Classes of Poultry, 68058-68064 [2011-28525]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Food Safety and Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68058-68064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28525]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. FSIS-2007-0048]
RIN 0583-AC83


Classes of Poultry

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the 
definitions and standards for the official U.S. classes of poultry so 
that they more accurately and clearly describe the characteristics of 
poultry in the market today. Poultry classes are defined primarily in 
terms of the age and sex of the bird. Genetic improvements and poultry 
management techniques have reduced the grow-out period for some poultry 
classes, while extensive cross breeding has produced poultry with 
higher meat yields but blurred breed distinctions. FSIS is taking this 
action to ensure that the labeling of poultry products is truthful and 
not misleading.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on January 1, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director, 
Labeling and Program Delivery Division, Office of Policy and Program 
Development, FSIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington, 
DC 20250-3700, Telephone (301) 504-0879, Fax (301) 504-0872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 29, 2003, FSIS proposed to amend the definitions and 
standards for the official U.S. classes of poultry (68 FR 55902). 
Before publishing the 2003 proposed rule, the Agency had reviewed the 
poultry class definitions with USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service 
(AMS) Poultry Programs, and both agencies discussed the issue with 
members of the poultry industry and others knowledgeable about poultry 
genetics and breeding. After examining current poultry production 
methods and reviewing the

[[Page 68059]]

poultry classes defined in 9 CFR 381.170, FSIS and AMS concluded that a 
number of the poultry class definitions do not adequately reflect 
current poultry characteristics or industry practices. Therefore, FSIS, 
in consultation with AMS, determined that the poultry class definitions 
needed to be revised to more accurately and clearly describe poultry 
being marketed to consumers and to ensure that the labels for poultry 
products are truthful and not misleading. FSIS consulted with AMS 
during this rulemaking because AMS incorporates FSIS' regulatory 
poultry class standards into its U.S. Classes, Standards, and Grades 
for Poultry (AMS 70.200 et seq.).
    In the 2003 proposed rule, in addition to proposing to lower the 
age definitions for 6 classes of poultry, FSIS requested comments on 
the merit of establishing ready-to-cook (RTC) \1\ carcass weights or 
maximums for poultry classes. The proposed classes were primarily based 
on the age and sex of the bird.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ready-to-cook poultry at 9 CFR 381.1 is defined as any 
slaughtered poultry free from protruding pinfeathers and vestigial 
feathers (hair or down), from which the head, feet, crop, oil gland, 
trachea, esophagus, entrails, and lungs have been removed, and from 
which the mature reproductive organs and kidneys may have been 
removed, and with or without the giblets, and which is suitable for 
cooking without need of further processing. Ready-to-cook poultry 
also means any cut-up or disjointed portion of poultry or other 
parts of poultry, such as reproductive organs, head, or feet that 
are suitable for cooking without need of further processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2009 Supplemental Proposed Rule

    After FSIS published the 2003 proposed rule, AMS provided the 
Agency with new data that affected the proposed ``roaster'' class 
definition. These data, which were collected from the segment of the 
industry that routinely produces ``roasters,'' suggested that a 
``roaster'' class definition should include a RTC carcass weight. The 
data also suggested that FSIS should change the proposed weeks of age 
in the ``roaster'' class definition. Therefore, on July 13, 2009, FSIS 
issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to provide new 
information on and to re-propose the definition and standard for the 
``roaster'' or ``roasting chicken'' (74 FR 33374).
    In the preamble to the 2009 supplemental proposed rule, FSIS 
explained that, on the basis of the new AMS data, the Agency had 
tentatively concluded that a ``roaster'' or ``roasting chicken'' should 
be defined as a chicken between 8 and 12 weeks of age. The Agency noted 
that most of the comments submitted on the 2003 proposed ``roaster'' 
class definition supported use of this age range for roasters (74 FR 
33375).
    In the 2009 supplemental proposal, the Agency also explained that 
it had tentatively concluded that a ``roaster'' or ``roasting chicken'' 
should be defined as a chicken with an RTC carcass weight of 5 pounds 
or more, based on survey information from AMS. The Agency stated that 
including the RTC carcass weight for this class of poultry would 
effectively differentiate ``roasters'' and ``broilers''. FSIS also 
explained that it had tentatively concluded that RTC carcass weight, 
instead of average live weight, is necessary in the class standard and 
definition so that FSIS can verify the appropriate use of the term 
``roaster'' or ``roasting chicken'' on product labels.
    FSIS reviewed the other poultry standards with AMS before issuing 
the 2009 rule and determined that they were still accurate, so the 
Agency only needed to re-propose the ``roaster'' definition.

Consultation With Advisory Committee

    Under section 457(b)(2) of Title 21 of the United States Code, the 
Secretary of Agriculture is required to consult with the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) and an appropriate advisory committee 
as provided for in 21 U.S.C. 454 before issuing standards of identity 
for poultry products. Pursuant to this requirement, FSIS consulted with 
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), HHS, when developing the 
proposed rule. FDA determined that there were no existing product 
standards established by FDA that would be inconsistent with the 
revised poultry class standards as proposed. FDA has also reviewed this 
final rule and has determined that there are no existing FDA product 
standards that are inconsistent with the revised poultry class 
standards established in this final rule.
    Also, pursuant to this requirement, in 2003, FSIS presented the 
proposed poultry class standards to the FSIS National Advisory 
Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) for consultation to 
ensure that there is no inconsistency between Federal and State 
standards. Comments submitted by NACMPI and FSIS' response are 
discussed below.

Response to Comments

    FSIS received 9 comment letters in response to the 2003 proposed 
rule and 6 comment letters in response to the 2009 supplemental 
proposed rule on the ``roaster'' class definition. Comments were 
submitted by trade associations that represent poultry processors, 
poultry processors, a non-profit organization that advocates humane 
treatment of farm animals, and 2 individuals.
    After carefully analyzing the comments, FSIS has decided to adopt, 
with some changes, the poultry class definitions that it proposed in 
2003 and the ``roaster'' class definition that it proposed in 2009.
    The following is a summary of the comments submitted in response to 
the 2003 proposed rule and comments submitted in response to the 2009 
supplemental proposed rule and FSIS' responses.
    Comment: One trade association supported the 2003 proposed rule and 
stated that they had no objections to the proposed changes for the age 
definitions, proposed changes to the class definitions, deletion of the 
word ``usually'' from the age classifications, proposed changes to the 
game hen classes, and other proposed editorial changes.
    Response: FSIS agrees with the comment.

``Roaster'' Class Definition

    Comment: In response to the 2003 proposed rule, FSIS received 
comments from the industry that suggested that FSIS adopt a ``roaster'' 
class definition that includes both an age range between 9 and 12 weeks 
at the time of slaughter and an average live flock weight of 7.75 to 8 
pounds. The comments stated that a ``roaster'' class definition that 
includes this age range at the time of slaughter and a minimum average 
flock weight will provide reasonable parameters for companies that 
specially produce large, young ``meat-type'' birds.
    Response: While FSIS agrees that the ``roaster'' class definition 
should include both an age range and weight requirements, the Agency 
does not agree that the weight should be based on the minimum average 
flock weight. Using RTC weight more accurately reflects the actual 
weight of the carcass that a consumer is purchasing. This weight is 
verifiable by the inspector at the processing site. The inspector 
cannot verify the flock weight. The flock weight is an average of a 
large number of birds rather than by individual bird. The variability 
in a flock weight may be large and not as accurate.
    After consideration of the comments, and of the information that 
AMS obtained from ``roaster'' producers, FSIS has decided to adopt a 
``roaster'' class definition that reflects AMS' recommendation to 
define a ``roaster'' as a chicken between 8 and 12 weeks of age and 
with a RTC carcass weight of 5 pounds or more. AMS' recommendation

[[Page 68060]]

is based on the results of a survey of the segment of the industry that 
produces ``roasters,'' and reflects data on target weights for birds 
produced from 8 of the 13 ``roaster'' suppliers. FSIS and AMS both 
agree that a definition that includes RTC carcass weight rather than 
average live flock weight is necessary for FSIS to verify that the 
labeling of chickens identified as ``roasters'' is truthful and not 
misleading. This definition also more accurately reflects the 
characteristics of poultry labeled as ``roasters.''
    Comment: Several comments from trade associations and poultry 
processors were concerned that the 2003 proposed ``roaster'' age 
definition of less than 12 weeks with no minimum RTC carcass weight 
would allow large ``broilers'' to be classified as roasters because of 
the overlap in the proposed age definition for the ``broiler'' class 
(less than 10 weeks of age) and the proposed age definition for 
``roaster'' class (less than 12 weeks of age).
    One comment from a poultry processor asserted that relying only on 
age requirements and other proposed criteria, such as characteristics 
of the breastbone cartilage, to define certain poultry classes, 
particularly the ``roaster'' chicken class, might cause confusion among 
industry and FSIS inspection program personnel. The comment stated that 
some establishments and FSIS inspection personnel may conclude that 
birds less than 12 weeks of age can be classified as either a 
``broiler'' or a ``roaster.'' The comment recommended that FSIS allow 
the ``roaster'' class to be a marketing term that may include young 
immature poultry from the ``broiler'' class, as long as specified 
weight requirements are met.
    Response: As noted above, the roaster class definition in this 
final rule includes both an age range of 8 to 12 weeks at the time of 
slaughter and a RTC carcass weight of 5 pounds or more. A broiler is 
defined by an age of less than 10 weeks with no specified minimum RTC 
carcass weight. Although there is some overlap in the age definition 
for ``broiler'' and ``roasters,'' the higher age limit for the 
``roaster'' class combined with the minimum RTC carcass weight provides 
a way to clearly distinguish a ``broiler'' from a ``roaster.''
    Comment: Several comments from poultry processors and an individual 
recommended that FSIS remove age from the definition of the ``roaster'' 
class and define ``roaster'' based solely on RTC carcass weight 
instead. According to the comments, a ``roaster'' class definition that 
includes the age of the bird is not relevant or meaningful to 
consumers. The comments asserted that defining the ``roaster'' class by 
weight alone is sufficient to enable the consumer to identify the 
product without being misled.
    Response: FSIS has determined that the definition needs to include 
the age range along with a minimum RTC carcass weight to ensure that 
only young birds are labeled as ``roasters.'' Because production 
practices and housing technology have changed, the birds come to market 
weight much quicker than in the past. Therefore, it is important to 
inform consumers that ``roasters'' are young birds, not the more mature 
birds that consumers were accustomed to buying in the past. This new 
roaster definition was requested by the poultry industry and supported 
by industry comments because a definition that uses both the age and 
weight information is more likely to provide clarity for industry and 
consumers.
    Most of the comments submitted on the 2003 proposal supported the 
use of this age range, which is consistent with the age of ``roasters'' 
in the market today.
    Comment: Comments from a trade association and a poultry processor 
recommended that instead of a 5-pound RTC carcass weight definition for 
the ``roaster'' class, FSIS should adopt a minimum 5.5-pound RTC 
carcass weight as the bird exits post-chilling in the slaughter/
evisceration process. According to the comment, such a definition will 
more accurately reflect the weight range of chickens that are marketed 
as ``roasters'' and ``roasting chickens'' and will maintain a 
distinction between ``roasters'' and ``broilers'' that are also being 
grown to heavier weights. Another comment suggested a ``roaster'' class 
weight definition that would include a 5.5-pound RTC carcass weight for 
a carcass without giblets at post chill and a 6-pound minimum RTC 
carcass weight for a carcass packaged with giblets.
    Response: As noted above, information that AMS obtained from 
``roaster'' producers supports a RTC carcass weight of 5 pounds or 
more. Birds that have the age and other characteristics of the roaster 
class and that have a RTC carcass weight of 5.5 pounds would be 
classified as ``roasters.'' RTC weight has not been based on the weight 
of the carcass and the weight of the carcass plus giblets.
    There was no rationale provided with the comment to support the 
need for 2 different weight minimums for this class of poultry. FSIS 
does not believe it is necessary to stipulate a minimum weight based on 
the carcass plus giblets.
    Comment: One comment from a trade association had no opinion on 
whether FSIS should include a requirement for RTC carcass weights for 
certain poultry classes but stated that if FSIS were to adopt market-
ready weights, the weight designations should not include any added 
solutions that are used to prepare birds for the cooking process.
    Response: The minimum RTC carcass weight for the roaster class 
applies to carcasses that do not contain added solutions.
    Comment: One comment from a poultry processor submitted in 2003 
suggested that FSIS delay the issuance of any final rule to update the 
poultry classes to conduct the appropriate studies in consultation with 
consumers and the industry to craft a classification standard that 
accurately reflects what a ``roaster'' is. Another comment from a 
poultry processor stated that FSIS should consult with a wide cross 
section of buyers, consumers, and industry to determine the appropriate 
RTC carcass weight for the ``roaster'' class.
    Response: As noted above, after FSIS issued the 2003 proposed rule, 
AMS collected new data from the segment of the industry that routinely 
produces ``roasters.'' The agencies used these data to develop a 
roaster class definition that more accurately reflects the 
characteristics of chickens marketed as ``roasters'' and requested 
comments on the revised definition through a supplemental proposed 
rule.
    Comment: Comments from a trade association and a poultry processor 
stated that FSIS should not require that chickens that meet the 
definition for the ``roaster'' class be labeled as ``roaster'' or 
``roasting chicken.'' The comments suggested that FSIS give companies 
the option of labeling these birds as ``young chickens.'' According to 
the comment, the term ``young chicken'' will not mislead consumers 
because it does not imply the product is somehow superior to a 
``roaster'' or ``roasting chicken.''
    Another comment from a poultry processor asserted that designation 
of an RTC chicken carcass as a ``broiler,'' ``fryer,'' ``roaster'' or 
``roasting chicken'' is not meaningful to consumers. The comment stated 
that consumers would likely select the RTC chicken carcass based on 
their needs in relation to the meal being prepared, e.g., a family of 
four will likely require a larger RTC chicken carcass than a single 
adult when preparing the same meal, regardless of how the bird is 
labeled. The comment said that the similarities between the ``broiler'' 
or ``fryer'' and ``roaster'' or ``roasting chicken'' class are such 
that the standards are almost

[[Page 68061]]

interchangeable. The comment was concerned that under the proposed 
definitions, a ``broiler'' could be deemed misbranded simply because 
the RTC carcass weight infringes on the ``roaster'' class. The comment 
stated that FSIS should not require that chickens be labeled as a 
``broiler,'' ``fryer,'' ``roaster,'' or ``roasting chicken,'' and that 
companies should have the option to label these poultry as ``young 
chickens.''
    Response: Under the existing regulations, ``broilers,'' and 
``roasters'' are permitted to be labeled as ``young chickens.'' 9 CFR 
381.117(b) provides that ``[t]he name of the product required to be 
shown on labels for fresh or frozen raw whole carcasses of poultry 
shall be in either of the following forms: The name of the kind (such 
as chicken, turkey, or duck) preceded by the qualifying term ``young'' 
or ``mature'' or ``old,'' whichever is appropriate; or the appropriate 
class name as described in 9 CFR 381.170(a).'' This final rule does not 
change requirements for product names in 9 CFR 381.117(b). Therefore, 
``broilers'' and ``roasters'' may continue to be labeled by their class 
name or as ``young chickens.''

Young Turkeys

    Comment: One comment submitted by a trade association that 
represents turkey processors objected to FSIS' proposal to lower the 
age for the young turkey class from under 8 months to less than 6 
months. The comment stated that lowering the age for young turkeys by 2 
months would place an undue burden on several companies that process 
young turkeys while providing little or no benefit to the consumer. 
According to the comment, if FSIS were to adopt the proposed reduction 
in age for the young turkey class, many establishments that process 
young turkeys would be dangerously close to exceeding or simply would 
not meet the new age requirements.
    Response: After considering the comment, FSIS has decided to not 
lower the age definition for the young turkey class as proposed. 
Therefore, this final rule retains the existing ``young turkey'' age 
definition of less than 8 months.
    To lower the definition to less than 6 months may adversely affect 
establishments that are labeling such birds as ``young turkeys'' under 
the existing regulations.
    After considering the comments and recommendations from AMS, FSIS 
has concluded that a ``young turkey'' age definition of ``less than 8 
months'' continues to accurately represent industry practices and 
accurately reflects the characteristics of these birds.

Broiler or Fryer Class

    Comment: One commenter from a trade association noted that the 
terms ``broiler'' and ``fryer'' are permitted to be used 
interchangeably under the ``broiler'' or ``fryer'' chicken class 
definition. The commenter asserted that the use of both terms for one 
class of poultry might be confusing to consumers. The commenter 
suggested that FSIS either define the terms ``broiler'' and ``fryer'' 
in the regulations or amend the regulations to establish separate 
classes for ``broiler'' and ``fryer'' chickens, or for any other 
poultry identified by these terms.
    Response: ``Broiler'' and ``fryer'' are regional terms for the same 
type of bird and are thus used interchangeably. The comment did not 
submit data to indicate that classifying chickens with certain 
characteristics as ``broilers'' or ``fryers'' is misleading to 
consumers. Therefore, FSIS is not establishing separate definitions for 
``broiler'' and ``fryer'' chickens in this final rule.

Cornish Game Hens

    Comment: One comment from a trade association stated that the term 
``hen'' as used in the ``Rock Cornish game hen'' or ``Cornish game 
hen'' class may be misleading because the term hen implies that these 
birds are female while the definition states that the birds may be of 
either sex. The comment suggested that FSIS change the name of this 
poultry class to ``Rock Cornish game bird'' or ``Cornish game bird.''
    Another comment from a poultry producer said that the proposed 
``Cornish hen'' definition is inaccurate because it allows industry to 
call a bird that is not necessarily Cornish, and not necessarily a hen, 
a ``Cornish hen.'' The comment suggested that FSIS add a definition for 
``poussin'' to describe the next youngest bird than the ``Cornish hen'' 
if the Agency decides to keep the term Cornish hen. The comment 
suggested that USDA review the literature produced by the North 
American Meat Processors Association (NAMP) as it applies to usage of 
the term ``poussin.'' According to the commenter, because USDA is 
attempting to have its regulations reflect usage in the poultry 
industry, it must consider not just the production level, but also the 
market.
    Response: FSIS disagrees that the terms ``Rock Cornish game hen'' 
or ``Cornish game hen'' are misleading to consumers and that the Agency 
should change the name of the class to ``Rock Cornish game bird'' or 
``Cornish game bird.'' The existing terms for this poultry class, which 
provides for the use of the term ``hen'' for young immature chickens of 
either sex, has been in place since FSIS established this poultry class 
definition. The term ``hen'' can be used for immature chickens of 
either sex because birds of this class are sexually immature. FSIS is 
not aware of any data to support that consumers are misled with the 
reference to ``hen'' in these terms. Changing the name of the class is 
likely to spur confusion.
    FSIS also disagrees that the proposed ``Cornish hen'' definition is 
inaccurate because it allows industry to call a bird that is not 
necessarily Cornish, and not necessarily a hen, a ``Cornish hen.'' The 
existing standards in FSIS' regulations do specify that a Cornish 
chicken be the progeny of a Cornish chicken crossed with another breed 
of chicken. However, FSIS continues to believe that it is doubtful that 
any purebred Cornish lines currently exist in commercial chicken 
production today and, therefore, the birds cannot be reliably 
distinguished on the basis of progeny.
    FSIS also disagrees that it should add a new poultry class that 
would define poussin. The poultry classes in 9 CFR 381.170 represent 
poultry that are typically marketed to consumers and are more broadly 
used than the standards for poussin in NAMP's Poultry Buyers Guide.

Other Comments

    Comment: A comment from an organization that advocates humane 
handling of farm animals and an individual stated that the lower age 
requirements proposed for certain poultry classes sanction and promote 
abnormally rapid growth in poultry, which compromises animal welfare 
and public health. An organization that advocates the humane treatment 
of farm animals recommended that FSIS adopt a ``no action'' alternative 
because the proposed amendments are largely unnecessary. According to 
the commenter, of the 6 definitions proposed for revision, 4 are 
completely accurate as currently written.
    Response: FSIS disagrees that the lower age requirements proposed 
for the poultry classes compromise animal welfare and public health. 
The lower age requirements reflect the advancements in breeding and 
husbandry that have occurred since the poultry classes were established 
over 40 years ago. These advances have generally shortened the period 
of time required for birds to attain market-ready weights. FSIS is 
revising the poultry class standard to better reflect these changes.
    Comment: A poultry processor requested that FSIS use this 
rulemaking

[[Page 68062]]

to replace the term ``squab'' in its regulations with ``pigeon.'' The 
commenter stated that squab should be used to describe a young pigeon 
in labeling but not to define inspection amenability.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rule; however, 
the FY 2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (the 2001 
Appropriations Act), signed by the President on October 28, 2000, 
provided inspection amenability for ratites and squabs. The statute 
specifically states that ``squabs'' are to be inspected under the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). The 2001 Appropriations Act 
does not mention pigeons. Subsequently, based on that statute, FSIS 
conducted rulemaking to include squab in the definition of Poultry in 9 
CFR 381.1.
    Comment: One trade association comment stated that the proposed 
changes in nomenclature and weight ranges for the poultry classes may 
bring about price changes that may benefit the industry and retailers 
but may not result in benefits to consumers.
    Response: FSIS does not believe the proposed changes will result in 
a significant change in the market price of poultry because the rule 
will not have much effect on consumer behavior. The rule may benefit 
suppliers because lowering the age limit means the suppliers will not 
have to keep the birds for as long as they have under current class 
standards for all classes of poultry whose age limits are lowered by 
this final rule. However, despite the potential increase in the supply 
of roasters, consumer demand will determine how many more roasters will 
be sold. The Agency does not think that the consumers will buy more 
roasters simply because the proposed rule lowers the age limit.

NACMPI Review

    As noted above, in 2003, FSIS presented the proposed poultry class 
standards to the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry 
Inspection (NACMPI). NACMPI reviewed the proposed poultry class 
standards and suggested that FSIS look at poultry production practices 
for non-traditional raising of poultry, such as organic and free-range. 
NACMPI recommended that FSIS not exclude any sector of the marketplace 
from using the standards in labeling because they use different 
production practices and that FSIS determine whether the non-
traditional raising of poultry meets the standards in the proposed 
rule.
    Further, the NACMPI asked if the poultry products imported have 
their own standard and who would know the ages on the imported poultry 
product.
    In response to NACMPI's request, FSIS consulted with 
representatives from AMS's National Organic Program (NOP) to determine 
whether the revisions to the poultry class standards would affect the 
way that organic poultry are classified and labeled. NOP responded that 
although it does not have extensive market information on the age and 
size of organic poultry to fully evaluate the implications of these new 
classes, it does not anticipate that organic poultry growers will have 
difficulty raising birds with characteristics of the new class 
definitions. AMS/NOP contacted a poultry producer (who sells under the 
broiler or fryer class) to get its perspective on whether such a change 
would present an issue for the 25,000 organic birds they raise for the 
market. The producer stated that, although organic birds do take longer 
to get to market size because of slower weight gain (e.g., about 30% 
less for organic birds which take about 49 days to attain market 
weight), the producer does not anticipate a problem marketing 
``broilers'' or ``fryers'' as defined in this rule.
    In reference to NACMPI's comment on foreign trade, FSIS ensures 
that inspection systems in countries that export meat, poultry, and 
processed egg products to the United States are equivalent to those in 
the United States and that products from these countries are accurately 
labeled in accordance with domestic requirements. Also, in terms of a 
trade perspective, the amount of product that USDA could market under 
these standards of identity is very small in terms of imported product 
to the United States.

The Final Rule

    In this final rule, FSIS is lowering the age definitions for 5 
classes of poultry: ``Rock Cornish game hen'' or ``Cornish game hen'' 
from 5 to 6 weeks to less than 5 weeks (Sec.  381.170(a)(1)(i)); 
``broiler'' or ``fryer'' from under 13 weeks to less than 10 weeks 
(381.170(a)(1)(ii)); ``roaster'' or ``roasting chicken'' from 3 to 5 
months to 8 to 12 weeks of age (381.170(a)(1)(iii)); capon from under 8 
months to less than 4 months (381.170(a)(1)(iv)); and fryer-roaster 
turkey from under 16 weeks to less than 12 weeks (381.170(a)(2)(i)). 
The Agency decided not to lower the age definition for a 6th class of 
poultry--young turkey--as proposed (see RESPONSE TO COMMENTS). 
Therefore, the age definition for a young turkey remains at less than 8 
months of age. In addition to lowering the age definition for the 
``roaster'' class, this final rule also defines a ``roaster'' based on 
a RTC carcass weight of 5 pounds or more. Consistent with the proposal, 
the Agency is deleting the word ``usually'' from the age designation 
descriptions in all of the poultry class standards so that these age 
designations will be clear and enforceable.

Effective Date

    Based on the uniform compliance date regulations, January 1, 2014 
is the effective date for this final rule. January 1, 2014 is the 
uniform compliance date for new food labeling regulations that are 
issued between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012 (75 FR 71344, 
November 23, 2010.)

Other Provisions

    In the 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 55902, the Agency solicited 
comments on what age designations would be appropriate for poultry 
identified as ``young geese,'' ``mature geese,'' ``young guineas'' and 
``old guineas'' but the Agency did not receive any comments in 
response.
    Also, as proposed at 68 FR 55903, in addition to the changes made 
to the poultry class standards, this rule will delete the term ``fully 
matured'' from the yearling turkey class definition and change the name 
of the broiler duckling or fryer duckling class to ``duckling.'' Birds 
in this class of ducks are labeled and marketed as ``ducklings'' 
without the prefixes ``broiler'' or ``fryer.'' FSIS is changing the 
name of the roaster duckling class to ``roaster duck.'' Roaster ducks 
are currently labeled and marketed as ``ducks'' rather that 
``ducklings.''
    In addition, the class definitions have been edited for clarity, 
consistency, and uniformity. For example, the class names used within 
the regulatory text will be placed in quotation marks to make the 
format of the poultry class standards regulation consistent with the 
other regulations that prescribe standards of identity for poultry 
products. References to specific numbers of weeks or months will be 
preceded by the words ``less than'' or ``more than'' rather than 
``under'' or ``in excess of'' to improve the clarity of the 
regulations.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This final rule has been determined to be ``significant'' and was 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866.

[[Page 68063]]

Economic Impact of the Classes of Poultry Final Rule

    This regulation may have some benefit for the industry, but it will 
not have a significant effect on the prices of poultry. Lowering the 
age limit for all the five classes of poultry will benefit the 
suppliers because they can sell birds at younger ages. In the case of 
roasters, some of the chickens that are broilers under the current 
standards will be qualified as roasters and can be sold at a higher 
per-pound price.\2\ However, FSIS does not know how many chickens will 
be re-classified because there is no Agency data or market data on ages 
of the chickens in the market. There is also a demand constraint on how 
many of the re-classified chickens will be actually sold and generate 
the revenue. Therefore, it is very difficult to quantify the benefits 
to the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ AMS data shows the per-pound price for roasters are $0.14 
higher than broilers in 2009. USDA Weekly Chicken Feature Activity, 
July 23, 2010. http:/www.ams.usda.gov/pymarketnews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another possible effect on the industry is associated with possible 
changes to labels because of changes in classification of poultry. The 
``Uniform Compliance Date for Food Labeling Regulations'' (75 FR 71344) 
allows establishments to incorporate multiple label redesigns required 
by multiple Federal rules into one modification during 2-year 
increments. If the establishments combine other labeling changes 
required by other Federal regulations with the labeling changes under 
this rule, they can spread out the cost of changing other labels.
    On the demand side, this rule will not have much effect on 
consumers. Although some broilers will be qualified as roasters and 
become more expensive, consumers who want to buy broilers will still 
buy broilers. There is no empirical evidence of consumer preference of 
one class of chicken (roaster or broiler) over the other. In addition, 
empirical evidence shows that price elasticity for chicken in the 
United States is quite inelastic.\3\ Because the rule will not have a 
significant effect on the demand side and is not imposing additional 
cost to the suppliers, there will not be significant change in prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, a study by the Research Triangle Institute 
(RTI) found that U.S. demand elasticity to be -. 43 for young 
chickens and - 0.62 for other chickens. Poultry Slaughter and 
Processing Sector Facility-Level Model, Final Report. RTI. April, 
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The FSIS Administrator certifies that, for the purposes of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602,) the final rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The advancements in growing practices and technologies that have 
occurred since the original poultry class standards were developed are 
prevalent throughout the industry, regardless of the size of the 
entity. This rule merely updates existing regulations to reflect 
current poultry characteristics and production practices used 
throughout the entire industry. In fact, by lowering the age definition 
for five classes of poultry, this rule benefits the small and very 
small establishments as well as the large ones. It is voluntary if the 
establishments want to sell the large broilers as roasters; and if they 
decide to do so, the perceived benefits must outweigh the associated 
cost, such as labeling changes.
    The Agency has considered two alternatives to this rulemaking. The 
first alternative is no rulemaking and to keep the old definitions. 
However, these definitions fail to take into account current poultry 
production practices, which have generally shortened the period of time 
required for poultry to gain market-ready weights. The second option is 
to use a weight range to define turkey and roaster classes. However, 
for turkeys, the Agency found such a class system would not accurately 
distinguish birds that differ significantly in relevant 
characteristics. As for roasters, information also suggests that 
classifying by weight alone is not an accepted practice industry-wide. 
In any case, both the alternatives would apply to the entire industry, 
and neither would have a differential effect on the small and very 
small establishments.

Paperwork Requirements

    FSIS has reviewed this rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and has determined that the information 
collection related to labeling has been approved by OMB under OMB 
Control Number 0583-0092.
    FSIS does not anticipate many changes of labels due to changes in 
classification of poultry because many establishments are already using 
terms that meet the classifications established by this rule. In 
addition, the natural turnover of labels for poultry produced in a 
federally inspected facility will allow poultry establishments to 
incorporate label redesigns into one modification in 2-year increments 
based on the Uniform Compliance Date for Food Labeling Regulations (75 
FR 71344). This rule established January 1, 2014, as the uniform 
compliance date for new meat and poultry product labeling regulations 
that are issued between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012. Hence, 
there will be basically no additional paperwork burden for 
establishments.

Executive Order 13175

    This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation 
will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and 
will not have significant Tribal implications.

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

    USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 
the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, 
disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or 
family status (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs).
    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 
communication of program information (Braille, large print, and 
audiotape) should contact USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 
and TTY).
    To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office 
of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). 
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Additional Public Notification

    FSIS will announce this final rule online through the FSIS Web page 
located at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Interim_&_Final_Rules/index.asp. FSIS will also make copies of this Federal 
Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, 
which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, 
procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public 
meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be 
of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is 
communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service 
for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health 
professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The 
Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. In addition, FSIS offers 
an electronic mail subscription service which provides automatic and 
customized access to selected food safety news and information. This 
service is available at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Email_Subscription/. Options range from recalls to export information 
to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or

[[Page 68064]]

delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password 
protect their accounts.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 381

    Food grades and standards, Poultry and poultry products.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, FSIS amends 9 CFR part 381 
as follows:

PART 381--POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f; 7 U.S.C. 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR 
2.18, 2.53.


0
2. Section 381.170 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  381.170  Standards for kinds and classes, and for cuts of raw 
poultry.

    (a) The following standards specify the various classes of the 
specified kinds of poultry and the requirements for each class:
    (1) Chickens--(i) Rock Cornish game hen or Cornish game hen. A 
``Rock Cornish game hen'' or ``Cornish game hen'' is a young, immature 
chicken (less than 5 weeks of age), of either sex, with a ready-to-cook 
carcass weight of not more than 2 pounds.
    (ii) Broiler or fryer. A ``broiler'' or ``fryer'' is a young 
chicken (less than 10 weeks of age), of either sex, that is tender-
meated with soft, pliable, smooth-textured skin and flexible breastbone 
cartilage.
    (iii) Roaster or roasting chicken. A ``roaster'' or ``roasting 
chicken'' is a young chicken (between 8 and 12 weeks of age), of either 
sex, with a ready-to-cook carcass weight of 5 pounds or more, that is 
tender-meated with soft, pliable, smooth-textured skin and breastbone 
cartilage that is somewhat less flexible than that of a broiler or 
fryer.
    (iv) Capon. A ``capon'' is a surgically neutered male chicken (less 
than 4 months of age) that is tender-meated with soft, pliable, smooth-
textured skin.
    (v) Hen, fowl, baking chicken, or stewing chicken. A ``hen,'' 
``fowl,'' ``baking chicken,'' or ``stewing chicken'' is an adult female 
chicken (more than 10 months of age) with meat less tender than that of 
a roaster or roasting chicken and a nonflexible breastbone tip.
    (vi) Cock or rooster. A ``cock'' or ``rooster'' is an adult male 
chicken with coarse skin, toughened and darkened meat, and a 
nonflexible breastbone tip.
    (2) Turkeys--(i) Fryer-roaster turkey. A ``fryer-roaster turkey'' 
is an immature turkey (less than 12 weeks of age), of either sex, that 
is tender-meated with soft, pliable, smooth-textured skin, and flexible 
breastbone cartilage.
    (ii) Young turkey. A ``young turkey'' is a turkey (less than 8 
months of age), of either sex, that is tender-meated with soft, 
pliable, smooth-textured skin and breastbone cartilage that is less 
flexible than that of a fryer-roaster turkey.
    (iii) Yearling turkey. A ``yearling turkey'' is a turkey (less than 
15 months of age), of either sex, that is reasonably tender-meated with 
reasonably smooth-textured skin.
    (iv) Mature or old (hen or tom) turkey. A ``mature turkey'' or 
``old turkey'' is an adult turkey (more than 15 months of age), of 
either sex, with coarse skin and toughened flesh. Sex designation is 
optional.
    (3) Ducks--(i) Duckling. A ``duckling'' is a young duck (less than 
8 weeks of age), of either sex, that is tender-meated and has a soft 
bill and soft windpipe.
    (ii) Roaster duck. A ``roaster duck'' is a young duck (less than 16 
weeks of age), of either sex, that is tender-meated and has a bill that 
is not completely hardened and a windpipe that is easily dented.
    (iii) Mature duck or old duck. A ``mature duck'' or an ``old duck'' 
is an adult duck (more than 6 months of age), of either sex, with 
toughened flesh, a hardened bill, and a hardened windpipe.
    (4) Geese--(i) Young goose. A ``young goose'' is an immature goose, 
of either sex, that is tender-meated and has a windpipe that is easily 
dented.
    (ii) Mature goose or old goose. A ``mature goose'' or ``old goose'' 
is an adult goose, of either sex, that has toughened flesh and a 
hardened windpipe.
    (5) Guineas--(i) Young guinea. A ``young guinea'' is an immature 
guinea, of either sex, that is tender-meated and has a flexible 
breastbone cartilage.
    (ii) Mature guinea or old guinea. A ``mature guinea'' or ``old 
guinea'' is an adult guinea, of either sex, that has toughened flesh 
and a non-flexible breastbone.
* * * * *

    Done at Washington, DC on October 27, 2011.
Alfred V. Almanza,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-28525 Filed 11-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P