11 FSIS Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook: responses is located at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/ testing-program-proposed-performance-standards- https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/ policy/petitions. for-salmonella. publications/microbiology-laboratory-guidebook.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:23 Jul 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 37998 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices

the requested information is already in group stated that FSIS inspectors may Response: FSIS modified the beef the guideline, FSIS did not make consider that the best practice slaughter guideline to reflect that an additional changes to the guidance in recommendation is a regulatory establishment could do bunging at other response to this comment. requirement. points in the process, besides the final Comment: An industry group argued Response: FSIS revised the ‘‘Best part of rumping, if the establishment that the recommendation in the ‘‘Best Practices during Hide Removal’’ section minimized the contamination. Practices during Cattle Transport, of the beef slaughter guideline to clarify Comment: An industry group opposed Receiving and Holding’’ section on that establishments are not required to the guideline’s recommendation of washing incoming cattle is flawed. The remove an animal’s feet first. However, using air inflation around the anus/ commenter agreed that washing cattle FSIS continues to recommend that vulvar area to assist in bunging, reduces visual contamination but when establishments use a bed or cradle because, according to the commenter, argued that the guideline provides no for hide removal, establishments remove this practice is not typically performed support showing that the practice the front and hind feet before making and could cause greater contamination. effectively reduces Salmonella and any other incisions through the hide. Response: FSIS removed the STEC contamination. These procedures should reduce the recommendation of using air inflation. Response: FSIS has revised the beef potential for cross-contamination of the Comment: An industry group slaughter guideline to clarify that carcass. expressed concern regarding the ‘‘Best Practices during Head Removal’’ section washing cattle may be considered a Comment: An industry group of the guideline. The commenter means to reduce visible contamination, expressed concern regarding pointed out that FSIS suggests removing but this practice may not necessarily recommended practices in the beef the eardrums before head washing but reduce pathogen transfer to the carcass. slaughter guideline related to clamping, provides no explanation or In addition, FSIS specified that if an bagging tails, bunging before hide documentation as to why any establishment decides to wash livestock removal, and using paper towels to establishment should perform this pre-slaughter, it should ensure the protect the exposed carcass surfaces. washing is done in a humane manner. process before washing and not after. While the commenter agreed that it is Comment: An industry group Response: FSIS revised the text in the important to ensure the hide, tail, and questioned language in the beef beef slaughter guideline to state, slaughter guideline suggesting that bung do not contact the carcass surface, ‘‘remove horns, pieces of hide and ear industry-source cattle from ‘‘farms or the commenter noted that the drums in a manner to minimize feedlots that employ one or more recommendations appear to be contamination.’’ production system or feedlot controls regulatory requirements and that there Comment: An industry group [are] shown to reduce the carriage of are additional methods to protect expressed concern regarding the ‘‘Best STEC and Salmonella.’’ The commenter carcasses from insanitary conditions Practices during Carcass Splitting’’ also opposed language in the guideline than FSIS provides in the guideline. section of the guideline. According to stating that ‘‘effective farm and feedlot Response: FSIS revised the beef the commenter, FSIS recommends management and control can reduce slaughter guideline to convey that FSIS’ removing bruises before carcass fecal shedding of the organism, as well recommendations are not regulatory splitting, but provides no justification as reduce the microbial load on the requirements and that there are more for how removing this material before or animals in the intestinal tract.’’ The ways to prevent insanitary conditions after splitting minimizes the risk of commenter pointed out that FSIS does than were mentioned in the 2017 STEC and Salmonella contamination. not cite any data to support the guideline. For example, FSIS revised the The commenter suggested that bruises conclusion that sourcing such cattle will guideline to state that using hide clips should be removed at the step in the cause a meaningful reduction in the is just one way to prevent hide flaps harvest process most suitable to each overall prevalence of Salmonella and from contacting the carcass. individual facility. STEC on carcasses or their final Comment: An industry group Response: In the Agency’s experience products and stated that FSIS should mentioned that using chlorophyll during inspection, removing organic remove the section from the guideline. detection equipment to identify fecal material, bruises, grubs, and tissue Response: FSIS has revised the beef material is outdated and most damaged by grubs from the middle area slaughter guideline to add a reference to equipment used for this purpose is no of the back before splitting reduces the 2014 FSIS guideline on preharvest longer commercially available. potential contamination to the split saw, controls for STEC.12 The 2014 guideline Response: FSIS removed the best bone, and surrounding tissues. addresses the commenter’s concerns, practice recommendations on the use of Therefore, FSIS is not making the including the concern about FSIS’ chlorophyll to detect contamination on requested revision. supporting data for its recommendations carcasses from the beef slaughter Comment: An industry group opposed on pre-harvest interventions. guideline. FSIS’ recommendation that industry Comment: An industry group Comment: An industry group pointed ‘‘sanitize saws and knives between each expressed concern about language in the out that in the ‘‘Best Practices during carcass,’’ because, according to the beef slaughter guideline about removing Bunging’’ section, FSIS recommends commenter, FSIS provides no the front and hind feet before making that establishments remove the bung explanation as to why this practice any incisions to remove the hide. The during the final part of rumping. While effectively reduces STEC and industry group stated that the practice is the commenter acknowledged that it is Salmonella contamination. unnecessary if cattle are not being important to ensure the bung is not a Response: FSIS modified the cradled for skinning. The industry source of fecal contamination to the guideline to clarify that the practice carcass, the commenter questioned why should be done as necessary instead of 12 The 2014 guideline, Pre-Harvest Management FSIS recommends that bunging be between each carcass. FSIS recommends Controls and Intervention Options for Reducing performed at this step. The commenter that establishments disinfect the Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Shedding splitting saw after each use on suspect, in Cattle: An Overview of Current Research can be argued that bunging should happen found at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/guidelines/ whenever an establishment can best retained, or diseased carcasses to 2014-0012. minimize the risk of contamination. prevent contamination.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:23 Jul 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 37999

Comment: An industry group stated has shown that the colder the replacement of the HACCP systems that the best practices in the chilling temperature, the more the risk of validation guideline. No revision was section of the beef slaughter guideline bacterial growth decreases. FSIS is not made in response to this comment. are outdated and lack a scientific aware of any specific scientific research STEC Processing Guideline foundation. The commenter noted that on environmental temperatures during the guideline asserts a carcass should hot-boning. Establishments are not General begin chilling within one hour of bleed- required to follow this specific Comment: An industry group opposed out to limit pathogen multiplication but temperature recommendation and can FSIS’ recommendation that does not provide an explanation or use any temperature as long as bacterial establishments use a single supplier for supporting data to demonstrate that this growth is prevented. each lot. The commenter argued that practice will effectively minimize STEC Comment: An industry group argued this is impractical, lacks a scientific or Salmonella contamination. that FSIS did not provide a scientific basis, and that it does not represent Response: FSIS revised the guideline basis for the beef slaughter guideline’s typical or practical industry practices. to clarify that the one-hour timeline is recommendation that packers should The commenter argued that this a recommendation and not a regulatory not hold aged-beef for longer than seven recommendation was included in the requirement. The recommended one- days. The commenter argued that the guideline to simplify Agency traceback hour period from bleed-out to the start best practice ignores several investigations. of chilling corresponds to a period of considerations (e.g., weekends and slower bacterial growth due to new holidays), and opens the door for an Response: FSIS revised the text in the environmental conditions and is based inspector to conclude product held beef processing guideline and removed on the ComBase Growth Predictor more than seven days is out of the wording that suggests using single Model for generic E. coli. According to compliance. source material is a ‘‘best practice.’’ the ComBase Growth Predictor Model Response: FSIS revised the guideline However, it is important to emphasize for E. coli, if the establishment begins to clarify that holding beef for no more that this practice does help in traceback chilling the carcass within this time than seven days is a recommendation and could limit the scope of a recall. period, then the establishment may be and not a requirement. FSIS chose seven Comment: A very small establishment able to minimize microbial growth days based on industry practice and Dr. stated that it would be too difficult for during the overall chilling process.13 Bruce Tompkin’s estimates of the small and very small establishments to Comment: An industry group opposed combined effect of temperature and implement the testing recommendations the guideline’s recommendations that bacterial content on time of spoilage of in the guideline because of the costs of hot-boning rooms be maintained at 50 °F beef.15 The revised guideline explains lot-by-lot testing. The same commenter or lower and that product should be that establishments may hold carcasses also stated that using antimicrobial chilled and maintained at 40 °F or for longer than seven days in the cooler interventions on a day-to-day basis lower. The industry group argued that before fabrication if they maintain would be difficult because often the both recommendations are provided scientific supporting documentation for amount of product that needs to be without scientific justification and cooler parameters that take the holding produced is unknown. should be removed from the guideline. time into account, which may include: Response: The beef processing Response: FSIS revised the ‘‘Best Temperature, humidity, and air flow guideline does not create any new Practices During Chilling’’ section of the (see 9 CFR 417.5(a)(1) or 417.5(a)(2)). In regulatory requirements. Instead, the guideline to clarify that establishments addition, FSIS added a section on ‘‘dry beef processing guideline presents may choose to maintain temperatures aging’’ of beef to the guideline. supportable recommendations that other than those recommended in the Comment: An industry group establishments can use to address STEC, guideline if they have supporting suggested that FSIS remove references including having a purchase documentation for their chosen to antimicrobial interventions, Hazard specification program to get a Certificate temperature limit. The temperature Analysis and Critical Control Points of Analysis (COA) on each lot received. recommended in the guideline of (HACCP) verification, and HACCP ° If a COA is not available, then FSIS chilling and storage of product at 40 F validation. The commenter argued that recommends testing each lot of or lower is based on the Tompkin FSIS should reference FSIS’ HACCP incoming product, testing each lot of 14 paper that shows STEC and systems validation guideline as essential finished product, applying a validated Salmonella will not grow at product and complementary to help reduce the ° antimicrobial intervention, or treating or temperatures of 40 F or less. risk of Salmonella and STEC washing the product and then trimming The recommendation for maintaining contamination. ° the outer surface. There is not one a temperature of 50 F or less for a hot- Response: The beef slaughter ‘‘superior’’ antimicrobial intervention boning room is based on minimizing the guideline provides a link to FSIS’ for STEC. When searching for an potential for bacterial growth during Compliance Guideline on HACCP antimicrobial treatment to use as an processing. Common industry practice Systems Validation.16 The validation intervention for STEC, establishments information provided in the beef should review the supporting 13 ComBase Growth Predictor Model for E. coli slaughter guideline is included as a was used to predict the growth of E. coli. if the documentation available and choose an bacterium was deposited onto the sterile carcass convenience to the reader and is not a intervention based on its overall HACCP surface during the hide removal/dressing steps. The system. Establishments must effectively Growth Predictor Model predicts the response of a 15 Tompkin, R.B. 1996. The Significance of Time- control STEC in their production of range of pathogens and spoilage microorganisms temperature to Growth of Foodborne Pathogens characterizing the food environment. The During Refrigeration at 40–50 °F. Presented during non-intact beef products. The financial parameters selected were left at the ComBase the Joint FSIS/FDA Conference on Time/ impact of a recall or illness outbreak default values of initial level = 3 log10, pH 7, Temperature. November 18, 1996 Washington, DC. associated with a failure to control physiological state as recommended by ComBase, Available at: https://meathaccp.wisc.edu/Model_ STEC at the establishment could be and either water activity at 0.997, or 0.6% NaCl. Haccp_Plans/assets/raw_ground/ 14 The Tompkin paper can be found at: https:// TompkinPaper.pdf. much greater than the cost of meathaccp.wisc.edu/Model_Haccp_Plans/assets/ 16 Available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/ implementing the recommended raw_ground/TompkinPaper.pdf. guidelines/2015-0011. prevention strategies. FSIS is not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:23 Jul 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 38000 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices

revising the guideline in response to and 507.47). Pet food facilities exempt Additionally, FSIS already requires this comment. from FDA registration requirements or establishments to label not ready-to-eat Comment: An industry group otherwise not subject to the PCAF inspected product with safe-handling requested that FSIS consider expanding regulations also have an obligation instructions that state ‘‘Cook the usability of the guideline for all beef under the Federal Food, Drug, and Thoroughly’’ (9 CFR 317.2(l)). FSIS is processing operations, regardless of size. Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331 and 342) not adopting the commenter’s requested Response: FSIS has developed these not to introduce adulterated pet food warning statement because it could guidelines to help small and very small into interstate commerce. As a result, confuse consumers. establishments meet best practice FDA expects such facilities to put in Lymph Nodes recommendations by FSIS, based on the place appropriate processes and best scientific and practical procedures to ensure that any animal Comment: One consumer group considerations. The guidelines are food they produce using ingredients suggested that FSIS should conduct focused on small and very small containing microbiological pathogens is more inspection tasks to verify that establishments; however, all FSIS not adulterated. processors do not mix highly pathogenic regulated beef slaughter and processing lymphatic tissue into beef products establishments may be able to apply the Lymph Nodes and Salmonella because, according to the consumer recommendations in the guidelines. As Comment: Three industry groups group, there is research showing that written, larger establishments may use commented that the beef processing lymphatic tissue harbors high the guideline. FSIS is not revising the guideline should focus on STEC, not concentrations of Salmonella bacteria. guideline in response to this comment. Salmonella. These industry groups One industry group argued that Comment: Multiple establishments suggested that all references to ‘‘suggesting/requiring’’ the removal of have sent inquiries to FSIS questioning Salmonella, including the section on ‘‘major’’ lymph nodes lacks sound whether establishments can send lymph node removal, be removed from scientific reasoning, and that a ‘‘one size product that is positive or presumptive the document, because they may detract fits all’’ approach will not work. Rather, positive for STEC to pet food from the purpose of the document and the industry group suggested that each manufacturers to be processed into confuse the reader. packing establishment should use its animal food product. Although these Response: While Salmonella is a data to determine the appropriate best questions were not submitted pathogen of public health significance practices regarding lymph nodes. specifically as comments on the and is associated with raw beef The industry group further argued guidelines, FSIS has addressed the issue products, FSIS agrees with the that there is currently no research in the revisions to the beef processing commenters that the beef processing showing that lymph nodes are a source guideline, as it is the best vehicle to guideline is designed to describe the of STEC contamination and therefore, communicate guidance to industry best practices for controlling STEC, not requiring their removal would not stakeholders. Salmonella. Therefore, references to reduce STEC contamination on Response: FSIS has revised the beef controlling Salmonella, including the carcasses and final products. processing guidance to clarify that section on lymph nodes, have been Additionally, the industry group argued product that is positive or presumptive removed from this guideline. that multiple peer-reviewed scientific positive for STEC is eligible to be sent Salmonella control is still addressed in studies illustrate that the prevalence of to a pet food manufacturer. FSIS the beef slaughter guideline and Salmonella is not consistent recommends that FSIS-inspected additional information may be geographically, seasonally, across establishments communicate with pet incorporated into future Salmonella production stages, or across individual food manufacturers before sending specific guidance materials. lymph nodes within each animal. products containing STEC to a pet food Comment: A consumer group asked if Therefore, the commenter argued that manufacturer, so that the pet food FSIS will continue to allow requiring all establishments to remove manufacturer is aware that the establishments to use lymph nodes the six peripheral lymph nodes in all ingredient they are receiving contains a taken from meat products for ‘‘beef carcasses at all times is not a prudent pathogen that will need to be controlled patties’’ where the ingredients statement best practice. in their finished pet food. discloses that the patties contain Response: FSIS determined that the Pet food facilities operate under the byproducts. The commenter urged FSIS inclusion of lymph node removal jurisdiction of the Food and Drug to entirely eliminate the exception, or at procedures to assist in the control of Administration (FDA). Pet food facilities least require additional disclosure, such Salmonella is out of the scope of this required to register with the FDA as as an asterisk on the ingredients document’s overall focus on STEC food facilities must comply with the statement that is linked to the statement: control. Therefore, the Agency removed Preventive Controls for Animal Food ‘‘beef byproducts have been shown to this section from this document and (PCAF) regulation, at 21 CFR part 507, contain high levels of pathogenic intends to include it in future guidance unless an exemption applies. Under the Salmonella. Cook thoroughly.’’ materials that focus on Salmonella PCAF regulation, registered facilities are Response: FSIS is not changing its control. required, in part, to identify and control labeling policy. FSIS clarifies in its Food any hazards requiring a preventive Standards and Labeling Policy Book 17 On-Going Verification control that are associated with their that beef patties may contain beef Comment: Multiple industry groups incoming ingredients (21 CFR 507.33 byproducts if the byproducts are suggested that the beef processing and 507.34). As a result, if a pet food included in the ingredients statement guideline over-emphasizes the facility is receiving ingredients that are and the ingredients statement importance of product testing for on- or may be positive for STEC, it would immediately follows the product name. going verification rather than providing be required to identify and evaluate that detailed options for processors. The food safety hazard and implement a 17 The FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy commenters stated that this over- Book can be found at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/ preventive control that has been wps/wcm/connect/7c48be3e-e516-4ccf-a2d5- emphasis may lead to FSIS inspectors validated to prevent or significantly b95a128f04ae/Labeling-Policy- concluding that product testing is minimize the hazard (21 CFR 507.34 Book.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. mandatory or is the best and only option

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:23 Jul 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38001

for on-going verification and that FSIS Escherichia coli O157:H7.18 The recommendations are generally should clarify, in the guideline, that customary preparation of raw ground consistent with the BIFSCO testing is not a regulatory requirement. beef and non-intact steaks (i.e., cooking recommendations. FSIS is not revising One commenter suggested that to a rare or medium state) does not the guideline in response to this information about alternatives to testing destroy STEC throughout the product or comment. may be helpful to small and very small render the product safe. However, FSIS Comment: One industry group stated establishments and should be included recognizes that there are some non- that FSIS should cite the appropriate in the guideline. Additionally, the same intact raw beef products (e.g., raw scientific articles that support the commenters argued that the guideline corned beef) that are customarily cooked testing frequencies recommended should provide more examples of on- by the consumer to a well-done state throughout the guideline. going verification besides product (i.e., cooked to a time and temperature Response: Establishments determine testing in the ‘‘Scenarios’’ section of the combination sufficient to destroy STEC their frequencies for on-going guideline. Multiple industry groups throughout the product). verification procedures based on their commented that supplier verification Comment: An industry group specific individual HACCP system. programs should be mentioned as an suggested that FSIS rewrite the section However, the Agency recognizes that alternative to on-going verification. on outside suppliers to include a more small and very small establishments comprehensive discussion of the routinely have difficulty in finding Response: FSIS did not intend to importance of processing establishments scientific support for the frequency of suggest that testing by the receiving ensuring that their HACCP plans on-going verification procedures as establishment is the only option adequately address the use of incoming required by 9 CFR 417.5(a)(2). available. The beef processing guideline product for producing non-intact Therefore, the Agency has provided on- was developed to assist small and very product. going verification frequencies based on small establishments understand STEC Response: FSIS disagrees with the past industry practices that provide a controls and verification procedures. commenter. The guideline already safe harbor and starting point for The guideline includes detailed thoroughly discusses STEC control establishments and support for their on- discussions on sampling and testing options for establishments that purchase going verification frequency. If an procedures based on the many askFSIS product slaughtered off-site. For establishment chooses to select an questions that FSIS receives. example, the guideline recommends alternative frequency, they may do so if In response to comments, FSIS has that the receiving establishment have they have supporting documentation for revised the beef processing guideline to knowledge of the STEC controls applied their chosen frequency (see 9 CFR include options for on-going verification to the product they are purchasing, as 417.5(a)(2)). As is explained in the other than testing and added an that affects decisions being made in the guideline, in the absence of an STEC example of on-going verification receiving establishment’s HACCP control or preventive measures, procedures, other than receiving system. FSIS is not revising the establishments cannot rely solely on establishment testing, to Scenario 4. guideline in response to this comment. testing at the frequencies listed in the FSIS has modified the ‘‘On-going Comment: Multiple industry groups verification section. FSIS rejects this Verification’’ section and the flowchart recommended that FSIS incorporate and comment. to include supplier verification reference in the beef processing Comment: An industry group programs as a form of verification. guideline the recommendations recommended that FSIS remove the Comment: An industry group argued outlined in the November 2016 Beef following language from page nine of that the customary cooking section on Industry Food Safety Council (BIFSCO) the beef processing guideline: ‘‘Testing page four of the beef processing Guidance for Purchasers of Raw Beef for of product provides a statistical guideline is confusing and Non-Intact Use. The commenters stated confidence that the product is not recommended that the words that the BIFSCO Guidance, developed contaminated with STEC. However, ‘‘customary’’ and ‘‘customarily’’ be by industry, provides practical guidance negative test results do not provide 100 removed, as the words have not been to processing establishments producing percent certainty that the product is not adequately defined. The commenter also non-intact product on how to maximize contaminated. For that reason, testing is recommended that the section be the food safety of raw materials and a verification activity that demonstrates segmented into two parts: (1) How the finished products, as well as how to that a HACCP system is functioning as two classes of non-intact products meet FSIS regulatory requirements. It intended rather than a control for (ground beef and non-intact steak) also includes the components of a pathogens.’’ The commenter argued that should be considered regarding cooking supplier verification program. this language is not pertinent to the instructions and (2) the processing Response: The beef processing discussion on verification testing. Response: FSIS disagrees with the establishment’s HACCP plan. guideline represents FSIS’ best practice recommendations and are based on the commenter. The Agency included the Response: FSIS has revised this information to help small and very section of the guideline, and has best scientific and practical considerations. Establishments may small establishments understand that divided it into two sections, one on testing alone is not a sufficient control validated cooking instructions and one choose to adopt different procedures than those outlined in the guideline, for STEC. FSIS is not revising the on customary cooking practices. The guideline in response to this comment. Agency did not remove the words such as practices recommended by BIFSCO.19 FSIS’ best practice Comment: An industry group ‘‘customary’’ or ‘‘customarily’’ from the suggested that, on page 10 of the beef guideline, because they are adequately 18 Beef Products Contaminated with Escherichia processing guideline, FSIS should defined. Additionally, the discussion of coli O157:H7 can be found at: https:// remove the green call-out box that stated customary cooking practices is www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-01-19/pdf/ that ‘‘In the absence of a control or consistent with the Agency’s discussion 99-1123.pdf. prevention measures, it is not of customary cooking practices in the 19 BIFSCO Guidance for Purchasers of Raw Beef for Non-Intact Use: https://www.bifsco.org/Media/ appropriate for establishments to apply January 19, 1999 Federal Register notice BIFSCO/Docs/guidance_for_purchasers_of_raw_ the recommended minimum Beef Products Contaminated with beef_for_non-intact_use_final.pdf. frequencies. Without a control or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:23 Jul 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 38002 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices

preventive measure in place, sampling Scenarios and not the response to positive product should occur on a lot-by-lot basis.’’ The Comment: An industry group or recall potential. The guideline commenter argued that there are many recommended that FSIS rewrite contains a separate section on how options to conduct on-going verification Scenario 1 on page 18 to clarify whether establishments should respond to activities that do not include product the boxed subprimals in the scenario positive product. testing for non-intact products. were vacuum packaged and whether the Non-Intact Classification Response: The green box was revised processing establishment went to the Comment: An industry group to emphasize that, in the absence of an supplier’s website to determine what requested that the beef processing STEC control or preventive measures, food safety documents were available. guideline be revised to include cube establishments cannot rely solely on The commenter argued that these are steak on the list of non-intact products testing at the frequencies listed in the key points that must be included in the that are ‘‘customarily cooked by the verification section. scenario because they reflect the current consumer to a well-done state.’’ The Comment: Multiple industry groups information the processing commenter argued that cubed steak is opposed FSIS’ recommendation of establishment would have to consider as customarily cooked by consumers to a ‘‘frequent sampling at multiple points in they ensure their food safety system is well-done state and should be included the process (e.g., before and after the appropriate and meets regulatory alongside products like meatballs and non-intact processing).’’ According to requirements. Furthermore, the ‘‘Philly’’ style steak. commenter stated that each of these the commenters, testing at this Response: As FSIS explained in the details would more completely explain frequency may cause confusion or October 7, 2002 Federal Register notice the scenario and possibly provide render lotting documentation null and E. coli O157:H7 Contamination of Beef direction to the processing void. The commenters stated that this Products, there is a lack of data on establishment. approach conflicts with downstream industry and consumer practices for Additionally, the same industry group verification testing, conducted to verify cooking pinned, needled, and blade recommended that FSIS should rewrite tenderized steaks and a lack of data on that the systems in place have been Scenario 2 on page 18 to clarify whether effective in reducing the pathogens of the proportion of industry outlets and the boxed beef primals were vacuum consumers that prepare these products concern to undetectable levels before packed as it would indicate the supplier the materials are received at the further according to each of these different did not intend the use to be for non- methods.20 However, establishments processor. The commenters further intact products and whether the argued that it is unclear how testing have the option of providing support for certificate of analysis (COA) was how their establishment uses the end- before and after non-intact processing received. The industry group noted that provides meaningfully different product. The HACCP regulations intended use of products must be provide establishments the flexibility to feedback on supply-side intervention considered by the receiving processes and that the establishment design their HACCP system to fit their establishment. The same industry group procedures, processes, and products. should have the flexibility to determine recommended that FSIS explain in the when and where sampling should occur Ultimately, the regulations require the scenario that no intervention was used. establishment to conduct the hazard within their HACCP plan to Furthermore, the same industry group analysis (9 CFR 417.2(a)), determine the demonstrate process control. stated that if the finished ground beef hazard(s) reasonably likely to occur (9 Response: FSIS revised the language that tested positive contained trim from CFR 417.2(a)(1)), conduct on-going in the beef processing guideline to these non-intact primals and there was verification (9 CFR 417.4), and support emphasize that sampling and testing no intervention used to microbially the decisions made (9 CFR 417.5(a)(1)). should provide evidence regarding the differentiate the non-intact subprimals FSIS is not revising the guideline in effectiveness of the establishment’s from the ground beef, FSIS should response to this comment. HACCP controls. explain that the Agency may also Comment: An industry group opposed Comment: An industry group investigate the need to recall the non- FSIS categorizing diced beef smaller suggested that FSIS revise the last intact subprimals. than three-fourths of an inch in any one paragraph on page 15 of the beef Response: FSIS agreed with the dimension as non-intact, putting it into commenter and revised Scenario 1 and processing guideline on lotting. The a higher risk category. The commenter Scenario 2 to clarify that the boxed commenter suggested the following argued that FSIS did not conduct an subprimals were vacuum packaged and revision: ‘‘Following the identification assessment to determine the higher risk that the receiving establishment was of the affected lot, the establishment is surrounding diced products smaller able to obtain a letter of guarantee from required to ensure that no product that than three-fourths of an inch in any one each supplier. FSIS did not specifically is injurious to health or otherwise dimension, and that FSIS should not mention that the receiving adulterated enters commerce. The classify this product as non-intact. establishment obtained the letter of amount of any additional affected Response: The guideline did not guarantee from a website because product will be determined based on the create a new classification for diced producing establishments can also establishment’s lotting and food safety beef. In 1999, FSIS published the provide the letter via mail or email. systems. The implemented corrective Federal Register notice Beef Products In Scenario 2, FSIS added additional Contaminated with Escherichia coli actions will depend on whether the information indicating that the O157:H7, which differentiated intact positive finding represents a critical establishment did not apply any beef cuts from non-intact products.21 control point (CCP) deviation requiring antimicrobial interventions. Lotting and corrective actions per 9 CFR 417.3(a) or microbiological independence are 20 E. coli O157:H7 Contamination of Beef an unforeseen hazard requiring already addressed in the guideline. The Products can be found at: https://www.govinfo.gov/ corrective actions per 9 CFR 417.3(b).’’ focus of Scenario 2 is on establishments app/details/FR-2002-10-07/02-25504. 21 Response: FSIS agreed with the developing a HACCP system that Beef Products Contaminated with Escherichia coli O157:H7 can be found at: https:// commenter and revised the guideline to addresses materials from multiple www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-1999-01-19/99- reflect the commenter’s suggestion. sources used in ground beef product 1123.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:23 Jul 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 38003

The meat interior of intact beef cuts public assistance program, or political meeting information can be found at the remains protected from pathogens beliefs, exclude from participation in, following website: https:// migrating below the exterior surface. deny the benefits of, or subject to www.fs.usda.gov/main/modoc/ Pathogens may be introduced below the discrimination, any person in the workingtogether/advisorycommittees. surface of non-intact beef cut as a result United States under any program or DATES: The meeting will be held on of the processes by which they are activity conducted by the USDA. August 25, 2021 at 4:00 p.m., Pacific made. FSIS considers diced beef Daylight Time. products (beef cubes) of less than three- How To File a Complaint of Discrimination All RAC meetings are subject to fourths of an inch to exhibit the same cancellation. For meeting status prior to food safety characteristics as raw non- To file a complaint of discrimination, attendance, please contact the person intact beef products. Similar to ground complete the USDA Program listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION beef, when cubes are made smaller-and- Discrimination Complaint Form, which CONTACT. smaller, the cubes begin to stick (or may be accessed online at: http:// ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held clump) together, allowing pathogens www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ virtually. Attendees can join via previously restricted only to the exterior docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_ telephone conference by dialing 323– of the meat to be distributed throughout 12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you 886–7051 with pass code 993916790# the mass (or clump) of cubes. FSIS is or your authorized representative. not revising the guideline in response to Send your completed complaint form and/or via video conference link: https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup- this comment. or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email: _ Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, join/19%3ameeting Additional Public Notification Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 ZTEyNzNmM2ItMTVhYi Public awareness of all segments of Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 00ZGQ3LTg1YmQtYWY2Mjk rulemaking and policy development is DC 20250–9410. 1ZTk5YWE5%40thread.v2/ important. Consequently, FSIS will Fax: (202) 690–7442. 0?context=%7b announce this Federal Register Email: [email protected]. %22Tid%22%3a%22ed5b36e7-01ee- publication online through the FSIS Persons with disabilities who require 4ebc-867e-e03cfa0d4697%22% web page located at: http:// alternative means for communication 2c%22Oid%22%3a%22acedd9e6-fe59- www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), 4fec-8e11-244c6d1d8148%22%7d. also will make copies of this publication should contact USDA’s TARGET Center Written comments may be submitted available through the FSIS Constituent at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including Update, which is used to provide Done in Washington, DC. information regarding FSIS policies, names and addresses when provided, Paul Kiecker, procedures, regulations, Federal are placed in the record and are Register notices, FSIS public meetings, Administrator. available for public inspection and and other types of information that [FR Doc. 2021–15274 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am] copying. The public may inspect could affect or would be of interest to BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P comments received upon request. our constituents and stakeholders. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constituent Update is available on the Chris Christofferson, Designated Federal FSIS web page. Through the web page, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Officer (DFO), by phone at 530–233– 8700 or email at chris.christofferson@ FSIS can provide information to a much Forest Service broader, more diverse audience. In usda.gov or Ken Sandusky at 530–233– addition, FSIS offers an email Modoc County Resource Advisory 8713 or email at kenneth.sandusky@ subscription service which provides Committee usda.gov. automatic and customized access to Individuals who use selected food safety news and AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture telecommunication devices for the information. This service is available at: (USDA). hearing-impaired (TDD) may call the http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. ACTION: Notice of meeting. Federal Information Relay Service Options range from recalls to export (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 information, regulations, directives, and SUMMARY: The Modoc County Resource a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight notices. Customers can add or delete Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a Time, Monday through Friday. subscriptions themselves and have the virtual meeting by phone and/or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The option to password protect their teleconference. The committee is purpose of the meeting is to: accounts. authorized under the Secure Rural 1. Hear from possible Title II project Schools and Community Self- proponents and discuss project Congressional Review Act Determination Act (the Act) and proposals; Pursuant to the Congressional Review operates in compliance with the Federal 2. Plan for project solicitation and Act at 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the Office of Advisory Committee Act. The purpose replacment member recruitment; Information and Regulatory Affairs has of the committee is to improve 3. Review old projects’ meeting determined that this notice is not a collaborative relationships and to minutes; and ‘‘major rule,’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. provide advice and recommendations to 4. Schedule the next meeting. 804(2). the Forest Service concerning projects The meeting is open to the public. and funding consistent with Title II of The agenda will include time for people USDA Non-Discrimination Statement the Act as well as make to make oral statements of three minutes No agency, officer, or employee of the recommendations on recreation fee or less. Individuals wishing to make an USDA shall, on the grounds of race, proposals for sites on or benefitting the oral statement should make a request in color, national origin, religion, sex, Modoc National Forest within Modoc writing by August 16, 2021, to be gender identity, sexual orientation, County, California, consistent with the scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who disability, age, marital status, family/ Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement would like to bring related matters to parental status, income derived from a Act. RAC information and virtual the attention of the committee may file

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:23 Jul 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1