[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31562-31566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15124]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
[Docket No. 97-037N]
Interstate Distribution of State-Inspected Meat and Poultry
Products
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is soliciting
comments on ways it can improve Federal and State cooperation in the
implementation of the Federal meat and poultry inspection laws, and on
whether, and if so how, those laws should be amended to permit meat and
poultry products inspected by State inspection programs to be
distributed in interstate commerce. State inspection programs are
authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) to inspect meat and poultry
establishments that prepare products intended for use as human food
solely for distribution within the State under requirements ``at least
equal to'' those imposed under Federal inspection.
DATES: The meetings will be held on June 16 and 17, 1997, in Sioux
Falls, SD, and on July 22, 1997, in Washington, DC. Written information
and comments will be accepted and made a part of the record of these
proceedings through August 22, 1997.
ADDRESSES: The first meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
on June 16 and from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on June 17, 1997, at the
Radisson Encore Inn, 4300 Empire Place, Sioux Falls, SD 57106-6525;
telephone (605) 361-6684. The second meeting will be held from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on July 22, 1997, in the Ticonderoga Room of the
Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20001. Persons sending written comments should send an
original and two copies to the FSIS Docket Clerk, Docket No. 97-037N,
Room 102 Annex Building, 300 12th Street, SW, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
20250-3700.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Persons wishing to participate in
either of the two meetings are requested to register by contacting Ms.
Traci Phebus by telephone at (202) 501-7138, by FAX at (202) 501-7642,
or by E-mail at [email protected]. Participants may reserve a 5-
minute comment period when they register. More time may be available,
depending on the number of people wishing to make a presentation and
the time needed for questions, following the presentations.
Reservations will be confirmed on a first-come, first-served basis.
Written comments may also be submitted for the record at the meetings.
For questions about the meetings contact Mr. Ralph Stafko at (202) 720-
7774, or FAX at (202) 720-2345. Participants who require a sign
language interpreter or other special accommodations should contact Ms.
Jennifer Callahan at (202) 501-7138.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A number of State Departments of Agriculture
operating their own meat and poultry inspection programs have expressed
various concerns about the relationship between the State programs and
the Federal meat and poultry inspection program, and, in addition, have
advocated amendments in Federal laws to permit State-inspected meat and
poultry products to be distributed in interstate commerce. FSIS will
conduct public hearings to explore these concerns and any recommended
alternative policies and procedures, including proposals to amend
Federal laws to improve the cooperative relationship between Federal
and State meat and poultry inspection programs. The following
information is provided in order to encourage the discussion of these
issues and the submission of relevant information and comment.
Background
FSIS must provide Federal inspection at any meat and poultry
establishment that produces meat and poultry products for interstate or
foreign commerce, or that produces such products for intrastate
commerce if the State in which it is located does not operate its own
program. Those approximately 6,500 establishments, encompassing very
large to very small establishments, produce the vast majority of the
nation's inspected meat and poultry products slaughtered and processed
in the United States.
Twenty-six states operate their own inspection programs, which
collectively inspect approximately 2,800 mostly small and mid-size meat
and poultry plants (Table 1). Estimates of the proportion of the
nation's meat and poultry products that are State-inspected have ranged
as high as 7 percent. FSIS data, limited to slaughter operations and
not accounting for processed products, show that State-inspected
establishments slaughter commercially a little more than 1 percent of
the nation's livestock and a small fraction of 1 percent of the
nation's poultry by weight.
To ensure that States are enforcing requirements ``at least equal
to'' the Federal requirements, FSIS inspection program personnel work
directly with State inspection officials providing advice and guidance
on Federal inspection requirements on a continuing basis and also
conduct periodic reviews of the State inspection programs. FSIS reviews
each State program's State Performance Plan (SPP) annually. The SPP is
a compilation of applicable State laws and regulations, program
resources, and current operations and enforcement activities (FSIS
Directive 5720.2, Cooperative Inspection Programs). In addition, teams
of FSIS experts periodically conduct comprehensive on-site reviews,
including random sampling of records and inspection of conditions in
State-inspected plants. State programs are rated as: 1, Acceptable; 2,
Acceptable with Minor Variations; 3, Acceptable with Significant
Variations; and 4,
[[Page 31563]]
Unacceptable. A ``1'' is reviewed at least every 5 years; a ``2'' at
least every 4 years; a ``3'' at least every 3 years; and a ``4'' as
frequently as necessary, depending on the nature of the findings.
Presently, 6 States are rated ``1'', 14 States are rated ``2'', and 6
States are rated ``3''.
If a State does not have an ``at least equal to'' State inspection
program, the State is designated by FSIS as one in which Federal
inspection must be provided for all meat and poultry establishments
requiring inspection under Federal law, regardless of whether the
establishments' products are distributed solely within the State.
Currently, 24 States have no meat and poultry inspection programs.
(Table 2).
In addition to the State administered meat and poultry inspection
programs, State agencies also enforce adulteration and mislabeling
requirements of State and local laws governing meat and poultry
products in commercial channels outside inspected establishments.
Although the products are concurrently subject to FMIA and PPIA
adulteration and mislabeling provisions, FSIS relies heavily on State
and local agencies to ensure inspected products are kept safe,
wholesome, and properly labeled as they are handled during
distribution, and prepared and held for sale to consumers at retail
stores and restaurants.
Federal Support of State and Local Programs
State meat and poultry inspection programs are an integral part of
the Federal regulatory system for ensuring the safety of the nation's
meat and poultry products. Accordingly, the FMIA and PPIA provide for
FSIS cooperation with State agencies in carrying out the provisions of
the Federal inspection laws and specify that FSIS may furnish State
agencies advisory assistance, technical and laboratory assistance and
training, and financial and other aid for administration of the State
programs--up to 50 percent of the cost of any State's program.
Currently, FSIS provides about $40.5 million to 26 States for
administering the State inspection programs. In addition, FSIS
allocates funds specifically for training assistance to State programs.
Some States have found that despite Federal support, they cannot
maintain a State inspection program, and have deferred to FSIS to
conduct all meat and poultry inspection within their States. Even in
States maintaining inspection programs, State legislatures sometimes
appropriate less than 50 percent of the (USDA) estimated cost, thereby
reducing proportionately the amount of Federal money contributed to the
State program. In those cases, non-monetary Federal assistance in areas
such as training is especially important to the State programs.
In addition to 50 percent Federal funding of, and non-monetary
assistance to, State inspection programs, FSIS from time to time enters
into cooperative agreements with State agencies and provides funding
for those agencies to conduct Federal inspection, or other enforcement
activities under FMIA and PPIA within those States. This authority is
provided under the Talmadge-Aiken Act, which gives the Secretary
authority to enter into such agreements ``[i]n order to avoid
duplication of functions, facilities and personnel, and to attain
closer coordination and greater effectiveness and economy in
administration of Federal and State laws * * * within his area of
responsibility * * *'' (7 U.S.C. 450). Currently, FSIS has agreements
under its Federal-State Cooperative Inspection Program with 9 States,
under which employees of State inspection agencies carry out Federal
inspection in 255 establishments under USDA supervision (Table 3). FSIS
provides 50 percent funding for that work.
The President's Food Safety Initiative directs USDA and other
Federal food safety and public health agencies to improve coordination
and cooperation among themselves and with State and local governments
on food safety matters. The Initiative recognizes the importance of
State and local food safety agencies and provides for additional
Federal support of those State and local activities. For example, the
Initiative would improve training of State inspectors in Federal food
safety standards and provide to States equipment and technology for
rapid sharing of inspection results to develop a national database for
monitoring all food inspections.
FSIS is working closely with FDA, State and local governments, and
organizations representing industry, consumers, and public health
professionals to promote more effective food safety programs. FSIS also
is developing, in cooperation with the Association of Food and Drug
Officials, training and training materials on potentially high-risk
meat and poultry processing activities for State and local food
inspection agencies that oversee meat and poultry processing at retail
and food service operations. Although retail and food service
facilities generally are exempt from federally mandated inspection,
they are engaged in processing activities similar to those in inspected
establishments. In recognition of the need for more Federal support for
State agencies primarily responsible for regulating retail and food
service establishments, the Administration's 1998 FSIS budget requests
$565,000 for training State and local food inspectors on meat and
poultry processing and related food safety matters. In addition, FSIS
participates in the Partnership for Food Safety Education, a broad
alliance of industry, government, and other organizations, which is
developing a comprehensive plan for food safety education of consumers
and others who handle food.
FSIS believes it is essential to maintain and strengthen the State
administered meat and poultry inspection programs. FSIS officials
understand the concern of State officials of inspection programs that
the statutory requirement that State-inspected plants have Federal
inspection in order to ship interstate can result in a decrease in the
number of State-inspected plants and potentially threaten the viability
of the affected State program. Accordingly, FSIS solicits the views and
specific recommendations of all interested parties regarding how the
Agency can enhance its support of, and assist in improving, State
inspection programs under its current authorities.
Amending FMIA and PPIA
FSIS also is seeking comment on whether, and if so how, the FMIA
and PPIA should be amended to permit distribution of State-inspected
meat and poultry products in interstate commerce.
Some State Departments of Agriculture, mostly through the National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), contend that
because a State inspection program must be ``at least equal to''
Federal inspection, sales of State-inspected meat and poultry products
should not be limited to commercial distribution only in that State,
thereby denying State-inspected establishments access to markets that
could help them survive and prosper in an increasingly competitive
marketplace. Proponents of this view often cite the case where a State-
inspected plant located right next to the State line is cut off from
what would otherwise be a natural market because it is restricted to
intrastate sales. Many State program officials also point out that
while State-inspected products are restricted to intrastate sale,
imported products can be sold freely in any State.
Efforts to obtain statutory amendments that would permit
[[Page 31564]]
interstate distribution of State-inspected products led to a 1996
request for USDA to report to Congress on the issue. The Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, also known as the 1996
Farm Bill, directed the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress
a report concerning steps necessary to achieve interstate shipment of
products inspected under State programs that are ``at least equal to''
the Federal inspection program.
The Department submitted this report to Congress in July, 1996. The
report recommended that before State-inspected establishments are
authorized to ship products in interstate commerce, certain conditions
should be met: These conditions are: (1) States should implement FSIS's
Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point systems; (2)
FSIS resources would need to be adequate to accommodate any additional
oversight required to substantiate ``at least equal to'' status; (3)
such legislation should clarify that the Secretary retains ultimate
authority over products prepared for interstate commerce; and (4)
additional issues, mostly dealing with potential conflicts between
Federal and State laws, would have to be resolved.
Recently, two bills (H.R. 801 and H.R. 1137) have been introduced
in Congress to amend the FMIA and PPIA to permit the interstate
distribution of State-inspected meat and poultry. The Department has
determined that the changes proposed by these bills raise a number of
important food safety issues that require plenary discussion and
careful consideration. Some of the issues that need to be considered
are as follows:
Whether legislative changes to the FMIA and PPIA to
provide for interstate distribution of State-inspected products should
be enacted or made effective prior to implementation of HACCP?
Whether and, if so how, Federal oversight of State
programs should be strengthened in the event State-inspected products
are authorized to be shipped interstate?
Whether allowing the interstate distribution of State-
inspected products would lead to ``competing'' inspector programs among
the States and between the States and the Federal program, and also to
``forum shopping?''
Whether and how other pending or proposed regulatory
actions should be taken into account before any of the proposed
legislative changes are made effective? Further, there are a number of
jurisdictional issues central to the discussion:
Whether there would be concurrent State and Federal
jurisdiction regarding the denial/withdrawal/withholding of grants of
inspection?
Who would have jurisdiction over misbranding/adulteration
violations?
Whether States will have separate authority to detain/
seize/condemn/recall products in commercial channels outside plants?
The foregoing list of issues is not intended to be exhaustive. FSIS
welcomes discussion and comments on all issues related to the
interstate shipment of meat and poultry from State-inspected
establishments.
Done in Washington, DC, on: June 4, 1997.
Thomas J. Billy,
Administrator.
Table 1 summarizes the number of States at the end of fiscal year
1996 with intrastate inspection programs for meat (26) and poultry
(24); the number of State full-time equivalent staff years during
fiscal year 1996; and Federal funding assistance expended by States
during fiscal year 1996. ``M'' after the name of the State indicates
that the State conducted a meat inspection program; ``M&P'' indicates
that the State conducted meat and poultry inspection programs. In order
to continue operating intrastate inspection programs and to continue
receiving Federal funding assistance, States must maintain inspection
requirements at least equal to those of the Federal program.
Table 1.--State Inspection Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular plants Custom exempt plants
------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- Full time FY 1996
Meat and Total Meat and equivalent federal
Meat Poultry poultry Meat Poultry Poultry Total staff years assistance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA M&P................................ 70 5 3 78 20 0 0 20 15.5 1,274,376
ALASKA M&P................................. 7 0 8 15 1 0 0 1 5.0 341,155
ARIZONA M&P................................ 63 2 0 65 27 0 0 27 24.8 584,388
DELAWARE M&P............................... 1 0 2 3 3 1 3 7 10.5 212,604
FLORDIA \1\ M&P............................ 0 105 27 132 26 ........ ........ 26 79.0 1,966,547
GEORGIA M \2\.............................. 86 0 0 86 21 0 0 21 101.0 2,403,110
HAWAII \3\ M&P............................. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........... 293,200
ILLINOIS M&P............................... 208 21 101 330 15 4 2 21 122.0 4,359,261
INDIANA M&P................................ 48 7 74 129 20 6 1 27 85.0 1,652,715
IOWA M&P................................... 136 6 0 142 105 5 6 116 34.0 1,010,902
KANSAS M&P................................. 141 5 5 151 12 1 0 13 51.0 1,282,247
LOUSIANA M&P............................... 84 5 1 90 42 0 0 42 68.0 1,754,579
MISSISSIPPI M&P............................ 36 0 15 51 18 4 0 22 44.0 1,098,002
MONTANA M&P................................ 22 0 15 37 87 31 20 138 15.0 341,039
NEW MEXICO M&P............................. 38 0 0 38 13 0 0 13 15.0 418,650
NORTH CAROLINA M&P......................... 156 10 0 166 41 0 0 41 125.0 2,847,709
OHIO M&P................................... 151 17 91 259 58 14 1 73 133.0 4,616,502
OKLAHOMA M&P............................... 63 3 22 88 60 0 0 60 68.0 1,616,065
SOUTH CAROLINA M&P......................... 43 9 56 108 0 0 0 0 49.0 1,131,972
SOUTH DAKOTA M \2\......................... 53 0 0 53 51 0 0 51 21.0 479,771
TEXAS M&P.................................. 256 12 78 346 131 4 11 146 213.0 4,622,924
UTAH M&P................................... 29 0 8 37 48 2 0 50 29.3 770,926
VERMONT M&P................................ 16 1 1 18 12 2 0 14 14.2 283,578
VIRGINIA M&P............................... 24 3 4 31 136 0 2 138 42.0 1,292,494
WEST VIRGINIA M&P.......................... 30 0 0 30 42 0 0 42 26.0 597,101
WISCONSIN M&P.............................. 155 10 113 278 56 3 13 72 85.0 2,983,403
[[Page 31565]]
WYOMING M&P................................ 31 0 0 31 29 0 0 29 7.5 283,805
TOTAL...................................... 1,947 221 624 2,792 1,074 77 59 1,210 1,482.8 40,519,025
CALIFORNIA \1\............................. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 306 ........... 147,697
MINNESOTA \4\.............................. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 298 ........... 110,348
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FY 1995 figures. FY 1996 figures not available at this time.
\2\ Poultry Program is under Federal jurisdiction.
\3\ The Hawaii Program was designated November 1, 1995 so other statistics are not available.
\4\ Official plants are under Federal jurisdiction. Custom exempt facilities are reviewed under State contract.
*All Federal assistance amounts are estimates.
Table 2 lists the dates the Department assumed inspection of meat
and poultry products for intrastate sale in designated States as of
September 28, 1996. All plants in designated States come under Federal
inspection and their products can be sold in interstate commerce.
Table 2.--Dates USDA Assumed Intrastate Inspection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Meat Poultry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas........................................ 06/01/81 01/02/71
California...................................... 04/01/76 04/01/76
Colorado........................................ 07/01/75 01/02/71
Connecticut..................................... 10/01/75 10/01/75
Georgia......................................... (\1\) 01/02/71
Hawaii.......................................... 11/01/95 11/01/95
Idaho........................................... 07/01/81 01/02/71
Kentucky........................................ 01/14/72 07/28/71
Maine........................................... 05/12/80 01/02/71
Maryland........................................ 04/01/91 04/01/91
Massachusetts................................... 01/12/76 01/12/76
Michigan........................................ 10/03/81 01/02/71
Minnesota....................................... 05/16/71 01/02/71
Missouri........................................ 08/18/72 08/18/72
Nebraska........................................ 10/01/71 07/28/71
Nevada.......................................... 07/01/73 07/01/73
New Hampshire................................... 08/07/78 08/07/78
New Jersey...................................... 07/01/75 07/01/75
New York........................................ 07/16/75 04/11/77
North Dakota.................................... 06/22/70 01/02/71
Oregon.......................................... 07/01/72 01/02/71
Pennsylvania.................................... 07/17/72 10/31/71
Rhode Island.................................... 10/01/81 10/01/81
South Dakota.................................... (\1\) 01/02/71
Tennessee....................................... 10/01/75 10/01/75
Washington...................................... 06/01 /73 06/01/73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(\1\) Indicates USDA has not assumed meat inspection in the State shown.
Table 3 lists the number of meat, poultry, and other plants
inspected under Federal-State Cooperative Inspection Program (FSCIP)
agreements as of September 28, 1996. FSCIP agreements permit State
employees to carry out inspection in federally inspected plants.
Table 3.--Federal-State Cooperative Inspection Plants (Formerly Talmadge-Aiken)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat and
State Meat Poultry poultry Sub Other Grand
plants plants plants total plants total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. 20 0 0 20 0 20
Georgia............................................. 11 0 41 52 0 52
Illinois............................................ 18 2 10 30 0 30
Mississippi......................................... 5 0 14 19 0 19
North Carolina...................................... 51 3 0 54 0 54
Oklahoma............................................ 13 0 1 14 0 14
Texas............................................... 7 1 14 22 0 22
Utah................................................ 8 0 5 13 0 13
Virginia............................................ 9 1 21 31 0 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 142 7 106 255 0 255
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31566]]
[FR Doc. 97-15124 Filed 6-5-97; 1:51 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P