Cattle Inspection (1990)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

48262 Proposed Rules This section of the FEDERAl REGISTER contains notices to ~ pubs* of the proposed issuance of nobles and regulations The purpose of these notice is to grve interested persons an opportunity to participate in me rule. making prior to the adoption of the find DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service 9 CFR Parts 307 and 310 [Docket No. 83~8P] Streamlined Inspection System~atHe and Staffing Standards AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. acnoN: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Seance (ISIS] is proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations to establish a new system of post-mortem inspection for cattle. This method would be known as the "StreamInned Inspection System~attle" (SI~Cattle] when the system is operated without a slaughter partial quality control {PQC] program or as the "Streamlined Inspection SystemiPartial Quality Control-Cattle" {SIS/PQ~ Cattle] when the system is operated in conjuncted with a slaughter PQC program. An approved slaughter PQC program would be required for establishments operating at slaughter rates greater than 275 head per hour. Me PQC program would be optional for establishments that operate at slaughter rates of 275 head per hour or less. This SIS inspection system would be implemented in all establishments that Laughter cattle {steers and heifers only) and have an on-line staffing requirement of three inspectors or more. SI~Cattle would incorporate modifications of the present cattle post- mortem inspection procedure and combine viscera and carcass inspection stations so that that inspection is completed at the viscera table. The proposed rule would also establish Finished Product Standards {FPS] for carcasses. heads and tongues and standards for other edible byproducts. The FPS program uses the cumulative sum [CUSUM] which is a statistical concept used by the establishment and Appendix A  monitored by the inspector. Compliance is determined based on sample results collected over a period of time. These standards would be used to evaluate the wholesomeness and acceptability of products Lois proposed rule would also establish staffing standards for the inspection of steers and heifers based on worlc measurement data and facility requirements. All establishments under the SIS system would be responsible for proper head. tongue, viscera, and carcass presentation. The operation of a PQC program for the presentation standards would be an option for SI~Cattle establishments. Establishments operating under SIS/PQC-Cattle would include presentation standards in their PQC program The SI~Cattle system would also require establishment employees to palpate and present the tongue, incise the cheek muscles, and open the heart for inspection personnel. Additionally. the establishment would be responsible for the removal from carcasses of defects that are the result of the handling, slaughtering, or dressing operations and the removal of designated trimmable defects as listed in the beef carcass finished product standards program. This system would provide an Increase In slaughter method and personnel efficiency, as well as provide an increase in product yield, while still providing consumers with wholesome and otherwise unadulterated products. These gains have been demonstrated and documented in four pilot cattle establishments. DATA Comments must be received on or before: January 30,1989. ADDRESS: Written comments should be sent in duplicate to the Policy Office, Attn: Linda Carey. FSIS Hearing Clerk. Room 3175, South Agriculture Building, Food Safety and Inspection Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC 202s0 (see also "Comments" under BUP~ENTARY INFORMATION]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Douglas ~ Berndt, Director, Slaughter Inspection Standards and Procedures Division, Technical Services, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 447-32~9. 68 Federal Reenter Vol. 53, No. 23() Wednesday, November 30, 1988  SU mEMENTARY IN FOR ~ ~ Executive Order 12291 The Agency has determined that this proposal is not a major rule under Executive Order 12291. It will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or local government agencies or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition. employment, investment, productivity, innovation' or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with forei~-based enterprises in domestic or export markets. The principal effect of this proposed rule is to improve post-mortem inspection procedures for cattle which will result in maximum inspection efficiency and increased productivity. Certain new requirements should be placed upon the establishment; however, these requirements would be counterbalanced by the dollar gain resulting from the increased productivity. It is estimated that the cost of complying with these new requirements would not exceed $40.000 per establishment. There are currently 55 operations which slaughter steers and heifers and require three or more inspectors. However, 24 of these operate in two shifts from a single facility. Therefore. the total number of facilities to be modified would be 43. As such, the estimated initial cost to industry for implementing the SI~Cattle system would not exceed $2 million. Net productivity gains would offset the one-time cost of facility changes. It is estimated that an approximate 40 percent gain in productivity would result because of an establishment's ability to increase its production rate without requiring additional inspectors or inspection ~pace. Four pilot cattle establishments under this system have been able to ~how, by documented evidence. an increase in yield, an increase in control of production, and better supervisory control of employees. Under SIS/PQC-Cattle, establishments should also realize further gains due to decreased product contamination. decreased trimniir~, increased shelf life of products, and other considerations. Actual monetary gain would depend upon Me management practices at each individual establishment.

Federal Register ~ Vol. S3, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 30, l9B8 / Proposed Rules 41263 Effect ~ Sin ~ The Administrator has detached that this propelled rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial n~nber of small entities as deEned by the Regulatory Flexibility Act Pub. ~ ~354 (5 U.S.C ~1). SIN Cattle ~ desired for Blaster establishments having thme or more inspectors. Specifically. this proposal would affect the approximately 43 establishment which slaughter steers and heifers and require the or more inspectors. loose establishments are not small entities. Establishments having less than three inspectors would not be affected by this system Paperwork Req_t6 This proposed rule would require establishments to person finisher] product and edible byproduct testing. All establishments would be required to maintain certain ~rds to verify that the finished product standards and the edible byproduct standards have been met. This proposed Nile would also require establishments operating under SIS/PQC-Cattle to develop and submit to the Administrator for approval a PQC program designed to ensure that the dressed cattle carcasses are wholesome and properly prepared. Such establishments would be required to maintain certain records to fulfill their obligation under the approved PQC: programs. These reqmremente will be submitted to the Mice of Management and Budget {OMB] under control number 0583 0015 for approval (44 U.S.C. 3504(h]~. Commend Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed Nile. Written comments should be sent, in duplicate. to the Policy Office and should refer to the docket number appearing in the heading of this document All comments submitted pursuant to this notice will be made available for public inspection in the Policy Office between g:00 and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Background The United States has had mandatory meat inspection for products prepared for cormnerce since 1906. The Federal Meat Inspection Act [F'MIA) [21 U.S.C. 60~ e' seq.] requires, among other provisions, that the Secretary of Agriculture, through appointed inspectors, carry out a post-mortem examination of the carcasses and parts of certain domesticated food animals including cattle, which are capable of  use as human food when these animals are slaughtered im an of~:isl establishment that ~ subject to inspection under the AM Post mortem Inspechon Involves ~ lion by one or mare twirled food inspectom under veterinary supervision, of the head, vow, and other park of the cawa" of each ~ma1 slaughtered for the prose of detecting disease or other conditions that could cause the carcass or any part to become unfit for human food or otherwise adulterated. I. Tradit~nalInspection Routine cattle post-mortem inspection has traditionally been performed at three powts in the slaughter operation. Cervical thead] inspection ~ conducted at an early point in the dressy aperabon; viscera inspection is conducted after the carcass has been eviscerated; and carcass inspection is conducted towards the end of the dressy operation At each point an inspector observes and palpates the carcass and its parks. For head and viscera infection, an inspector also incises certain muscles, lymph nodes, and organs Lee inspector examines the carcasses and directs and verifies establishment employees' perionnance of Wing operatiorm. Tnese traditional p~dures. which are outlined in the Meat and Poultry Inspection Manual. ~ have proven to be an effective method of Inspection and have changed little since the inception of Federal meat Inspection in 1906. Since Mat time, however, there have been many significant changes in the way cattle are raised and moved to slaughter. in the types and frequency of cattle diseases, and in the technology used to slaughter Me animals and dims their carcasses. The improved health of cattle today is lamely the result of modern production melody. A large-r~umber of cattle are now bred and raised under controlled en~nments designed to promote growth and pretreat disease. The controlled use of canons chemicals, antibiotics, and vaccines has improved the health of cattle and Ceased the number of these animals rejected as human food. Competitive pressures have produced many industry changes. Slaughter operations are now located close to where the animals are grown, thus eliminating arduous and costly shipment to slaughter. Also, the packing industry continues to become more concentrated with less than 10 percent of the cattle abattoirs slaughter more than 75  'A copy of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Manual ~ on file h the office of the FESS HE Hi. 69 percent of the cats F - he~ore, automation arid technology bave increased industry p~ducti~ty Ad product uniformity. The mspectio~ Cures for cattle carcasses have not kept pace with changes in the li~restodc and meat Industry. By "m~zing" cattle inspection p~xedure~ FSIS would increase its inspection product while maintaining the Assurance of wholesomeness of cattle carcasses entering the Nation's food supply. In certain situation, the traditional cattle inspection procedures may limit the rate at which an establishment slaughters animals and dresses carcasses. A redesigned system of cattle inspection would improve inspection productivity and allow faster line speeds for cattle slaughterers. thw prodding a mew for increased efficiency. In lO82, FSIS implemented new We postmortem inspection procedures and staffs standards which allowed higher production rates for swine operations {August 4, -1~ 47 FR 33673~. Ike post- mortem Inspection staffing standards for traditional cattle inspection were also fled at that tune. Wing that rulemaking procedure, F.SIS announced that a new method for cattle post- mortem inspection was being developed. FSIS has completed its development of the new method. called the Streamlined inspection System{:attle. II. TheSt~inedl~spectionSystem- Catile As disposed earlier, Imder the traditional method of cattle inspection, inspectors are closely involved with the slaughter establishment's operations. In addition to PY~rnining each carcass for signs of disease. the inspect tore identify and point out carcass d~mg nonconformance and designated trimmabLe conditions to establishment workers, and direct them to ensure that the defects have been properly removed Dressing nonconformances are those defects which occur on the carcass as a result of errors in the handling. slaughter or dressy operations performed by establishment employees. They include but are not limited to, such things as bruises' hair, dirt ingests organ remnants and machine grease. Designated tnmmable condition are those abnormal conditions that are not caused by improper dressing procedures that are readily identifiable,  and that do not affect the disposition of the carcass. They include but are not limited to, fractures. ar~ids' localized abscesses. and pigmentation The identification and directing for removal

48264 Federal Re~ster / Vol. 53. NO. 230 / Wednesday. November 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules . . . Of these conditions have become a significant part of the inspection job and require 7~90 percent of carcass inspectors' time. These carcass dressing nonconformances and designated t~able conditions are obvious and easily identifiable by a skilled person. Agency officials have concluded that responsibility for controlling the dressing operation and removing obvious and readily identifiable carcass dressy nonconformances and designated trimmable conditions could be shifted to the establishment. This would allow inspectors to direct their efforts toward the detection of cattle disease conditions and enable the cattle industry to assume full responsibility for dressing operations. Since the greatest increase in inspector efficiency can be realized at the higher slaughter rates. SIS~attle and SIS/PQC-Cattle would apply only to those establishments slaughtering steers and heifers with three or more on-line inspectors. SI~Cattle consists of a routine post-mortem inspection procedure whereby the inspector would focus on disease conditions and whole carcass disposition, while the establishment employee would focus on control of the dressing operations. For the purpose of monitoring the establishment's removal of dressing nonconformances and designated blamable conditions, finished product standards for carcasses including tongues and heads, and standards for other edible byproducts have been developed and included in this proposal Finished Products Standards {F]'S) were tested and then validated by additional tests in a number of establishments before the initation of SI~Cattle. These establishments were operating under traditional inspection. which is a carcass-by-carcass inspection. The standards are based on the average quality of product produced following good manufacturing practices that were monitored using traditional inspection procedures. Historically, this process has produced a product with a level of cleanliness that has been considered aesthetically acceptable within the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Therefore, Agency officals have concluded that when good manufacturing practices are followed, a process that yields products meeting the FPS have an inherent level of cleanliness and are acceptable. Carcasses whose degrees of cleanliness are found to be within the action level,  are not injurious to health or othewise unit for human food. and are therefore considered by the Agency not to be adulterated. The process of monitoring compliance with finished product standards will utilize the CUSUM statistical concept' which is defined as a statistical method for comparing the output of a process against finished product standards to determine compliance. The point at which product action is required is determined by an "action" number, "subgroup absolute limit," or "subgroup maximum limit." The action number for this process was determined by statistically weighing the test data results collected for NCIS. Tolerance number, start number, subgroup absolute limit' subgroup maximum limit values and number of defects per sample were given values based on professional judgement of experienced veterinarians and other field personnel after analyzing the test data. In determining these values, defects are weighted on the basis of public health significance or by how obvious the defect was in terms of expected good manufacturing practice. The standards for edible byproducts were developed in response to a need recognized by bow industry and the Food Safety and Inspection Service {FSIS] for objective standards for such product. The Slaughter Inspection Standards and Procedures (SISP) Division of Technical Services collected data from randomly selected federally inspected estabIisl~nents nationwide to determine the level of quality at which inspectors were accepting fished byproducts. The standards for edible byproducts were determined in the same manner as for carcasses. A PQC program along with the SIT Cattle system would be reqliired in establishments that slaughter cattle at rates greater than 275 head per hour. The velocity of the conveyer at speeds in excess of 275 head per hour has multiple effects on the slaughter operation as well as on the inspection operations. Successful high speed operation require installation and maintenance of optimum facilities, close supervision of operators' techniques, and an aggressive, problem-solving attitude by management personnel in order to produce carcasses and parts which meet the FSIS finished product standards. A prevention-oriented process control program is essential for the successful maintenance of a high speed operation which routinely produces a wholesome product. Agency  officials have determined that establishments with speeds in excess of 275 head per hour must operate under a quality control program to ensure the uniform production of a wholesome, unadulterated product. The selection of 70 a speed o} 275 head per hour was based upon the results of interviews with experienced field veterinarians and FSIS supervisors, and the results of work measurement studied In their professional jud8ement. speeds above that rate required the additional assurance afforded by a partial quality control program. The application of the finished product standards and the PQCA program would be the responsibility of establishment employees and wood be monitored by inspectors to ensure the production of wholesome product. The provision for uniform presentation standards is a key element in the streamlined inspection system. The presentation standards would have to be met to ensure the effectiveness of inspection when the proposed staffing standards are used. Presentation standards would be applied by inspectors, when not included ir1 a PQC program. A separate PQC program for presentation would be optional for establishments operating under the SIN Cattle program at slaughter rates of 275 head per hour or less. The SIS Cattle Post-Mortem Inspection Procedure A study comparing the effectiveness of the traditional procedure to that of the proposed procedure was conducted in four establishments slaughtering steers and heifers using the New Cattle Inspection System {NCISl, the forerunner of SIS. FSIS evaluated a total of 28,800 samples 7,200 from each establishment {3,600 inspected by the traditional procedure and 3,600 by NCIS). An analysis was made of the percentage of units that were free of errors. The resilltn of the study showed that the inspection error rate with NCIS in equal to, or lower than, the inspection error rate with the traditional procedure.3 ESIS officials, using data obtained desire the effectiveness study, determined that the procedures eliminated under the SIS inspection system were not necessary to make an accurate disposition of cattle carcasses and parts. In 1986 a feasibility study was performed using the NCIS with changed presentation requirements for the head and heart. This new system was called the Streamlined Inspection System (SIS)  for Cattle. Since there was no change in the inspection procedure, no additional ~ A report of this study is available upon request from the Slaughter inspection Standards and Procedures Division Technical Services, Food Safety and Inspection Service. US. Department of Agriculture. Washington DC 20250 Area Code 1~2) 447-3=Q

Federal Register ~ Vol. S3, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 30, 19~ | Proposed Rules 48265 testing was required. Now indus~y's presentation for inspection must meet a minimum presentation standard to ensure that there is adequate time to perform inspection. 1. Cervical thead) inspection Under the traditional cervical inspection procedure, the inspector performs the following: [~] Observes the eyes and surfaces of the head; [2) incises the mandibular. parotid, lateral retropharyngeal (atlantalI, and media] retropharyn8eal (suprapharyngeal] lymph nodes; (3] incises the lateral and medial masticatory muscles (cheeks); and (4] observes and palpates the tongue. The SIS cervical inspection procedure would differ from the traditional one in three principal ways. First, the new procedure would eliminate the requirement to incise the lateral retropharyngeal (atlantal) lymph nodes. Instead, the lateral retropharyngeal lymph nodes would be observed by inspectors for abnormalities. Second, the inspector would observe the masticatory muscles only after an establishment employee presents the incised muscles for inspection. Third, the inspector would observe the Refaces of each tongue and routine palpation would be eliminated. En the development of the New Cattle Inspection Systems it was determined that abnormalities found in the tongue do not affect whole carcass disposition. This premise was tested and documented in four test establishments and found to be valid. Therefore. as part of the routine dressing operation, an establishment employee would palpate each tongue for abnormalities prior to the cervical inspection station and notify the cervical inspector of any abnormal findings. Thus, the palpation of tongues by establishment personnel is considered a sorting function only. The cervical inspector would then determine the significance of the findings and take appropriate action. These procedures are monitored by inspection personnel who are not working on the line, such as the inspector in charge or an offal inspector. In addition. prior to chilling, all tongues would be subject to finished product standards using a statistically based sampling program. 2. Viscera/carcass inspection. Carcass inspection would be performed together with viscera inspection at the viscera/ carcass inspection station. a. Viscera inspection. Under the traditional cattle inspection procedure,  the Inspector performing ~ iscera Inspection is required to: (1] observe the mesenteric lymph nodes, the abdominal viscera, the esophagus and spleen. and the ventral surfaces of the lungs; t23 observe and palpate the ru~T~inoreticular ~unction, the dorsal {costar) surfaces of the lungs, and the surfaces of the liver; and {3] incise and observe the tracheobronchial (bronchial] and mediastinal lymph nodes, the heart, the hepatic [portal! nodes. and the bile duct. Under the SIS-Cattle inspection procedure, Me viscera inspector would not observe the ventral surfaces of the lungs, but would continue to observe and palpate the dorsal [costar] surfaces of the lungs. The SIS procedure would eliminate the requirements to incise and observe the Hat tracheobronchial (bronchial] lymph node, to incise the heart, to incise the hepatic (portal] lymph nodes, and to palpate the ruminoreticular junction. The heart would be inspected by observation only after an establishment employee presents the incised organ for inspection. b. Carcass inspection. The traditional carcass inspection procedure includes palpation and observation of the superficial inguinal lymph nodes in the male or mammary (supramammary) 1vrnph nodes in the female, medial (internal] iliac lymph nodes, diaphragm. and kidneys. Inspection also includes the observation of the lumbar region, pillars of the diaphragm. peritoneum. pleura, cut surfaces of muscles and bones, and the exterior surface of the carcass. The SIS carcass inspection procedure would eliminate palpation of the diaphragm, superficial inguinal (mammary) lymph nodes. medial (internal] iliac l, mph nodes, and kidneys. The procedure, however, would include the observation by the inspector of the diaphragm' lymph nodes, and kidney s. The inspector would not observe the split vertebral column and surrounding tissues. Under the SIS procedure. the inspector would observe the dorsal surfaces of the carcass with the aid of a large mirror strategically placed behind the moving carcasses at the viscera station. The establishment would be required to furnish adequate lighting for the mirror examination In order to achieve maximum inspector efficiency at the lower speeds, the new procedure would require the kidney ~ to be exposed and removed from the carcass for presentation along with the viscera at the viscera/carcass  station. An exception to the kidney removal requirement would be offered to establishments slaughtering at rates greater than 234 per hour. Based on work measurement studies, an additional inspector is required at a rate of 234 per hour. The work measurement study showed that kidney removal did Not improve inspector efficiency if the additional inspector was dedicated to carcass and kidney inspection only. By combining viscera inspection and carcass inspection into a single viscera/ carcass inspection station, FSIS would be able to maximize inspector efficiency. Also, the elimination of the traditional carcass inspection station would facilitate the establishment's assumption of its responsibility for the identification and removal of dressing nonconformances. Since inspection would be completed at the viscera/ carcass inspection station. there would be greater assurance that all carcass parts and organs are accurately identified with the corresponding carcass throughout the dressing operation. Under traditional inspection there is physic-al separation of the carcass and viscera after the viscera inspection station. An inspection decision at the carcass station which might affect carcass disposition creates a logistical possibility of loss of identity of the viscera. Under SIS Cattle. inspection has complete visual control of the viscera and carcass until inspection is completed B. The Slaughter Partial Quality Control {PQC) Program Recent field studies in selected pilot establishments have reinforced FSIS' long-standing view that Federal meat inspection is more efficient and effective in establishments where the concepts of production control are practiced, fin contrast to establishments which do not maintain the facilities, personnel, or procedures necessary to ensure control of their production operations. Establishments without production operation control tend to relit on the inspection service as a substitute for proper management and control of their operations. This subsequently requires Federal meat inspectors to carry out quasi-super; isory functions that are inherently an establishment's responsibility. An establishment's PQC program would eliminate the need for the inspection service to act in a quasi- supervisory role and would greatly improve inspector efficiency. Under SIS-Cattle. establishments that operate at slaughter rates greater than 275 head per hour would be responsible  for designing their own slaughter PQC program. The PQC program u ould be optional for establishments that operate at slaughter rates of 27s head per hour or less. The PQC program, developed by the establishment, would consist of three major elements: (1) Identification of points (generally known as critical control points) in the slaughter and

48266 Federal Remoter / VoL 53, Not 230 / Wednesday, November 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules dressy operation which 8= critical to the production of carcasses in compliance with the finished product standards for dressed cattle carcasses; (23 deYeIopment of certain standards at each control point; and (3] specification of a series of predetermined actions to be taken if critical control pout standards are not met The last critical point of each program would involve the exaction of sampIes of finished carcasses. heady tamed and other edible byproducts to detente compliance with the finished product standards prograrrL The PQC program would Farther define how often each critical point is checked by the establishment and would include a recordkeeping system The establis~ent's P0C program would be submitted to and approved by the Administrator under section 318.4 (9 CFR 318.4] of the Federal meat inspection regulations and the requirements outlined in this document. The establishment would conduct the program, and FSIS would monitor the operation to ensure that the provisions of the PQC program and reguIations are met. FSIS'monitonng activities would consist principally of renewing critical control point records and periodically sampling and exam pacts at the slaughter line critical control points to ensure the production of dressed carcasses which meet the finished product standards C Prmentabon Program The provision for uniform presentation standards is a keg element in the streamlined inspection system. Presentation of the head, tongue, viscera, and carcass has traditionally been a responsibility of the establishment based on standards established by the Spector in charge. Uniform presentation fe important in maintaining inspection efficiency and critical at the higher rates of slaughter. When the carcass car its parts are not uniformly presented in a predetermined manner, time allotted for inspection must be used to correct or compensate for presentation errors. Line adequacy of presentation, in tum depends on such factors as disease cond~&dons, establishment operating conditions, lighting, and facilities. FSIS has developed guidelines for the presentation of the head, tongue, viscera, and other parts of the carcass m official slaughter establishments.8 Were - ~ ~e ~iidelino. arc sv~lable for public it ~ He own of He IS Hewing O~  Copies may be obt~d fm upon red fro no the Slaughter Con Stands sod Procedure Divisor T~mica1 Screw Food Safety am guidelines provide objective criteria for determining acceptable presentation and for reducing the line speeds when presentation ~ led than acceptable. These guidelines would be applied by FSIS as a part of SlS~attIe. In the SIS/ PQC-Cattle program, the guidelines would be meluded in the establishment' PQC program which is monitored by FSIS. III. Operadonal Requirements for the Streamlined Inspection Syste~Cattle. There would be three areas of responsibility for an establishment under SIS Cattle: (A] Inspection of the carcass, viscera and head. 03] equipment. facilities, and inspection space, and (C) removal of carcass and edible byproduct nonconformances These responsibilities are described below along with a discussion of how they may affect the cattle industry. A. Presn~tabon of the Camp Ad IS Parts For Ir~spechon Lee primary difference between SIN Cattle and SIS/PQC-Cattle is the pal responsible for sesunr~ proper presentation of the head. tongue, viscera, kidneys and other parts of the carcass for inspection according to standards set by FSIS. The presentation guidelines far establishments operating modes SIN Cattle would be applied bar FSIS. Establishments may request a PQC program for presentation If approved. the establishment would have the responsibility of applying the gwideIines with inspectors monitoring its application. Establishments operating under SIS/PQ~Cattle must include the presentation program in their PQC program sod would be responsible for applying it. If post-mortem inspection cannot be performed at the current Ime speed under SIS Cattle or SlS/PQ~ Cattle because of preparation of presentation deficiencies or because of disease incidence, the inspector us charge would have the allthonty to require the establishment to reduce speed and take other corrective actions necessary for proper presentation for mspechoQ The following presentation stands are applicable to both SIS Cattle and SISJPQC<attle: 1. Head art d tongue present Prior to the ~pector's exaniinabon of the tongues, an estabIishment employee would palpate the tongues and notify the inspector if abnormalities were foul Notification to the inspector would be accomplished either directly  or by meam of a mAr~8 system 1D~ Screw U5 Depot of Alto Wa~is~o" DC In 72 developed by the establishment and acceptable to the inspector in charge, such as sage, rings Ate or other mark The inspector would Usually inspect and incise the I,rmph nodm of each tongue and palpate any tongue identified as abnormal by the inspector or by an establishment employee on examination. A finished products standards program, which ~ statistically based, would be applied to ensure that only wholesome tongues would paw This procedure is as effective in detecting conditions relating to adulteration and wholesomer~s as the content procedure. (See footnote 2 which refers to the study done to validate this point) Prim to the inspectoFe examin~bon of the bead, an establishment P'nployee would incise both lateral and medial masticatory muscles {che - ) for inspection. The establishment would be responsible for assuring that the cheek muscles were properly iIlcised and predated for ~pectio~L 2. Viscera. An establishment employee would open all chambers of the beset and muse the interventricular septum before it reaches the inspector. The inspector would observe all surfaces of the heart for abnormalide~ 3. Carom. The establishment waled be required to spread the carcasses at the necera/carcass station so that carcass inspection could be performed B. Equipment, Facility Ad Inspection Space The fac~lides required by SIS Cattle for viscera/carea" inspection would include 8 Or for Rewire the dorsal Reface of the carcass, additional lighting for the miner, and lights to adequately mew the interior of the unsplit carcass at the cabined chimera/ carmss station. ~ adcht~on' the space required to perform cervical thead] inspection Ronald be based on three interrelated variables: (~) The ~reIocity of the land chant. {2} the Amber of heads presented per ho=, Ad {31 the spacmg between heady In some establishments, the c~uIative effect of these variables would Ore addi~d~al workspace to perforce cervical inspection. Table 1 m ~ 3~2Em) of thy proposal supplies the maximum required workspace for cervical inspectors when heads are spaced 4 feet sp art. Additional tables for head spacings o other then ~ feet will be available from  the Agency. As obscured earlier, additional workspace may be needed in those estabIishments where kidneys must be removed prior to the viscera/ carcass inspection station. Most establishments shonId Man workspace

Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 230 ~ Wednesday, November 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules ~67 , - as a result of the removal of the inspector from the traditional carcass inspection station. 1. Line speed indicator. A digital line speed indicator for both the head chain and the evisceration chain would be required at ~ location which is readily accessible to the inspector in charge. Knowledge of the line speeds ~ necessary to ensure that the inspection stations are properly staffed. 2. Mirror. For cattle slaughter lines with a moving top viscera table and requiring three or more inspectors as prescribed by the new staffing standard, a one-piece, distortion-free, glass or plastic mirror would be required. This mirror would be mounted and positioned, (i.e. angled or tilted] so the inspector may have a clear unobstructed mew of the dorsal surface of the carcass. 3. Lighting. Shadow-free lighting with a minimum Color Render Index (CRI] of 85 ~ would be required at each inspection station. In addition, a diffuse light source (such as a double tube fluorescent light fixtures would be mounted at the top of the carcass minor to provide adequate light at the carcass shoulder level. Directional lighting would also be required at the viscera/ carcass inspection station so that adequate light would be provided inside the thoracic cavity of the carcass. This lighting would be carefully adjusted so that it would pass though the relatively narrow opening in the central surface of the carcass lighting the sides and back of the cavity in sequence. 4 Inspection space. a. Cervical inspection elation. Cer; ical inspection i& currently required to be completed prior to viscera inspection (Meat and Poultry Inspection Manual, section 1l.lth](l). See footnoted. In some instances, when establishments have added new equipment and/or remodeled their slaughter facilities, it has been necessary, when a moving chain is used, for them to increase the velocity of the head chain in order to meet this inspection requirement. There would be new requirements for cattle cervical inspection when the heads are spaced evenly on the head chain at 4-foot intervals. The interrelationships between the speed of the head chain, the rate at which heads are presented for inspection, the number ~ . 0: inspectors needed, and the required  orkspace for inspectors to inspect them are defined in the proposed regulation. ~ This requirement may be met by using deluxe cool white or high intensity fluorescent type lighting. If the head spacing is less than ~ feet" the head chain velocity must be proportionally decreased. Establishments which desire to space heads at distances greater than 4 feet would be handled on an individual basis as discussed earlier (Section III Bl. The velocity of the head chain would not be allowed to exceed the maximum limits. b. Tongue and head reinspection station. For evaluating samples of finished tongues and heads, 88 required by the finished product standards program, a reinspection area would be required where the manufact~g process is detected to be completed. It would be required to be illuminated as defined in the facility requirements of this proposed rule. The area would include a reinspection table or stand with hooks. It is proposed that the reinspection area be located as close as possible to the head chain and/or area of head processing completion in order to minimize work and maximize the flow of product. c. Viscera/coxass inspection station. The inspection space at the viscera/ carcass inspection station for slaughter rates of 234 head per hour or less w ould remain unchanged at 8 feet. However, the space for the inside carcass inspector would increase to ~ feet and be arranged with 5 feet along the viscera table and ~ feet along the line of travel of the carcasses. When kidneys are presented in the carcass (slaughter rates greater than 234 head per hourl, the Icidne~ s and carcasses would be inspected from an adjustable platform, the height of which can be easily and rapidly adjusted from the platform. The platform would have to meet specific minimum width and length requirements. Under these specifications, establishments would-be required to submit blueprints for approval to FSIS' Facilities, Equipment, and Sanitation Division. The complete specifications may be obtained from Facilities, Equipment, and Sanitation Division, Technical Services, Food Safety and Inspection Seance, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 447~627. Slaughter rates greater than 400 head per hour would require additional facilities, developed by the establishment, to allow organs to remain at the inspection station until the  inspector has completed routine inspection tasks. In addition these facilities will allow proper identification of the carcass and its party throughout the inspection process. d. Carcass reinspection stotion. For evaluating samples of finished carcasses, as required by the finished product standards program, 73 reinspection area would be required off the main conveyer chain, large enough to adequately hold six to nine carcasses for defect examination and illuminated as defined in the facility requirements of this proposed rule. The area would also include a stationary platform. The space is best located after the carcass wash and before entry into the cooler. However, it may alternatively be located before the carcass wash. C. Carcass Dressing Requirements Establishment employees would be responsible for independently removing dressing nonconformances and other designated trimrnable conditions. This would include, but not be limited to, bruises, certain abscesses and adhesions, larvae of Hypoderma bovis and Hypoderma lineota (cattle grubsl, hair, dirt' organ remnants, and grease and oil. By. inspector Staffing Requirements PrelilTiinary inspector staffing requirements (~own as inspector staffing standards] have been developed for establishments that slaughter steers and heifers at rates requinn8 three or more on-line inspectors. Proposed SIS staffing standards are under development for establishments which slaughter steers and heifers and require less than three inspectors, and for establishments slaughtering cows and bulls. It is anticipated that the inspection rates for cows and bulls would be less than those for steers and heifers. Cows and bulls are not subject to this proposed regulation. V. Impact Of implementation SI~Cattle would enable FSIS to inspect cattle more efficient and effectively. The change in location of the kidney inspection operation would accomplish two desirable goals. First kidneys may be inspected at He same time as other organs to allow correlation of all findings simultaneously by the inspectors. The traditional method of kidney inspection in the United States has been criticized by foreign inspection officials because fin dirges cannot be correlated simultaneously with all visceral organs. Second. combining the carcass and viscera inspection stations  would allow both industry and inspection personnel greater assurance that the correct viscera remains identified with the corresponding carcass until disposition of the carcass and all of its parts has been made. Combining the carcass and viscera inspection stations in the slaughtering establishment should benefit both the industry and the government. SI~Cattle

48268 Federal R-ster ~ Vol. 53, Not 230 / Wednesday, November 30, 1~8 / Proposed Rules would be utilized in establishments using three or more on-line inspectors. These estabI~shments may elect to use the SIS/PQGCahle. As discussed in the preamble summary and section II of this document' those establishments currently slaughtering at rates greater than 275 head per hour would be required to convert to SIS/PQC Cattle order to control their operation. Those establishment which do not develop and implement a PQC program to control their operation would be required to reduce their rate of production to 275 head per hour. Establishments slaughtering at rates of 275 head per hour or }ese can demonstrate sufficient process control without a formal QC program and QC personnel Those establishments wants to succeed 400 head per hour would be required to develop methodology, i.e., nice tables to allow organs to remain accessible to the inspector until inspection is completed It is anticipated that the cattle slaughtering industry would experience a net gain if this new system of inspection were implemented, in spite of the initial costs of facility modifications which may be necese~y in some establishments Based on pilot testing. the industry as a whole should realize a ~a~83 ~C8~ of m~ - producti~ty and reduced overtime. AM the pilot tests indicated that by assuming a more active role over the control of its drese~g operations, the industry should be better able to control its rate of production and its cost per mat produced. List of Subjoin 9 Cal Part 307 Facilities 9 CM Part 310 Meat inspection For reasons set out in the preamble, Title 9, Parts 307 and 310 of the Code of Federal Regulabons would be amended as follows: PART 307-FACILITIES FOR INSPECTION 1. The authority cit8~0n for condnues to read as follows Authont~r. 41 StaL 24L 7 U5C 394; 34 Stat. 1264, as amended 21 U.S.C 621; 62 Stat. 334, 21U.S.C.69S~7CFB2~15(a),~g2. 2. Section 3Ct7~2(m] introductory texts (1) and (2] would be revised and {m)~7) through tI1) would be added to read an follows: 30?2 Other Id Id cot be~dby~ (m) In sdditon to any facilities  required to accomplish sanitary dressm8 procedures, the following inspection station facilides for cattle and Awe slaughter lines described in paragraphs 310.1tc] and [d] of this subchapter ax required (l)ti] An inspection station. comis~g of S feet of unobstructed line space for each head or carcass inspects and, for viscera table kills, 8 feet for each viscera inspector on the inspector's side of the table, except as prowded ~ para~p~ [lltii] of this section. (ii) Streamlined Inspection Systems Cattle. ~ cattle w~cera/carca" inspection station consist of 8 feet for each inspector on the inspectors side of the table for slaughter rates of 234 head per hour or Iess. The inside carcass inspector reds 5 feet of viscera table space and 4 feet of inspection space along the line of carcass travel at slaughter rates of 234 cattle per hour or less. At slaughter rates greater than 234 cattle per hour, an adjustable platform described ir1 ~ 307 2(m]~10) Mali be required. The cervical Inspection station space requirements for steers and heifers are listed in Table 1 of this paragraph TABLE 1~TTLE CELL ~SPECnON REQUIREMENTS UNDER STT~MuN~ INSPK:nON SYSTEM STEERS AND HEIFERS TONGUE OUr PRESENTATION of ME mint rag a ~ s / H o u ~ C h a I n 0 t ~ (Feetl Record _ hem 859 1 - 1~1 S 181-233 169 2 to 234 290 ~21.0 2 1 t 291 341.~_-. . 25.7 2 12 342~ _ 26.2 2 13 3~471___ 31 ~3 ~ ~ ~8d drain speed I. he Of hod LOP d 859 he per hour hoax Good in ~ CcR 310.~. t23ti] A mi~iimum of 50 foot candles of shadow-free lights at the H18peC~ surfaces of the head viscera, and carcass, except as provided in paragraph {2~tii) of this secho'L bill Streamlined Inspection System Cattle. A minimum of 100 foot candles of shadow-free lighting with a color rendering index of 85 ~ or more at each ' 1~s r~uiremalt may be met by deluxe mo!  why or high imp tip d Ih~ 43bt~ 74 inspection station In addition a light source is required to be mounted at the top edge of the carcass mirror to provide a minima of 100 foot candles of shadow-free li&h~ at carcass shoulder level. To prude light inside the thorac~c and abdomma] cavity of He carcass for inspection. a directional shadow-~e light of at least 50 foot candles. measured inside the thorac~c cavity, is req~ (7] Streamlined Inspection System Cattle. A digital line speed indicator for both the head chain and the evisceration chain shall be provided at a location on the slaughter Door which is readily accessible to the inspector in charge. (8) Streamlined Inspection System Cattle. One glass or plastic distortion free Mar, at least 40 inches by 90 inches, shall be so mounted that an Spector standing at the McGraw carcass n2spechon station may clearly view the dorsal surface of the carcass. (9] Streamlined Inspection System Cattle. Me establishment shall provide apace large enough to hold six to Me carcasses off the main conveyed immediately before or after the hnaI carcass wash for the finished product examination of the sampled carcasses. This reinspection station shall be provided with 100 foot candles of shadow-free lighting with a miff color rendenn8 index of 85 ' on all inside and outside carcass surfaces. 112e establishment shall aIso provide a stationary platform tenth steps w~ch - will allow inspection and establishment Tom personnel access to all levels of the Red carcass and will accommodate two Led ~people on each level. `kj., (10] Streamlined Inspection System leer Cattle. EstabIis~ents sIanghtering cattle under Streamlined Inspection System at rates greater than 234 head per hour shall provide a p}adorm the height of which is easily and rapidly adjusted mom the top of the playboy This pIadorm shall meet the req~emenh specified in ~ 306.5 of this subchapter. Lee pladonn shall be a minimum of 2~§ feet wide and ~ feet Ions with the leng~wi" dimension ruling parallel to the moving chain. The vertical adtusunent shall be 14 inches mom the lowest position of the plate [9 or more inches off the floorI. Unimpeded access to and from the platform shall be provided. The platform shall be designed with a 42-inch high rail in back. a 42-inch high shield on the carcass side, and half-inch foot bumpers  on all sides, excluding access and exit ' me r - uire~csst may be met by dehorn cam whim ~ high Lend type d flint ligate

Federal Register ~ Vo1. 53, No. 230 J W~8y,'N0~rember so, tees / Propc~ei1 Rules 4~ powts. Me platform shall be equipped with handwashing facilities for penes working at the Bta5~ A `~ stationary, protective wall or shield shall be prodded around We movable plado~ (11) Additional facilities, Much will allow organs to ream at the inspection station until inspection ~ completed and ensure that the identity of the carcses and its parts is maintained. are reed when slaughter rates exam 400 cattle per hour. PART 31~0 INSPECT - S. The authority citation for Part 310 continues to read as follows: ~Iboritg~ 34 Stat 12BO, ~ Stat. 903, as amended, 81 Stat Ul4, B4 Stat. 91, 438; 21 U-S.C 71 ~ seq" sol et I., 33 US.C 1254pDf d. Section 810~1 world be Waded by redesignating paragraph (b)(1) as (b) and revue the first sentence of new paragraph (by by redes~affng paragraph (b)12) as (~)(1) and using (cut) In~ducto~y text and the fourth sentence of new pa~aph (c)(l)(i)(A) reusing the sixth sentence of new paragraph (c)(l}(i)(B)' and revise the chard for Heifers and Steers in new paragraphs {cl (l) til, (c) (l )(ii), and {cl~l]tiii]; by adding a new paragraph (c)~2); and by redesygna~8 paragraph (bl(33 as (d), to read as follows: 31~1 Extent and ff~# of In hi pods hereon ~9 {b) The staffing sturdy on the bat of the number of carcasses to be inspected per hour are outlined in paragraphs {c] and [d] of this secham · ~ ~ (c) Cattle inspection. {11 For all cattle staffing standards, an "a" in the "Number of inspectors by Stedons" column in the tables in this paragraph means that one inspector perfonne the entire inspection procedure and a Ah" means that one inspector performs the head and lower carcass inspection and a second inspector performs the viscera and upper carcass inspection. ' lbe Main Slammer Rates" figures listed in paragraph (cX1)(i) of this sect for orate (at and two (b) inspector shughtenng ~ are overstated because the time required to wale from one inspection station to Mother ~ not included. To dete~e the proper adjusted maximum slaughter line "Bed. paragraph (c)tlyi)~) of this Ion for one inspector alau~shtenr~g hoes or Papa (c)(l)(i)(B) of this auction for two Motor elaughtenng lines must be used Blow with Per acoompan~ng nobles. ran  (head/hou) 1 to 32~ 33 ~ 58 . 59 to 180 __ 181 b 233..__ 234 to 290 ' 291 b 341 'I. 342 tD 393 1 _ {i) Inspection Using the Viscera ~ |;1E£R8 AND Rued STEERS AND HEIFERS ~h9 1 an_ 28 b 56 67 b 84 El5 10 86 ..... B7 ~ 143 _ ~8x~rr~m N - ber d hepec~ by d~ht. m~ id pa ~ id . groan Cam 1 1 1 1 ~1 . ~ ~ (A) ~ ' · The adjusted mat no rate i' the maximum rate in paragraph {c]~ti] of this Beckon minus total of the deduction figures. ' · ~ IB) ~ ~ ~ The adjusted maximum rate is the maximum rate ~ paragraph {cl~l)ti] of this sechon Anus the number calculated above. · ~ ~ (ii) IllBpeCtiQl1 [J81ng V2SCera Table, Tongue-In P~entatioD of Heads. STEERS AND HEWERS CP~ Cam ~] ~- Usx~' hepeabon raw ' (head/ hi 1 1~32. 33 k, 58...__ tO t42 ~ _ 143 to 180_ 181 to 232_ 233 to 285_ 286 to 322_ 323 b 375_ 376 b 400._ , barrier d If) Gabon I cation a~ b b 1 2 2 2 ~ 2 6 3 ~e ~ ~ ~ ~t~ d "tabtis~3nt that is acceptable to the inspector ~ charge ~ ~ b mums me ~ he  lion rate. a The heed ~ hour inaction 5tarxbrd h 1310.1. (iii) Inspeckion Use Viscera Table, Tongued Presentabon of Heady STEERS AND He'rERs ~1 soft ~ - i) ~ -~ : b t, 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 75 ~7, 7t'_ Or d he (by stated Gabon "rc~ _ .~31 6 _ , Total _ Farber d "~- dead Oreo ~ om hep~ pomp p~ ·~b't depth mat an hey per1=TT# ~ Id "d beer carcass hymn "'d ~ id hi perry ~ ~ and ~ Cat kin ' din abler ram den Edna ted ~ ~ ~ (2) Streamlined Inspection Systems Cattle. Ike inspection procedures for Streamlined Inspection System Cattle are deathbed in ~ S10 22 of this subchapter and apply to establishments which slaughter steers and heifers Id beve B stat - Tent of ~ or more ~pectore. Staffing spa arc predicated upon the use of a fir as described on paragraph 3072tm)~8] at the ~necera/carcass station arid are based on inspectors rotating through all tnspechon stations dew the shift to equalize the workload. (d) ~ ~ . ~ law 5. A new ~ 31~22 would be added to read 68 follows: . S31 Ca~p~ la) Streamlined Inspechon System ISlS}Cattle procedures apply only to establishments which slaughter steers "d heifers and which have a staffing req~ment of three or more inspectors. - Inspection under this system is conducted in two plies, postmortem inspection and reinspection (hi Definitions. For purposes of his section the following definitions shall  apply: (1)Cumulative6u~n{CUS{JM}.A statistical method for comparing He output of ~ process against finished product standards to detente compliance. The level of conformance with finished product standards is detached by calculating the CUSUM ToLal of nonconformance' found in consecutive, randomly selected sample Leo subgroups. The current CUSUM equals the Film of the total value of nonconformances for ~ subgroup plus ~ the stardng CUSUM (either the start 2 numher or the POSSUM for the previously tested subgs~oupl. minus the !! tolerance number. CUSUM may not be .` less than zero cats greater than the action ; number.

48270 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 230 / Wednesday. Nonmember 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules . [2] Tolerance number. The total value of nonconformances in each subgroup if product is being produced at a national average product quality level. See Table 2 of this section. (3] Action number. A CUSI]M value which indicates that product action is required. See Table 2 of this section. {4) S!Qrt number. A value halfway between zero and the action number. The start number is used to determine the starting CUSUM for the first subgroup of a shift and to reset the CUSUM value if the CUSUM is equal to or greater than the action number. See Table 2 of this section. {51 Subgroup. For carcasses, three half-carcase (three sides] sample units collected before product enters the cooler; for edible byproducts, except for tongues and heads, ten sample units of each byproduct; and for tongues and heads, five tonne and five head sample units collected prior to chilling. (61 Subgroup absolute limit. The tolerance number plus 5. See Table 2 of this section. (7) Maximum number. For edible byproducts the maximum number of nonconformances for each of the 12 categories that may be recorded for a single sample unit. The maximum number for each category is contained on Table 3 of this section. (8) Subgroup maximum limit For tongues and heads, u hen 3 or more sample uruts in a subgroup l;ave nonconformances that equal or exceed the maximum number for any one nonconfo~ glance; for other edible byproducts the limit is 5 or more. {91 Rework Reprocessing the product to correct the condition or conditions causing the nonconformances listed in Tables ~ and 3 of this section. Removal of the condition causing nonconformance shall be performed as prescribed in ~ 3~0.18 of this subchapter. [10) Corrective action. The source of the problem is identified, and the problem is corrected at one or more locations in the slaughter process. Any affected product will be made acceptable prior to the product's entering commerce. (11) Nonconformances. Defects which occur on the carcass or edible byproducts as a result of errors in the handling, slaughtering, or dressing operation performed by establishment employees. These are categorized for carcasses in Table 1 and and for edible byproducts in Table 3. t12] Recondition. Removing a carcass  form the evisceration line for the removal of nonconformances. (133 Designated trimmoble condition. Designated trimmable conditions are those abnonnal conditions that are not caused by improper dressing procedures, are readily identifiable and that do not affect the disposition of the carcass. See Tables 1 and 3 in this section. (143 Process in control. The process is in control when it is producing product that meets the standard, and has done so over a period time measured by having two or more consecutive subgroup test results at or below the tolerance number. The process will be monitored by random sampling. [15) Process out of control. The process is out of control when process verification test results are above the tolerance nwnber. The establishment may stop identifying product for rework after a verification test result is below tolerance; however, the process is not in control until a second consecutive verification test result is below tolerance. Random sampling is suspended while the process is out of control. {c) OeneraI. (1] The inspector in charge shall have the authority to require the establishment to reduce line speeds as stated in ~ 3lo.lfb) of this subchapter. (2) Adulterated product shall be condemned and destroyed except that carcasses. parts of carcasses. and edible byproducts which may be made wholesome by rework under the supervision of the inspector may be passed after the condition causing the nonconformance is removed as prescribed in ~ 310.18. Inspectors shall monitor the sampling of finished carcasses and parts of carcasses for compliance with finished product standards (See Table 1 of this section] and shall monitor edible byproducts for compliance with edible byproducts standards (See Table 3 of this section). Of nonconformances are present at certain statistical levels, the establishment shall take corrective action If the establishment does not take corrective action. the inspector shall initiate corrective action [3) The inspector shall determine which carcasses and edible byproducts shall be condemned retained for veterinary disposition. or allowed to proceed as a passed carcass or edible byproduct subject to trim and reinspection. Carcasses with nonconformances listed in Table 1 of this section. which do not require  condemnation of the entire carcass. shall be passed by the inspector, but shall be subject to reinspection to ensure the physical removal of the nonconformances. The inspector shall identify such carcasses for trim when the defects are not readily observable and shall identify carcasses for 76 reconditioning. Trimming of carcasses passed subject to reinspection shall be performed by one or more establishment trimmers positioned after carcass splitting and prior reinspection [d] Post-mortem inspection. [1) Facilities. The establishment shall provide inspection stations in compliance with ~ 307.2tm) of this subchapter. {2) Presentation. (i) Head {cervical). (Al Tongue: Prior to inpsection, an establishment employee shall palpate the tongue and notify the inspectors at the cervical station of any sbnorrnalities. Notification to the inspectors shall be accomplished either directly or by means of a marking system, i.e., tags, rings, cuts. or other markings. developed by the establishment and acceptable to the inspector in charge. The inspector shall palpate any tongue identified as abnormal. (B) Masticatory Muscles: Prior to inspection an establishment employee shall incise the muscles of mastication. The inspector shall observe the incised muscle surfaces. (ii] Viscera/carcass. [A] Heart An establishment employee shall open all chamber of the heart and incise the i~terventriclllar septum to fully expose the interior of the heart. (B] Kidney: An establishment employee shall open the kidney capsule. separate the kidneys from the carcass and present the kidneys for inspection with the viscera at viscera/carcass station. An exception to this kidney presentation requirement may be requested for slaughter rates greater than 234 per hour to permit the exposed kidneys to remain attached to the carcass. An inspector shall observe the kidneys for abnormalities. (C] Carcass. The establishment will ensure the carcass is spread. An inspector shall observe the dorsal surface of the carcass for abnormalities with the aid of a mirror as described in ~ 307.2(m)(7) of this subchapter. Carcasses infested with the larvae of the oxwarble ny (Hypoderma Iineata and Hypoderma bovis), external parasites, or carcasses with heavily braised areas  shall be promptly trimmed in a manner satisfactory to the inspector before the carcass is split. (e) Reinspection. (1) Disposition: The establishment shall apply the finished product standards and edible byproduct standards. An inspector shall monitor Me establishment's compliance with the standards and shall take corrective action if the establishment has failed to apply the standards.

Federal Register ~ Vol. 53, No. 230 ~ Wednesday. November I \98B ~ Grope Rules 48271 12] Finished product BISON (77P:S): Finished product standarLe are Its applied to carcasses. These critene consist of nonconformances pic ted in Table ~ of this sechon]. measured on randomly selected, consecutive subgroup samples collected on the slaughter line at a point after all trimming is completed The total Prague of nonconformances for each subgroup is reduced to a CUSIJM number and measured against the finished product Standards (See Table 2 of the this section]. Compliance with FPS ~ measured by dete~ng the CUSUM an consecutive subgroup sampled Reinspection may be performed before the carcass washer or immediately after the carcass washer. (3) Edible byproducts standards: [i] Edible byproduct standards apply to fully processed brains, cheeks, cheek trimmings, feet [front and hind], heads, hearts, small intestines, kidneys, lips, livers, mountain chain. panc:reas, spleens, tails, thymes, tongues, tongue trimmings, tripe, and weasands. (ii] Edible byproduct standards are criteria which Consist of nonconformances (listed in Tadpole 3 of this sechon], measured on ctmsecutive subgroup Samples collected after all Clemens and preparation is completed The total value of nonconformances for each subgroup test is Educed to a CUSI JM number and measured against the edible byproduct standards (See Table 4 of this section). Compliance with the standards in measured by determining the CUSIJM on consecutive subgroup samples. (iii) Except as provided elsewhere in Part 310, edible byproducts eball be examined use the criteria contained in Table 3 of this section. {4) Finished product testing. {i] Actions to be taken when {be process ~ in control. If the [:13SUM less than the action number, and the subgroup absolute limit for cattle carcasses ~ not exceeded the process in control. If the CUSUM is }ese than the action number. and the subgroup maximum limit for ~ads, tongues ant Blather edible byproducts ~ not exceeded, the process is ~ control (A] Establishment Actions. The establishment shall: {11 Randomly select and record a subgroup testing time for each p~ducL The record of randomly selected times must be available for the Spector to monitor. (i) Carcasses, head, and tongues are to  be sampled once each production hour. [ill Sample frequency for edible byproducts, except tongues asked heads. Each edible byproduct shall be sampled at a frequency of an average of mace every two ho~. act:cpt that the inspector in ~ - e may allow an Establishment which produces morn the six types of edible byproducts, {ncluding tongues and heads, to select by random method. a minimum of six Apes of edible byproducts for ~mP]in~B provided that each type of edible byproduct must be sampled at least once during Me production shift The process for selecting random sample times for edible byproducts must given Each how of the production shift an equal chance of bem'B selected. ~) The inspector in charge may Mow an edible byproduct to be sampled at frequency on an average of once every hours after the edible byproduct has completed 20 consecutive sample feats without any CUSS scores Achy He action number or exooeding Me subgroup maim limit. {B] if ~ edible byproduct, which has been sampled at a frequency of once every ~ hours has completed 10 consecutive Ample feats without any CUSUM scores reaching the action number or exceeding the subgroup ~nAX~muan hmit, the inspector in charge may allow the edible byproduct to be sampled at a frequency of an sverage of once every 8 hours, provided that the edible byproduct shall be sampled at least once do the production shift. {C3 if the CUSUM score for any edible byproduct that ~ sampled at a frequency of an average of Is than once eatery two boure reaches either the action number or exceeds the subgroup maximum limit. the edible byproduct shall be sampled at a frequency of once Every 2 how. Each type of edible byproduct process must independently earn reduced frequent sampling. [21 Conduct desolated subgroup_tes at the preselected times. 13] Total the value of the 8ubg~oup nonconformances and calculate the rent CU SUM immediately record the current UJSUM score and inform the production superior about any process trend. {B] Inspector Ac~o~ The ~nsepctor shall: {~] Induct subgroup tests on carcasses, bead and tongues at random Umes twice duru~g each shift. We randomly selected times shall be Mown only to the ~epctm until the sample selected. (2] Monitor subgroup tests conducted  by Me establishment. (3) Compare subgroup test resets tenth establishment's subgroup test results. If results are not in agreement, the inspector will `:onelate Exults with the establishment. [43 Instruct the establishment to tale e corrective action when a subgroup total 77 tx~eds the Gap absolute limit for carcasses or exceeds the subgroup maximum limit for heads, tongues and other edible byproducts [id Actions to be taken when the subgroup absolute limit for carcasses is exceeded. If an i'}di~dual subgroup total exceeds the subgroup absolute timit, but is less Man the action Caliber, the establishment shall determine ~ arty of the five previous subgroups resulted in a CtJS~ above the start number. {A) If none of the five previous subgroups resulted in ~ CIJSUM above the start number, the establishment shall Mediately conduct another subgroup test If this retest subgroup total equals the tolerance number or lees, then random testing may continue. If the retest subgroup total exceeds the tolerance number, the establishment shall immediately begin the actions Gibed in subparagraph [iv]tA) of this paragraph. In either case, the retest results shall be used to calculate CUSUM. (B] If any of the five previous subgroups resulted ~ a CUSUM above the start number, the establishment shall begin actions described in subpa~aph {iv1tA] of this paragraph {iii] Actions to be tat when a designated trimmable condition ~ found on 8 carcass. 1[ thy designated trimmable condition is found during a subgroup testate establishment shall immediately: {Al Notify the Spector in chase of the findings. (B) identify the carcass and all Subsequently prodded c~cse~ for possible rework. (C) Conduct ~ "rificetion subgroup test examining only for deflated treble oonditione. (1) If any designated trimmable condition ~ founfi, all carcasses. beginning with the last previous sampled subgroup that was passed, shall be reworked by the establishment. Ike establishment shall not be required to identify and rework carcass es produced after at verification subgroup test results ~ the finding of no desolated trimmable conditions. The establishment shall conduct another verification subgroup test for designated  immabk condidons within 30 minutes. (~1 If no designated trimmable Condition is found. the establishment may continue random sampling. (ill If any designated trimmable condition is found. the tested carcass and all subsequently produced causes shall be identified and reworked by the establishment. The establishment shall not be required to identify and rework carcasses produced

48272 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules after a subsequent subgroup test results in the finding of no designated trimmable conditions. (23 If no designated trimmable condition is found the establishment shall not be required to rework the identified carcasses. The establishment shall conduct a second venBcation subgroup test for designated trimmable conditions within 30 Muted [i) If no designated trimmable condition is found, the establishment may continue random sampling. bill If any designated trimmable condition is found, the tested carcass and all subsequently produced carcasses shall be identified and reworked by the establishment. The establishment shall not be required to identify and rework carcasses produced after two consecutive, subsequent subgroup test results in the finding of no designated trimmable conditions. (iv] Actions to be taken when the CUSI-~i reaches the action number for carcasses or for heads, tongues, and other edible byproducts or when the subgroup maximum limit for heads, tongues, and other edible byproducts is reached. When CUSUM reaches the action number for carcasses or heads, tongues, and other edible byproducts, the process may be out of control. When the subgroup maximum limit for heads, tongues, and edible byproducts is reached, the process may be out of control. (A) Establishment Actions. The establishment shall immediately: (1] Identify the product and subsequently produced product of the same type for possible rework. The initial test results which reach the action number indicate only the possibility that the process is out of control. The process is not out of control until a verification subgroup test exceeds the tolerance number. When the process is out of control, identify the product beginning with the last previous sampled subgroup that was passed. Product action (identification and rework] begins at that point in the process. (2] Notify the inspector in charge and production supervisor that the CUSUM has reached the action number. (3) Suspend random subgroup testing of the affected type of product. {4) Examine establishment records with the responsible production supervisor to detente the cause of the problem. (53 Conduct a verification subgroup test. {~] If the subgroup total for the  verification subgroup test exceeds the tolerance number for carcasses, all carcasses identified for possible rework shall be reworked by the establishment. The establishment shall not be required to identify and rework carcasses produced after a subsequent subgroup test results in a subgroup total equal to or less than the tolerance number. [Al If the subgroup total far the verification subgroup test is less than or equal to the tolerance number, the establishment shall not be required to rework the identified carcasses. The establishment shall conduct a second verification subgroup test within 30 minutes. [B) If the subgroup total for the second verification subgroup test exceeds the tolerance number, the tested carcass and all subsequently produced carcasses shall be identified and reworked by the establishment. The establishment shall not be required to identify and rework carcasses produced after a subsequent subgroup test results in a subgroup equal to or less than the tolerance number. bill If the subgroup total exceeds the tolerance number or the subgroup maximum limit is reached for heads, tongues and other edible byproducts, all edible byproducts identified for possible rework shall be reworked by the establishment. The establishment shall not be required to identify and rework edible byproducts produced after a subsequent subgroup test results in a subgroup total equal to or less than the tolerance number and the subgroup maximum limit is not reached. (A] If the subgroup total for the verification subgroup test is less than or equal to the tolerance number and the subgroup maximum limit is not reached. the establishment shall not be required to rework identified edible byproducts. The establishment shall conduct a second verification subgroup test within 30 minutes. (B] If the subgroup total for the second verification subgroup test exceeds the tolerance number or the subgroup maximum limit is reached, the tested edible byproducts and all subsequently produced edible byproducts of the same type shall be identified and reworked by the establishment. The establishment shall not be required to identify and rework edible byproducts produced after a subsequent subgroup test results in a subgroup total equal equal to or less than the tolerance number of the subgroup maximum limit is not reached. (6) The process is in control and random sampling may be resumed after  two consecutive subgroup tests are equal to or less than the tolerance number for carcasses; or are equal to or less than the tolerance number for edible byproducts; or the subgroup maximum limit for edible byproducts is reached 78 [i) Establishment continues random subgroup testing. dial CUSUM may be reset. If the two consecutive subgroup totals do not cause CUSIJM to fall to the start number or below, CUSU\Z is reset at the start number. (B] Inspector Actions. The inspector shall: (13 Monitor the establishment's corrective actions to ensure that the FPS requirements for actions are met. (21 Suspend random monitoring when the establishment is conducting product action. (3) Correlate noncordormance criteria with the establishment as needed if) After the subgroup tests are completed, nonconformances on carcasses, parts of carcasses. and edible byproducts sampled should be removed before the carcasses, parts and byproducts are returned to the product flow, or if such nonconformances cannot be removed' the articles shall be handled under the provisions of Part 311 of this subchapter. (g) Slaughter Lina Partial Quality Control. Establishments slaughtering cattle at rates greater than 275 head per hour must develop a quality control program for carcass dressing defects. Establishments slaughtering cattle at 275 head or less per hour are not required to, but may participate in a slaughter line quality control program. Participating establishments must comply win the follows provisions. (1] A slaughter floor carcass reinspection station shall be located off the main conveyor and shall comply with the facility requirements prescribed in g 307.2tm]~91. Specific reinspection activities shall be based on the establishment's quality control system and its performance under that system as determined by the circuit supervisor and inspector in charge Carcass reinspection shall be handled in accordance with the provisions and the finished product standards in this section - (2) Application for slaughter line partial quality control. Any owner or operator of an official slaughter establishment who has a plan for contzoll~ post-mortem activities through a quality control system may request the Administrator to evaluate it  to determine if the system is adequate to result in product being in compliance with the requirements of the Act. Such a request shall include the following: (i) A letter to the Administrator from the establishment owner or operator stating the company's basis and purpose for seeking an approved slaughter line partial quality control system and

Federal Register ~ Vol. fig, No. 230 ~ Wednesday, November 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules 4a~73 willingness to adhere to the requirements of the system as approved by the Department; that all the establishment's data. analyses, and information generated by its quality control system will be maintained for the period provided in ~ 320.3 in this subchapter to enable the Department to monitor compliance and to be available to Department personnel; that quality control personnel will have authority to halt production or shipping in cases where the quality control system requires it; and that the operator or owner for his/her designee] will be available for consultation at any time the Department considers it necessary. (ii] If an establishment has one or more full-time persons whose duties are related to quality control systems, an organizational chart shall be included showing that such person ultimately reports to an official whose quality control responsibilities are independent of production responsibilities. In cases of an establishment which does not have [till-time quality control personnel, state the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the person who will be responsible for the slaughter line partial quality control system. (iii) Detailed information concerning the manner in which the system will function must be included in the letter. Such information shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, carcass dressing control. the critical control points from animal unloading to the cooler. the nature and frequency of tests to be made, the nature of charts and other records which will be used in the system, the length of time such charts and other records will be maintained in custody of the official establishment. the nature of deficiencies the quality control system is designed to identify and control, the limitation or parameters used and the points at which corrective action will occur, and the nature of corrective action from least to most severe. (iv] A list identifying those parts and sections of the Federal meat inspection regulations which are applicable to the operations of the establishment applying for approval of a slaughter line partial quality control system This list shall also identify which part of the slaughter line partial quality control system will serve to maintain compliance with Me applicable regulations. {33 The Administrator shall evaluate the material presented in accordance with paragraph tflt2] of this section. The  Administrator shall approve the system if it is determined, on the basis of the evaluation, that the proposed slaughter line partial quality control program will result in carcasses being in foci compliance with the requirements of the Act and regulations issued under the Act. (43 If the Administrator determines that the proposed slaughter line partial quality control system is unacceptable, written notification of the basis for denial by the Administrator shall be sent to the applicant. The applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to modify the system in accordance with the notification. The applicant will also be provided an opportunity to submit to the Administrator within 30 days of the date of the notification, a statement challenging the merits or validity of the denial and to request an oral hearing with respect to the denial decision. An oral hearing shall be granted if there is any dispute in material fact joined in such responsive statement. The proceeding shall thereafter be conducted m accordance with the applicable rules of practice which shall be adopted for this proceeding. Any such denial shall be effective upon Receipt by the applicant of the notification and shall continue in effect until final determination of the matter. (51 The establishment owner or operator shall be responsible for the effective operation of the approved slaughter line partial quality control system to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Act and regulations issued under the Act. The Secretary shall continue to provide the Federal inspection necessary to carry out responsibilities under the Act. t61 Termination of slaughter line partial quality control. (i) The approval of the slaughter line partial quality control system may be terminated at any time by the owner or operator of the official establishment upon written notice to the Administrator. Upon termination the maximum slaughter rate shall not exceed 275 head per hour. (ii] The approval of the slaughter line partial quality control system may be terminated upon the establishment's receipt of a written notice from the Administrator under the following conditions: (A) If the establishment fails to comply with the approved slaughter line quality control system after being served with written notification from the Administrator, or his designee. of its failure to comply. Termination will be  effective 30 days after service of the notification. During this 30 day period, 79 opportunity shall tie provided to the establishment owner or operator to present views to the Administrator. If there is a conflict of facts, a hearing under applicable rules of practice shall be provided to the establishment owner or operator to resolve the conflict. The AdmirListrator's temptation of an approved slaughter line quality control system shall remain in effect pending the final determination of the proceeding. (B] If adulterated or misbranded meat food product is found by the Admimetrator to have been prepared for or distributed in commerce by the establishment or not prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Act. In such cases. opportunity shall be provided to the establishment owner or operator to present views to the AdrniIiistrator within 30 days of the date of termination of the approval. If there is a conflict of facts, a bearing under applicable rules of practice shall be provided to the establishment owner or operator to resolve the conflict. The Administrator's temptation of approval shall remain ~ effect pending the final determination of the proceeding. [iii) If approval of the slaughter line partial quality control program has been terminated id accordance with the provisions of this section, an application and request for approval of the same or a modified partial quality control system will not be evaluated by the Administrator for a least two months Tom the termination date. Such application must include those additional actions the establishment will perform to correct the previous failure to comply with the approved slaughter line quality control program. TABLE 1. DEFiN~lON OF No~co~Fo~ - ANC~ES FOR BEEF CARCASSES 1. SPECKS: Denudes any sew or ~ of sx~areous material. EXAMPLES ~ ~5, OlL grease dust. rusts etc. W - n specks Me 50 rwr~s that counting it; wrack, or they Me Urger tin .5 cm, tow would be soored war dress rig nc~ntormanc~ Spector is ok. Count and tOW the nor of 2;ped~s per sack ~ (A carcass). Number clef "sects per sample USA is deter- n~ed by wiving the total actuated count per sample unit by 10 and rowing to nearest  whde r~r such that O ~ ~ mecks=0 defects, 5 to to specks=1 detect. 15 to 24 ~=2 defect, 25 to 34 specks=3 de tows; etc. NOTE: Do mat cat bow dust or tat

48274 Federal Register ~ Vol. 53, Nb. ~ / Wednesday, November 30. 1988 ~ Proposed Rules TABLE 1~EFINrr~ OF NoNc~oR ANCES FOR BEEF CAf~ssEs COnhin ued 2. ooNTA~T ON, So AND sow .-~d~S arm Of Comets ~ and stains EXA~QES: ~ of ear - ~bon, srr~rs or stat ring from cons ash Ross, ~ pi em ~ cam etch Factor is thee. -Measure and tam the accounted men vents tor each area at nonconf~rrun" per sit ~ Number of defect per sample unit is deter- m~ed by W'dng ~ tom accun~ new per she ~ by 5 and r~ to nearest whole nurrb" such mat O to 2.4 cm = 0 defects, 2.5 to 7.4 can= 1 defend, 7.5 to 12.4 crn=2 defec=. 125 to 17.4 em = :% detect, eta NOTE An arm d corKa~tx~n ~ man .5 an ~ its br~gest dirnens~n should be c~- ed as a spew 3. HAIR STRANDS Qoosek ~ud.# an hair not amused ~ him pair ~ one Count total numbs d lairs on say use -Numb" of defect is dethroned by dividing tots aCQ~ number d ~ per sample mat by 1 0 and nag to newel Mob number sudl that O ~ 4 hairs=0 defect; 5 to 14 harsh defect 15 to 24 h~rs=2 de few 25 to 34 ~=3 den ED 4. HAIR CLUSTERS cluster d hair ~ a ~ a Cow of haim contained r, a 12.5 cm try 1~5 cm urea that em (a) too nuneroc~ to court or (27 manged ~ ~ ~ wry tout India hairs can rat be cited The 1~5 con by 1~5 cm area my be fixed to hchde tow greatest raurrber of ham Areas greater than ~ may be scored as now than one muster, prided the deft amtinu" to be m" When the deform is no rr - , to hairs outwit the area win be scored as Rose hac cr is tow. each 125 an saw ares such Mat O to t2.5 cm=1 detect, 12.6 ore to 25 cm=2 Beech, 26 to 37.5 cm=3 defect, 5. Sly: hide ~ ~ 6 Oxbow" Mach ~ it, -Measure and tom ~ accumulated no meets for each piece of hide per sample unit -Number of deters per sample But is deter- mined by dividing ~ LOW acerbated measurements per side by 5 and no to the nears whole number such that O to 2.4 cm=0 defects, 2.5 to 7.4 crow detent, 7.5 to 12.4 cm=2 defects, 12 5 to 17.4 cm=3 diva, etc. 6. PARASITES ~ ~ it.  -Include ease urea wl~ ~ pi or not adequately trimmed for ~ preset or derive of a MEL Mach am ~ a detect 7 AL GREASE: - r&:~o~ TABLE t.~EFTNrr~ Of INFORM ANCES FOR BEEF CUSSES Cone ued ~1 ~ d d or grease or ~ resume stains romd per sap wit -~ of "feces ~ dew by dig acc~nulamd mew by 5 and mu ID Carat Mob now Ash bat O to Z. cm=0 deft 25 b 7.4 an=1 defect. 75 tO 12.4 cm=2 deft. - 12.5 tO 17.4 cm=3 He - cat, em NOTE 01 and ago ~ ~ ~ .5 art ~ be boom ~ spits 8. IMPROPER TORI FaC~ ~ am -l~d68 Hat ~ ached tO Be car ca~ E)~L£~ Irk d I, lung, bachea. coca of ~ ~ We "eL ~ bow, boa, ~ Beg), blood doe ~5 An 1~' stems., ovaries, vat [altar ~ ~ bu~vemos" tom em e~ ~ ~ ~ Undated measure relend d al r~ found per Barry unit urnber d deface per "rnpb Cat is deter- ~ined by chiding total accumulated measure meat by 5 and murk to newest whole Or sects ~ O b 2.4 cm=0 defect, 2.5 b 7.4 an=1 deem, 7.5 ~ t~4 mn~2 de face, 12 S to 17.4 an .3 defecm, do 9. BRUISES: Factor ~ one. aeh Male bn~ mead 5 cm or Mae greatest dime i. a ~ - 10. DESIGNAl~ TRIABLE CO~DtT~ -The categoric aides hose am cow of me cow mat are not caressed by ~ Mung procedures, mat are readily oba~v~ but that do not affect me ton d it. am ~ES: Lo"ized i, pigments thy fractures, arks, ea., are some exam pan of desolated trimmed conditions Fining of a nonconforrr~ ~ the allegory rotor" inns notification of row In charge and a retest tar ~ cork tl. OTHERS: -~ category it Bow abnormal condi tom of me carcass tot. ~ ray ot~- abb, Stat da not affix the deposit d the carcass, ~ ~ ~ not reclad n 1 sigh 10 ~ EXAMP Fly Gl8SS. fit. PI do Record each ink arm mmedRately now rnspectc~ in c wee or he degree. TABLE 2.~1S F - SHED PRODUCT U - TS  Washed BE Cow TO - - Ce 35 Ab~+~__ ._.. ~ 20 10 Unwaxed BE Cow Toucan - . _ _._ _ _, 80 Subgroup Ab - - Lit ~+51 ~t _._ _ _ _ _._ 10 80 TABLE 3. DEF1NmON OF NONCONFOR- MANCES~EADS, TONGUES AND OTHER EDIBLE BYPRODUCTS 1. l~GESTA pAFrTcLEs: Mob ill ~ at ~s~o~tesDnal rr~ d Bet lib ok, Auk ~ In, ~ a_, wood e hair is one taco Nell to 4=0 defect; 5 to 14=t detect great" ~ 14=2 Neck -A nuwn d 2 dew may be stoned per unit 2. SMEARS; Prow d singe Eta parkas which arc so arranged or ~ rumpus mat c~nbag I. race ~ one -M~Q ~0. to ~9 cm=O We - ; 3 to 7.9 crow defect; a ~ 1~9 ~n=2 defects: greater man 12.9 cm+3 defect In d 3 dew m" be No red par uriL 3. FOREIGN OBJECTS; xtrar~ material mat are ok tom gas-antes rnatefial of plant life origin They ~nch~de loo" broker, teem, bone tray men-, carnage, toenail, clews, nest naked, rosin ~ ~ "no dirt' eta Also Waded are nc~ated poose) paresis such as fogs, worn etc. When toreegn Ace Me so arranged ~ mixed with particles mat are so nitrous tot cony is ilr~ score Al sky 0 - m ~ 2k F {ma -Each ~=1. -No Mown on the row of detects per 4. HAin/W~ Sit ~ IF Ink -PI t~r/wad or self not sty b the On or ~ war ~ onto Count to 4=0 dews 5 to t4=t detect ~t''r man 14=2 defects ~ MA d 2 dew irk be soored par  5. HAIR/WOOL CLL'tS.TERS {analyzed ~ bow and SCARF tattad~: -~ cluster ~ ~ coltecton d haired that ~ so arranged mat cow is iT - act Scot is a ~ of al Urns dyer d me s - . Factor is one Measure. to 2.9 cm =0 defects; 3 to 17.9 cm = 1 defect 8 to 12.9 cm=2 defect; greater then 12~ cm=3 Wed main use 6. BLOOD CLOTS (leek. be Heater man 2 cm to be Book Blood clots must not be part of ~ inhamed 1~ Blood dots ted clang ~ me ok ~ d Map ~ are rat to be Mach i. one Inure ~ decider greater than 2 cm=1 defect

Federal Re~ster ~ Vol. 53, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 30, 1988 / Proposed Rules 48275 TABLE 3.~E~NITIoN OF NONCONFOQ ved ~ ~ an ~ ~ ~ dim per 7. MUCOSA ~ oose or at: -Must the Brewer In 2 cm to be scored. n usually stomachs a Waded Sues. -Factor ~ o~. Measure. leach r~der~ce greaser man 2 And 1. mono ~ ~ me r~er d bets per 8. STAINS: on ~ pow coed by Patois ~ b - , oaf, Case, r - , etc. Lacer is o~. Measure. ~0 ~ 2.9 cm=0 detects; 3 ~ 7.9 'em= 1 detect; 8 to 12.9 crn=2 detects; greater man 12.9 cm=3 defect ~ maxi of 3 defecm ~ be Boo ed per 9. SCAR TISSUE: Tot ted with an acme irflan~natory process, ~ as ever spots caused try Pam sites, and other n~ras~t~c scar tom sum as heard ulcers, le~ecms~s and sawdust ~ arc. Factor ~ one. Ant to 2=0 Sects; 3 to 7=1 defect 8 to 12=2 deters; to to t7=3 Wects; etc. To rnax~rT~n on me number of detects pal use 1 O. U`CERATIONS/PUNC~RES, BPlUISES AND HEMORRHAGES: Lacerat~/p~ct~res are breaks on ~ s~- tace of the prom with no ~nfla~nmatay proc- ess (not included are knife cup made dais the dre~ng operations.) Bni~ Me nonsep bc reddened areas caused by phi T - ans. Hemorrhages are cats of bk~od outrode me vascular system such as Mood smash, hematomas, etc. Locaeed hens ureas (coon of pin point is or larger) mint be greater thar, 2 cm to be scared Do not score prod~s who exter~e or ~eraleed hemo~es which must be retained thor me IlC's du;posit~ Factor ~ two. Count. Mach incidence= 1. To Mum on tot r~Nrb" of defects per unit 11. PARTS C)f OTHER OR(iANS: rr~roper trimming of remnants of adjacent organs suet as intestneS, ureter, Match cod, diaphragm, ~ids, lips, Tonsils, gall bladder, tide, pancreas, Hymns, em. With ceilings, lymph roes and ileocecal valves  are considered pans of war of Score aortas attacted to hearts of In greater than 3 cm in length. - Factor is one. CounL Bach ire= 1. mono magnum on ~ r - Tier of den per unit 1~ OTHER CONDITIONS: -This category includes abnormal conditions 0' edible b~od~,c~ mat do a<% attest me *spa of me carcass or delecm ~ are not In t Trough l1 above. Examples: sc~fOt~c bee duct, k~ cyst, hair sore ups, abscess. etc. From of a condemnable co - bon requires ·Se nonhcabon of the ~Of ~ dodge. TABLE 4.~INISHED PRODUCT MANCES~EADS, TONGUES AND STANDARDS EDIBLE BYPRODUCTS, BEEF OTHER EDIBLE BYPRODUCTS Conbm Toter-Action _ IceNo. 37 1014 510 10 10 510 1014 97 ~6 611 S10 2020 37 26 12 ~11 37 1618 3025 1~ stats No. Cooks . _.._.__.... Cook A.._,,_ Front ._.~_.~__. Hind .__ - .~ Ads __.._._._ .._ Hearts . ..._._.__.___.., S~' hoes.__.._ Kidneys .._ _ Lps . ~ . Livers _ _____. Mountain Chain..__._. Pu=ess.~ Spews ...._____.__. T. - ~ .._...._. . _ . Am- __ Tort ._.~___~__. Tongue T - Turnings__ Tnpe ..._. _ Weasands . . 5 5  5 5 4 3 6 5 ~0 3 6 4 13 3 Done at Washington. DC on: September 8, Ad. Lester M. Crawford, Administrator, Food Sofety and Inspection Service. p;R Dow 88 27426 rued 1l-2g 88; 8:45 am] FIG CODE 34U~ 81