[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66826-66840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26639]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 317, 318, 320, 327, 331, 381, 412, and 424
[Docket No. 99-021F; FDMS Docket Number FSIS-2005-0016]
RIN 0583-AC59
Prior Label Approval System: Generic Label Approval
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the
meat and poultry products inspection regulations to expand the
circumstances in which FSIS will generically approve the labels of meat
and poultry products. The Agency also is consolidating the regulations
that provide for the approval of labels for meat products and poultry
products into a new Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part.
DATES: This rule is effective January 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Canavan, Deputy Director,
Labeling and Program Delivery Staff, Office of Policy and Program
Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Stop Code 3784, Patriots Plaza 3, 8-161A, 1400
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700; Telephone (301)
504-0879; Fax (202) 245-4792.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and
the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Agriculture to maintain meat and poultry
product inspection programs designed to assure consumers that meat and
poultry products distributed to them (including imports) are safe,
wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
They also prohibit the sale or offer for sale by any person, firm, or
corporation of any article in commerce under any name or other marking
or labeling that is false or misleading or in any container of a
misleading form or size.\1\ FSIS has interpreted these provisions as
requiring that the Secretary of Agriculture or his or her
representative approve all labels used on federally inspected and
passed, and imported, meat and poultry products before the products are
distributed in commerce. Without approved labels, meat and poultry
products may not be sold, offered for sale, or otherwise distributed in
commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 21 U.S.C. 607(d); 21 U.S.C. 457(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that meat and poultry products comply with the FMIA and
PPIA and their implementing regulations, FSIS conducts a prior approval
program for labels that are to be used on federally inspected meat and
poultry products and imported products (see 9 CFR 317.4, 317.5, 327.14,
381.132, 381.133, 381.134, and 381.205). Under the current program,
FSIS evaluates sketches of labels for approval. A ``sketch label'' is a
printer's proof or other version that clearly shows all required label
features, size, location, and indication of final color. To obtain
sketch label approval, domestic meat and poultry establishments and
certified foreign establishments, or their representatives, submit
sketch labels to FSIS for evaluation, except when the label is
generically approved by the Agency under 9 CFR 317.5 or 381.133.
Generic label approval refers to the prior approval of labels or
modifications to labels by the Agency without submitting such labels to
FSIS for sketch approval. Generic label approval requires that all
mandatory label features be in conformance with FSIS regulations (9 CFR
317.5(a)(1) and 381.133(a)(1)). Although such labels are not submitted
to FSIS for approval, they are deemed to be approved and, therefore,
may be applied to product in accordance with the Agency's prior label
approval system. Sections 317.5 and 381.133 also list the types of
labels and modifications to labels that are deemed to be approved
without submission to FSIS, as long as the label displays all mandatory
label features in
[[Page 66827]]
conformance with applicable Federal regulations.
FSIS is finalizing its proposal to amend the meat and poultry
products inspection regulations to expand the circumstances in which
FSIS will generically approve the labels of meat and poultry products.
The Agency also is consolidating the regulations that provide for the
approval of labels for meat products (9 CFR 317.4) and poultry products
(9 CFR 381.132) into a new part 412 in title 9 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR).
Table 1--Summary of Estimated Costs and Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated quantified benefits, costs, and net benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Annualized net
benefits (7% benefits (7%
Entity discount, Annualized costs discount,
millions $) millions $) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishments...................................... $1.944 $0 $1.944
Agency.............................................. .640 0 .640
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 2.584 0 2.584
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Annualized total net benefits at a 3% discount rate are $2.211 million.
Background
Proposed Rule
On December 5, 2011, FSIS published a proposed rule to amend the
meat and poultry products inspection regulations (9 CFR 317.5 and
381.133) to expand the circumstances under which the labels of meat and
poultry products would be deemed to be generically approved \2\ by the
Agency (76 FR 75809). FSIS also proposed to combine the regulations
that provide for the approval of labels for meat products and for
poultry products (9 CFR 317.4 and 381.132) into a new part 412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Generic label approval refers to the prior approval of
labels or modifications to labels by the Agency without submitting
such labels to FSIS for sketch approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After review and consideration of all comments, FSIS is finalizing
the proposed rule with four changes. FSIS proposed to stop evaluating
the mandatory features on labels that are generically approved but have
been submitted for review because they contain a special statement or
claim. In response to comments, however, the Agency has decided
continue to provide for the review of all labels. However, labels that
cannot be generically approved will receive first priority. Labels that
qualify for generic approval will receive second priority and may take
longer to be reviewed.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, FSIS said that statements on
labels that are defined in FSIS's regulations or policy guidance would
not need to be submitted to FSIS for evaluation. However, the
accompanying regulatory text only referred to statements that are
defined in FSIS's regulations as generically approved. Therefore, to
clarify FSIS's intent in the proposed rule, FSIS has amended 9 CFR
412.1(e) to provide that claims and statements that are defined in
FSIS's regulations or in the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book,
except for ``natural'' and negative claims, and that comply with those
regulations and policies, are deemed to be approved by the Agency
without being submitted for evaluation and approval. The Agency has
also amended 412.2(b) to require that labels that bear claims and
statements that are not defined in the Federal meat and poultry
products inspection regulations or in the Food Standards and Labeling
Policy Book, including ``natural'' and negative claims, be submitted
for approval.
Under the proposed rule, labeling with special statements or claims
that has been reviewed by other Government agencies could not be
generically approved under the Agency's regulations. However, in
response to comments, FSIS has determined that a label bearing a child-
nutrition (CN) box will not be considered to have a special statement
or claim on it that would require sketch approval by FSIS. The CN
information in CN boxes is reviewed and evaluated for approval by the
Agricultural Marketing Service, removing it from the realm of a special
statement or claim.
Also in response to comments asking that the Agency update the Food
Standards and Labeling Policy Book before this final rule is published,
FSIS has decided to stop adding policy guidance to it. FSIS will
continue to amend or remove items in the book, as necessary, but it
will no longer add new material to it beginning on the date that this
final rule is published. The Agency will convey new labeling policy by
other means, such as compliance policy guides.
Final Rule
This final rule is consistent with the proposed rule. The final
rule provides that establishments are required to submit for evaluation
only certain types of labeling, e.g., labels for temporary approval,
labels for products produced under religious exemption, labels for
products for export with labeling deviations, and labels with claims
and special statements. FSIS will continue to require the submission of
such labels because they are more likely to present significant policy
issues that have health or economic significance. Examples of labels
that must continue to be submitted for evaluation and approval before
use under the final rule are: (1) Labels for chicken produced under
Buddhist exemption; (2) labels for beef intestine produced for export
to China that identify the product as ``beef casings,'' and (3) labels
for temporary use that do not list all ingredients in the correct order
of predominance.
Examples of special statements and claims for use on labels that
must also continue to be submitted for evaluation and approval before
use under the final rule are: (1) Claims relating a product's nutrient
content to a health or a disease condition; (2) statements that
identify a product as ``organic'' or containing organic ingredients;
(3) claims that are undefined in FSIS regulations or the Food Standards
and Labeling Policy Book, e.g., claims regarding the raising of
animals, such as ``no antibiotics administered'' or ``vegetarian fed'';
(4) instructional or disclaimer statements concerning pathogens, e.g.,
``for cooking only'' or ``not tested for E. coli O157:H7;'' and (5)
statements that identify a product as ``natural.''
Under this final rule, statements on labels that are defined in
FSIS's regulations or the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book,
except for
[[Page 66828]]
``natural'' and negative claims, may be generically approved by the
Agency without being submitted for evaluation and approval. Such claims
include a statement that characterizes a product's nutrient content
that is consistent with the applicable Agency regulation, such as ``low
fat;'' that has geographical significance, such as ``Italian Style;''
or that makes a country of origin statement on the label of any meat or
poultry product ``covered commodity.'' Consistent with the proposed
rule, FSIS will not view the addition of an allergen statement (e.g.,
``contains soy'') applied in accordance with the Food Allergen Labeling
and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA) as a special statement or claim
that requires sketch approval.
Under this final rule, a label bearing a child-nutrition (CN) box
will not be considered to have a special statement or claim on it that
would require sketch approval by FSIS. The CN information in CN boxes
is reviewed and evaluated for approval by the Agricultural Marketing
Service, removing it from the realm of special statements or claims.
Therefore, under this final rule a CN box on a meat or poultry product
is generically approved.
When this rule becomes effective, labels that do not qualify for
generic approval will receive first priority for review. Labels that do
qualify for generic approval will receive a lower or second priority.
FSIS is also reorganizing the regulations in this final rule by
consolidating the labeling approval rules that currently are presented
separately for meat and poultry products (in 9 CFR 317.4 and 381.132,
respectively) into a single, new part, 9 CFR Part 412. FSIS believes
that the public will be better served by having the regulations
governing label approval consolidated in one part of title 9. Rather
than searching through two separate parts of title 9, 317 and 381, to
find the label approval regulations, interested parties will only have
to survey one, part 412, to be able to apply generically approved
labels to their meat and poultry products.
Summary of and Response to Comments
FSIS received 47 separate comments to the proposed regulation from
consumers (6), students (5), meat and poultry companies (9), trade
associations (13), label consultants (8), health related sources (5),
and an agriculture center. Just over half of the comments supported the
proposal to expand generic approval. Of those, a great majority
suggested expanding the generic approval system beyond that which the
Agency proposed. These commenters supported the rule on the grounds
that it will streamline and modernize the prior label approval system,
thereby reducing the volume of paperwork and labels that need to be
filed with FSIS. They also stated that it will decrease costs and
utilize FSIS and industry resources more effectively. These commenters
also stated that industry members will be able to devise their own
approval systems, gaining time that is lost to long Agency approval
times. Commenters stated that the efficient use of industry resources
will also lead to faster introduction of innovative products into the
marketplace and the enhancement of food safety.
Approximately nineteen commenters opposed the rule. The major
reason for their opposition was concern about allergen listings on
labels. Finally, seven of the comments were outside the scope of the
rule. These commenters addressed issues such as the inclusion of
Country of Origin Labeling on all labels; the production and sale of
labels by USDA; developing better definitions of ``gluten free'' and
``wheat free;'' defining terms like ``natural;'' and reconsidering the
amenability of flavors. A summary of the relevant issues raised by
commenters and the Agency's responses follows.
1. Allergens
Comment: Numerous commenters believe that FSIS review of labels is
a critical part of ensuring the accuracy of the ingredients statement
on meat and poultry products. Commenters opposed to the proposal said
that it would reduce oversight in a critical food safety area and, for
that reason, would increase the likelihood that meat and poultry
products containing undeclared allergens would enter the marketplace,
and that more recalls would occur. One commenter stated that it was
important to have FSIS review food labels and take steps to be certain
that labels are clear and accurate.
Response: FSIS disagrees that the expansion of generic labeling
will increase the likelihood that meat and poultry products will enter
the marketplace with undeclared allergens. One of the purposes of prior
label review is to ensure that the up to eight labeling features
required by the meat and poultry products inspection regulations are
present on the label, and that any claims are appropriately supported.
Another purpose is to identify undefined claims, ad copy, or other
information that may be false or misleading.
Prior label review does not, however, involve comparing the
information on a label directly with the ingredients actually used in
the food product that is to bear the label--the only way to determine
whether allergens that have not been declared on the label have
actually been used in the product. It is for inspection program
personnel (IPP) to conduct reviews of this kind in the establishment,
after the relevant label has been approved, whether generically or on a
per-case basis by label reviewers in Washington, DC. IPP review labels
and compare them to actual product formulations to verify that that the
ingredients used in the production of the product are listed accurately
on the label, that the label is not misleading, and that it is
otherwise in compliance with all labeling requirements.
There were 30 allergen-related recalls of meat and poultry products
during 2012. None of those recalls, however, resulted from changes that
could have been identified through the Agency label review process. In
some cases, labeling errors occurred because an establishment switched
to a different supplier for a spice mix or blend used in product
production but then did not check the new list of ingredients against
its label inventory to ensure that they matched. Similarly, in other
cases ingredient reformulations or product reformulations that changed
the sub-listing of ingredients were not reflected on a product's label.
Other labeling errors resulted from production mistakes, such as
packaging the product in the wrong box.
More than 85 percent of the allergen-related recalls over the past
year occurred as a result of something that happened after the label in
question was approved by FSIS, a situation that prior label approval
could obviously not change.
Under 9 CFR 317.2(f) and 381.118, establishments are required to
list all ingredients used to formulate meat and poultry products in the
ingredients statement on the product label, including potential
allergens. FSIS's prior label review is not and cannot be a substitute
for the careful application of labels to products by the meat and
poultry industry.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Agency require the
declaration of major allergens on the labels of FSIS-regulated foods.
Response: While a separate statement addressing specific allergens
in the product is not mandatory for meat and poultry products as it is
with foods regulated under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer
Protection Act of 2004 (FALCPA), Public Law 108-282,
[[Page 66829]]
all ingredients in meat and poultry products must be listed on the
label in the ingredients statement. As a result, all allergens are
listed on the product. In addition, through its prior label approval
system, FSIS is aware that most establishments are voluntarily
including information consistent with the Food Allergen Labeling and
Consumer Production Act of 2004 at the end of the ingredients
statement, such as, ``contains milk and soy.'' FSIS plans to continue
to monitor allergen statements, which establishments may apply
voluntarily to labels, and will not initiate rulemaking to make
allergen statements a required label feature. FSIS intends to continue
to use its post-market surveillance activities to ensure that labels
containing statements of this type are not false or misleading and
comply with all applicable Federal regulations. FSIS also has no plans
to require the listing of specific allergens on meat and poultry
product labels.
2. Resource Issues
Comment: Some commenters said that industry does not understand the
regulations sufficiently, or have the resources, to produce accurate
labels without prior review of them by FSIS. A few were concerned that
small and very small establishments will need to secure expensive legal
and regulatory expertise to determine compliance with labeling
requirements. They and others were also troubled by the Agency's
decision to stop evaluating mandatory features that are generically
approvable on a label submitted for review because of a special
statement or claim.
Response: FSIS will provide labeling guidance so that small and
very small establishments should not need to hire experts or additional
staff to comply with FSIS's labeling requirements. In addition to the
labeling guidance already available on the FSIS Web site, the Agency
plans to develop additional materials to assist industry when applying
labeling regulations and policies. While there is a good deal of
information currently located on the Web site, it is not consolidated
in one location. FSIS intends to better organize the Web site to make
it easier for interested parties to find labeling and standards
information posted there. Furthermore, the new web-based Label
Submission and Approval System (LSAS) includes a ``generic label
advisor'' to assist establishments in determining whether labels are
generically approved or require sketch approval. FSIS also intends to
develop Webinars and PowerPoint presentations on generic labeling to
provide information to industry.
To implement this rule, FSIS will issue instructions to field
personnel on their responsibilities related to expanded generic label
approval. In addition, FSIS staff will be available to answer questions
pertaining to generic approvals of labels.
In response to comments indicating a desire to continue submitting
labels to FSIS for guidance, evaluation, and approval, the Agency has
decided to continue to provide for the review of all labels. However,
labels that cannot be generically approved will receive first priority.
Labels submitted that can be generically approved will receive second
priority and may take longer to be reviewed. While FSIS prioritizes its
workload, establishments may commence to market their products with
labels that have already been submitted for review. Reviewing these
labels on a priority basis will not affect the Agency's projected cost
savings.
As a result of its decision to continue providing for the review of
all labels, FSIS, as a commenter asked, has not revised the regulatory
text to state that the Agency will review only the special statement or
claim, and not the rest of the submitted label, unless otherwise
requested.
Comment: One commenter asked FSIS to streamline and improve the
label submission form and the amount of information required to be
submitted with it, eliminating, for example, the submission of
processing procedures and the exact level of ingredients.
Response: While FSIS will consider ways that it can improve the
label submission form, FSIS will continue to require the submission of
information on processing procedures under 9 CFR 320.1 and 381.175 to
assess whether the processing and labeling of the product is consistent
with Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) category. FSIS
needs this information to verify statements or claims on the label. The
information on processing procedures need not be extensive. FSIS
accepts information on processing procedures as long as it is
sufficient to allow the Agency to verify that the label is consistent
with the product's processing. For example, the processing information
submitted for a product label needs to be sufficient to justify its
label description as ``smoked'' or ``cooked.''
Similarly, it is not necessary for an establishment to submit the
exact levels of a product ingredient. FSIS will continue to accept a
range for ingredients in a product formula, except for ingredients with
regulatory limits established in FSIS or Food and Drug Administration
regulations, if the establishment maintains the correct order of
predominance.
3. Claims and Statements Defined in Guidance Documents
Comment: Several commenters asked what claims and statements
defined in policy guidance may be considered to be generically
approved. Several commenters also pointed to an inconsistency between
the preamble of the proposed rule and its regulatory text. In the
preamble (76 FR 75814), FSIS wrote:
. . . statements on labels that are defined in FSIS's
regulations or policy guidance, e.g., a statement that characterizes
a product's nutrient content, such as ``low fat''; that has
geographical significance, such as ``Italian Style''; or that makes
a country of origin statement on the label of any meat or poultry
product ``covered commodity,'' will not need to be submitted to FSIS
for evaluation.
However, the accompanying regulatory text only referred to
statements that are defined in FSIS's regulations as generically
approved.
Response: In the final rule, to clarify FSIS's intent in the
proposed rule, in 9 CFR 412.2(b) FSIS has provided that claims and
statements that are defined in FSIS's regulations or in the Food
Standards and Labeling Policy Book, (e.g., a statement that
characterizes a product's nutrient content, such as ``low fat,'' has
geographical significance, such as ``German Brand,'' or makes a country
of origin statement on the label of any meat or poultry product
``covered commodity''), except for ``natural'' and negative claims, and
that comply with those regulations and policies, are deemed to be
approved by the Agency without being submitted for evaluation and
approval. Similarly, in 9 CFR 412.1(e), FSIS is requiring that labels
that bear claims and statements that are not defined in the Federal
meat and poultry products inspection regulations or in the Food
Standards and Labeling Policy Book, including ``natural'' and negative
claims, be submitted for approval.
Therefore, interim policy guidance and other guidance not included
in the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book cannot be deemed
approved without evaluation and review by FSIS. Interim policy
typically involves novel labeling statements or claims that present
significant public health or economic issues and that constitute
special statements or claims. Other guidance not included in the Food
Standards and Labeling Policy Book includes animal production claims;
omega fatty acid guidance; allergen claims, such as ``milk free''; and
whole grain claims. The Agency must approve
[[Page 66830]]
these statements or claims on a case-by-case basis.
Note that if a special statement or claim has been approved for an
establishment under the current system, the establishment will not need
to resubmit the label bearing it under this new final rule. It would
only have to resubmit the label if it added a new special statement or
claim to the previously approved label.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that FSIS make available a
comprehensive list or guide that outlines what statements or claims
need prior label approval.
Response: FSIS agrees that this is a good idea. We intend to
develop a guidance document concerning claims that can and cannot be
generically approved.
4. Expansion of Generic Labeling
Comment: As mentioned earlier, many of the commenters in favor of
the proposed rule suggested expanding the generic approval system
beyond that which was proposed.
Response: Many of the labels that commenters asked be generically
approved are, under 9 CFR 412.1, which is being added to FSIS's
regulations by this final rule, specifically required to be submitted
for evaluation and review by FSIS. Examples of such labels and
information are sketch labels for products produced under a religious
exemption, sketch labels for products for foreign commerce whose labels
deviate from FSIS regulations, special statements and claims, and
requests for the temporary use of final labeling that is deficient in
some particular. These labels are discussed later in this document.
Some of the commenters' suggested changes are not necessary
because, as proposed and under this final rule, the labeling statements
raised can be approved without prior submission to FSIS. An example
would be foreign language labels. One commenter stated that labels
containing foreign languages on products for sale in the U.S. that do
not have special statements or claims should not need sketch approval
from FSIS. While the current meat and poultry inspection regulations do
not permit the generic approval of a label adding or deleting a direct
translation of the English language into a foreign language for product
sold in the U.S.,\3\ this final rule will do so. These types of labels
do not fall into any of the categories of labels that must be submitted
to FSIS for evaluation and review. Another suggested change, that
modifications to product labels reflecting changes made by suppliers
should be generically approvable, is unnecessary. As in the proposal,
the final rule will permit these modifications to be generically
approved, and thus no expansion of the generic approval system is
needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 9 CFR 317.5(b)(9)(xxiv) and 381.133(b)(9)(xxv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were asked by a commenter if we intended to permit the generic
approval of previously approved labels containing special claims when
the only modification involves changes unrelated to the special claim.
The answer is yes. Previously approved labels containing special claims
may be generically approved if the only modification involves changes
unrelated to the special claim.
Comment: Many commenters asked that FSIS allow the generic approval
of final labels off of temporary labels, as well as the generic
approval of temporary label extensions. Several more suggested that
temporary labels that contain minor inaccuracies but present minor
health risks be deemed generically approved. Others sought generic
approval for different types of temporary labels on meat and poultry
products. For example, commenters suggested that FSIS generically
approve temporary labels when the ingredient list of a meat or poultry
product changes. Another asked for generic approval of temporary labels
on secondary products. Other commenters sought generic approval in
other situations, such as the removal of a non-USDA-regulated
ingredient from a product formula; a change of place in the order of
predominance of an ingredient in a food regulated by FDA used in the
formulation of a meat or poultry food product because of a change in
suppliers; and a modified ``blanket'' approval based on a single
temporary approval.
Response: After reviewing the comments, FSIS has determined that it
would be inappropriate to allow the following types of labels to be
deemed approved without Agency evaluation and review:
Labels bearing negative, ``natural,'' and ``organic'' claims: These
labels are not generically approvable because they are special claims,
as defined in 9 CFR 412.1(e) of this final rule.
The meat and poultry regulations do not define ``negative,''
``natural,'' or ``organic.'' ``Negative'' labeling claims are defined
in the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book. Negative claims refer
to statements highlighting the absence of an ingredient or another
constituent of the food, an example of which, ``gluten free,'' has been
codified in 9 CFR 412.1(e). ``No milk'' is another example of a
negative claim that highlights the absence of an ingredient or another
constituent of a food. A negative claim may also identify the absence
of certain types of ingredients, e.g., ``no preservatives'' or ``no
artificial coloring'' based on the product formulation. Consequently,
negative claims can vary greatly, from a specific ingredient to a class
of substances, making it difficult to determine whether a label bearing
this type of claim is compliant.
``Natural'' is also a claim that is undefined in FSIS's regulations
but is defined in the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book. However,
natural is a controversial claim which has come under great scrutiny in
the last several years and for which FSIS is considering rulemaking.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See ``Product Labeling: Definition of the Term ``Natural''
and related materials (71 FR 70503, Dec. 5, 2006) and ``Product
Labeling: Use of the Voluntary Claim ``Natural'' in the Labeling of
Meat and Poultry Products'' and related materials (74 FR 46951, Sep.
14, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Organic'' is not defined in FSIS's regulations. Consequently,
establishments may not be familiar with the Agency's requirements for
the support or application of this claim, which could result in
increased labeling errors and misbranded product. While industry is
familiar with the requirements for mandatory label features, as noted
in the proposed rule, the Agency believes that it needs to continue to
provide pre-market evaluation and approval of ``organic'' claims
because they present significant and evolving policy issues.
For the above reasons, FSIS must see the ingredients listing on a
label containing a negative, ``natural,'' or ``organic'' claim to be
able to verify its accuracy.
Labels marked ``for export only'' (previously sketch approved with
minor modifications): Exports of U.S. meat and poultry products occur
in the context of U.S. government-foreign government agreements. These
agreements require U.S. government approval of labels on meat and
poultry products to be exported. One aspect of this approval is
ensuring that any changes made to labels on meat and poultry products
are allowed per the importing country's laws. Therefore, labels marked
``for export only'' cannot be generically approved.
Labeling with special statements or claims that has been reviewed
by other Government agencies: Except for meat and poultry product
labels that bear child-nutrition (CN) boxes, which are reviewed and
approved by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS),
[[Page 66831]]
at this time, no other labeling that may be placed on meat and poultry
products is reviewed by other Government agencies. While agencies such
as FDA and AMS may have extra-regulatory processing marketing, or
verification programs, the labels applied to meat and poultry products
as part of these programs are not reviewed and approved by the other
agencies. Rather, these agencies are verifying the documented
production, manufacturing, or service delivery processes of suppliers
of agricultural products or services. Therefore, because only the
production, manufacturing, or service delivery process is being
verified by these agencies, and not the label itself, they may not be
generically approved under the Agency's regulations. In addition, the
statements on the labels are considered special statements or claims
that may not be approved without submission to and evaluation by FSIS.
Under this final rule, however, a label bearing a child-nutrition
(CN) box will not be considered to have a special statement or claim on
it that would require sketch approval by FSIS. The CN information in CN
boxes is reviewed and evaluated for approval by the Agricultural
Marketing Service, removing it from the realm of a special statement or
claim. Therefore, under this final rule, a CN box on a meat or poultry
product is generically approved.
Temporary label approvals and extensions: Temporary labels are not
good candidates for generic approval. Temporary label approvals may not
be used longer than 180 days. The Agency is concerned that allowing the
extension of temporary label approvals on a generic basis would result
in use of the labels well beyond the 180-day limit. Because the
temporary approval would have been granted generically, FSIS would have
no way of knowing the limit on the generic approval. In addition, the
regulations in this final rule that outline the conditions under which
temporary label approval may be granted are based on FSIS evaluating
and reviewing the labels, not industry. The regulations are not, in the
Agency's opinion, specific enough to assist establishments in
determining when a temporary label may be granted.
Some of the temporary labels for commenters recommend generic
approval would require establishments to assess the public health risk
of the modification at hand, e.g., the non-declaration on the label of
a particular ingredient. It would not be appropriate for establishments
to conduct such an assessment. FSIS needs to assess the public health
risk and potential economic adulteration when deciding to grant
approval for the use of a temporary label.
For these reasons, FSIS is not expanding the scope of generic
labeling approval to include temporary label approvals and extensions.
Religious exemptions: Generically approved labeling is not
appropriate for the labeling of religious-exempt product because such
product does not receive the mark of inspection and, therefore,
deviates from the general labeling requirements for meat and poultry
products.
Front-of-package labeling statements that meet the requirements for
nutrient content claims, including statements of quantity: FSIS
considers certain front-of-pack (FOP) labeling statements, such as
those highlighting select nutrients from the nutrition facts panel
placed on the principal display panel, to be nutrient content claims.
However, unlike traditional nutrient content claims, such as ``low
fat,'' that are defined in FSIS regulations, there are no guidelines
for the multiple types of FOP labeling statements on labeling.
Therefore, FSIS needs to continue to require prior evaluation and
approval by the Agency to ensure these statements are truthful and not
misleading.
Claims that may not present public health or economic concerns:
These labels might include marketing promotions, logos from recognized
third parties, and general wellness claims.
FSIS does not agree that labels such as these should be deemed to
be approved without Agency evaluation and review. As with some of the
temporary labels for which generic approval is being sought, whether a
label presents a food safety issue or not requires an assessment of the
public health risk presented by the label. It is appropriate that FSIS,
not establishments, conduct such an assessment.
In addition, the generic approval of labels that include marketing
promotions, logos from recognized third parties, general wellness
claims, and other similar features that, in the opinion of industry, do
not present consumer confusion issues, would still be problematic
because these labels may include claims that are not addressed in the
meat and poultry regulations. Some of these labels might also fall into
the category of implied nutrient content claims as defined in 9 CFR
317.313(b)(2) and 381.413(b)(2), e.g., a claim that suggests that the
product, because of its nutrient content, may be useful in maintaining
healthy dietary practices and is made with an explicit claim or
statement about a nutrient. Because FSIS does not have any regulations
that cover the application of implied claims to meat and poultry
labels, establishments would have great difficulty determining whether
such labels are generically approved. For these reasons, these labels
must continue to be submitted to FSIS for evaluation and review under
this final rule.
Comment: One commenter asked whether developmental claims or
messages regarding infants and children could be generically approved.
Response: No, such claims do not fit into any of the generic
categories because they are not defined in FSIS regulations or in the
Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book. They are special statements or
claims.
5. Elimination of Evaluation and Review
Comment: Those opposed to the proposal felt that expanding the
generic approval system will open it up to possible abuse, whether
intentionally or through establishment ignorance, resulting in harm to
consumers. Concerns included a lack of sufficient expertise,
commitment, or money, as well as a lack of trust in the meat and
poultry industry to police itself, particularly with regard to labeling
accuracy. Commenters suggested that this would expose consumers to
hundreds of thousands of adulterated and misbranded products.
Response: FSIS does not agree with these comments. Special
statements and claims that are not defined in FSIS regulations or the
Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book, including negative and
``natural'' claims, will continue to be evaluated and approved under
this final rule. The eight required features on labels, product name;
inspection legend/establishment number; handling statement; net weight;
ingredients statement; signature line; nutrition facts; and safe-
handling instructions have been required for many years. Establishments
are required to include these basic labeling features properly on their
product labels. FSIS inspection program personnel verify that
establishments' labels comply with these requirements.
FSIS's decision to provide for the review of all labels, whether or
not they contain special statements or claims, will assist those
establishments with insufficient expertise or funds to comply with the
requirements of this final rule. The reduction in the number of labels
reviewed by FSIS as of result of this final rule will also allow the
Agency to respond to labeling questions from the meat and poultry
industry and to develop the materials needed to
[[Page 66832]]
successfully implement these regulations.
Comment: One commenter stated that an electronic program to
automatically scan and review labels would reduce the time spent by
FSIS reviewing labels and would allow labeling staff to concentrate on
other food safety regulations.
Response: While no system can scan and review labels, FSIS has
recently released an electronic label system to allow for easier label
submission. Using the Label Submission and Approval System (LSAS),
establishments are able to submit label applications, supporting
materials, and appeals to FSIS via the Internet. While the system will
not check labels automatically for errors, it will scan them for some
common errors in the label submission process, including illegibility,
missing information on the transmittal form, and missing support
documentation. The system also includes a feature that helps submitters
determine whether a label can be generically approved, or if it must be
submitted to FSIS for approval. The use of LSAS will have a positive
impact on the speed and accuracy of label review.
Comment: Some commenters stated that the rule would harm industry
through recalls, tagged products, loss of goodwill, and loss of
valuable label inventories.
Response: FSIS disagrees with these comments. Industry is familiar
with the eight mandatory labeling features that have been required for
many years. Additionally, industry has had 16 years of experience
applying the current generic labeling regulations.
FSIS has not observed an increase in loss of product or labels, or
an increase in meat and poultry product recalls, as a result of
establishments applying generically approved labels. Labels found to be
deficient in some particular may be eligible for temporary approval. In
addition, establishments may submit requests for temporary approval for
retained product (``tagged'') as an ``extraordinary circumstance'' as
described in the following compliance policy guide on the Agency's Web
site: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/labeling/labeling-procedures/procedures-evaluating-labeling.
Labels submitted as an extraordinary circumstance are given the highest
priority for label evaluation to prevent loss of product. Labels
determined to be ineligible for temporary approval without modification
may be brought into compliance for use through the use of pressure
sensitive stickers. Pressure sensitive stickers are used to cover or
correct inaccurate or misleading information. FSIS has published a
guidance document for compliance assistance on the use of pressure
sensitive stickers at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/labeling/Labeling-Policies/pressure-sensitive-stickers/pressure-sensitive-stickers. Temporary approval is not
required to bring labels into compliance through the use of pressure
sensitive stickers. Moreover, FSIS has regulatory authority to grant
temporary approval for the use of labels that may lack some particular
information if use of the labels will not misrepresent the product,
present a health or safety issue, or provide an unfair economic
advantage.
We recognize that this rule is more extensive than the current
labeling regulations in that it increases the amount of labeling that
industry can self-declare generically approved and therefore not submit
to FSIS for prior approval. We therefore acknowledge the need for
updated labeling information and directions to IPP in appropriately
assessing the accuracy of the labeling records and whether the label
has been generically approved. We intend to provide guidance and issue
instructions to IPP to help them perform their in-plant labeling
verification activities.
6. Implementation of the Final Rule
Comment: Many of the commenters that supported the proposed rule
nonetheless had concerns about implementation of the final rule. One of
these concerns was ensuring that all parties, that is, industry, the
FSIS labeling staff located in Washington, DC, and IPP, understand how
the generic approval program is administered, monitored, and enforced.
Several commenters asked that FSIS provide an implementation plan and a
consistent method and process for the clarification and redress of
issues identified by IPP or establishments, along with a timetable for
redress. Other implementation issues raised include:
1. FSIS issuance of a directive that details the role of IPP,
including when and how to conduct a generic label verification check,
how the inspector-in-charge should communicate with FSIS labeling
staff, and how establishments can appeal generic labeling issues
directly to the FSIS labeling staff, rather than IPP;
2. Authorizing only FSIS labeling staff, rather than IPP, to decide
if a label is not eligible for generic approval, and advising IPP to
contact FSIS labeling staff before taking regulatory control actions;
and
3. Prohibiting the interruption of product flow unless the errors
on the label constitute immediate, genuine situations of public health
concern, or until it is confirmed that the errors constitute a public
health concern, economic fraud, or an unfair competitive advantage.
Commenters also requested greater access to FSIS label staff and
asked that the FSIS Policy and Labeling Book be updated before the
final rule is published.
Response: FSIS intends to issue instructions to IPP that will
address these and other issues relating to label verification
activities. The instructions will include specific label tasks
associated with in-plant labeling verification activities, such as
verifying that all ingredients are appropriately declared on labeling.
If labels are determined to be out of compliance, the instructions will
provide guidance to IPP on how to document the noncompliance in the
Public Health Inspection System (PHIS), and what actions are to be
taken. In addition, the Agency will provide training to Agency
personnel and guidance materials to industry on labeling regulations
and policies, including generic labeling.
FSIS plans to provide outreach assistance to companies producing
and submitting meat and poultry labels so that they may take full
advantage of this time and cost saving measure. The Agency will develop
compliance policy guides, webinars, and PowerPoint presentations for
industry. FSIS also intends to better organize the information on its
Web site to make it easier for interested parties to find labeling and
standards information posted there. FSIS believes that these actions
will reduce the number of label submissions to FSIS headquarters, thus
increasing the availability of FSIS labeling staff.
Upon publication of this final rule, FSIS will cease adding new
items to the Food Standards and Policy Labeling Book. FSIS will
continue to amend or remove items in the book, as necessary, but it
will no longer add new material to it beginning on the date that this
final rule is published. The Agency will convey new labeling policy by
other means, such as compliance policy guides.
7. Survey Data
Comment: A few commenters opposed the rule on the grounds that the
Generic Label Audit System (GLAS) data supporting the proposal are not
valid because of the age of the information, the manner in which labels
were selected for review, and the lack of
[[Page 66833]]
a final report. Furthermore, commenters stated that FSIS did not
complete or publish a final GLAS report. These commenters stated that a
new survey needs to be conducted to determine the effects of the
current rules on label compliance, public safety and health, and
competition within the industry.
Response: As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, FSIS
recognizes that the data from the survey referenced in the 2011
proposed rule are over 13 years old. The Agency concluded, however,
that the survey showed that the great majority of establishments
surveyed could effectively use generic approval without first
submitting sketch labels to FSIS for evaluation and approval. The
survey results also confirmed that the gradual implementation of the
generic label provisions promulgated in 1995 \5\ was effective. The
Agency is not aware of any reason why this situation does not continue
to prevail today. In addition, FSIS has developed a significant amount
of policy guidance, including labeling compliance guideline tools such
as a suggested label submission checklist and a list of the 10 most
common mistakes and ways to avoid them, for industry use since the
survey was done. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/labeling/labeling-procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Prior Label Approval System,'' (60 FR 67334, Dec. 29,
1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Miscellaneous Comments
Comment: One commenter believed that it would be illegal to expand
the current generic approval regulations without Congress amending the
Acts to relieve the Secretary of Agriculture of the responsibility of
prior approval.
Response: FSIS does not agree with this comment. FSIS has
administered a generic label approval program since 1996 without
requiring modification of the Acts.
Comment: One commenter asked whether 9 CFR 500.8, Procedures for
rescinding or refusing of marks, labeling or containers, applies when
IPP dispute an establishment's decision to generically approve a label
but do not allege that the label is false or misleading.
Response: No. Section 500.8 of 9 CFR is for rescinding or refusing
approval of labeling. IPP do not approve or rescind labeling. If IPP
dispute an establishment's decision to generically approve a label but
do not allege that the label is false or misleading, IPP retain the
product in question in accordance with 9 CFR 500.2(a)(3) and issue a
noncompliance record (NR) stating that the label requires sketch
approval. The NR also indicates why sketch approval is required. The
procedures in 9 CFR 500.8 are not usually invoked until after IPP have
denied an establishment's appeal of an NR written for incorrectly
generically approving a label, and the appeal has moved to the District
Office for resolution.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed records regulations
are unclear, unnecessary, and will invite disputes about records.
Response: Establishments are required to keep records of all
labeling, along with the product formulation and processing procedures,
as prescribed in 9 CFR 317.4, 317.5, 381.132, and 381.133. The proposal
added the requirement that any additional documentation needed to
support that the labels are consistent with the Federal meat and
poultry regulations and policies on labeling also be kept. For example,
in a situation where an establishment makes a ``no MSG'' claim, such
documentation would include a sketch approval from the Agency.
Furthermore, the product formulation is included on the application to
verify the product is absent of the ingredient, which substantiates the
validity of the claim.
Comment: One commenter asked about the use of generic approval with
egg products labels.
Response: The use of generic approval with egg products labels is
being considered in a separate rulemaking action.
Comment: One commenter stated that the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)
demonstrates that other types of agency cost-saving measures should be
considered instead of generic label approval expansion, and that the
costs of recalls to manufacturers and, especially, harm to consumers
need to be calculated and considered for accurate analysis of the
proposal.
Response: The analysis summarized the likely reduction in the
number of labels submitted to FSIS for evaluation because the proposed
rule will enable the Agency to reallocate the staff hours from
evaluating labels towards the development of labeling policy, the
evaluation of new and novel labeling policy issues, and involvement in
other food safety and consumer protection activities. There is no basis
to believe that this action will either increase the number of recalls
or harm consumers. Hence, there is no basis to include these costs in
the CBA.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (EOs) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if a
regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approach that
maximizes net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages, distributive impacts,
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This action has been reviewed for
compliance with EOs 12866 and 13563.
This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory action,''
although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of EO 12866.
Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
The Agency has estimated that this final rule will result in net
benefits to consumers and establishments by expanding the types of
labels that are approved generically under the FMIA and the PPIA.
This final rule is consistent with regulatory retrospective efforts
and E.O. 13563. The rule will be beneficial because it will streamline
the generic labeling process, while imposing no additional cost burden
on establishments. Consumers will benefit because industry will have
the ability to introduce products to the marketplace more quickly.
Moreover, the change will make better use of FSIS resources because it
will reduce the number of labels required to be reviewed by the Agency.
This final rule will expand the circumstances in which the labels
of meat and poultry products will be deemed to be generically approved
by FSIS and to combine the regulations that provide for the generic
approval of labels for meat products into a new part 412 in Title 9,
Chapter III, of the CFR. It is the next step in the Agency's gradual
streamlining and modernizing of the prior label approval system.
This final rule will reduce the number of labels evaluated by FSIS
that only bear basic features (e.g., product name, ingredients
statement, net weight) and the amount of paperwork filed by
establishments with FSIS. These actions will improve the efficiency of
the label approval system by streamlining the evaluation process for
specific types of labels and making the label approval system more
convenient and cost-effective for industry. As for consumers, this new
process will enhance market efficiency by promoting a faster
[[Page 66834]]
introduction of new products into the marketplace to meet demand while
not negatively affecting consumer protection from misbranded product.
The analysis of benefits and costs below is the analysis from the
proposed rule. FSIS received no updates suggesting that concrete
modifications to the analysis were needed, and there have been no major
data changes since the proposed rule was published in December 2011.
However, data were updated for the discounted cost savings to reflect
the corrected discount rate calculations at 7 percent and added the
discounted rate calculations at 3 percent. In addition, the total
number of labels developed and applied by establishments that do not
require FSIS evaluation was updated to reflect a 1 percent growth
factor. After reviewing the analysis from the proposed rule, FSIS has
determined that it is still accurate.
I. Baseline
Based on the Agency's Performance Based Inspection System
databases, in 2011, there were about 6,099 Federal establishments. FSIS
estimates that there were approximately 266,000 approved meat and
poultry product labels used by these establishments. FSIS evaluated
about 66,000 of them in 2010; the remaining 200,000 were approved under
the Prior Label Approval System because they met the standards for
generic approval.
II. Benefits
A. Industry
This final rule will permit establishments to realize an estimated
cost savings of a minimum of $10.1 million (discounted at 7 percent
over a 10-year period) for generically approving about 584,486
additional labels over a 10-year period at about $25 per label
submission,\6\ or about $12.4 million (discounted at 3 percent over a
10-year period. FSIS considers this estimate to be an upper bound,
since some establishments may continue to submit generic labels, as
defined by this final rule, for review. The annualized cost savings
will be $1.9 million at 7 percent over 10 years, or $1.7 million at 3
percent over 10 years. In the absence of this rule, establishments will
not realize any cost savings because Federal regulations will continue
to require establishments to submit a significant number of labels to
the Labeling and Policy Development Staff (LPDS) for evaluation.\7\
Establishments will also realize an increase in the number of
generically approved labels over a 10-year period under the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The cost per label is the cost of submitting a label for
review to FSIS, which averages about $25.00 per submission. This
amount will be used as a proxy to estimate the cost savings to
establishments that prepare their labels for review using FSIS Form
7234-1 ``Application for approval of Labels, Markings, or Device''
and preparing a printer's proof of the label for evaluation and
approval by LPDS.
\7\ See Table 2.
Table 2--Estimated Establishment Cost Savings
[In 2010 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number Increase in Total number
of labels number of of labels Total cost
developed and labels developed and savings
applied by developed and applied by Col.(C) x *$25 To apply Discounted total
Year establishments applied by establishments from reduced discount rate cost savings
that do not establishments that would not need for FSIS of 7.00% Col. (E) x Col.
require FSIS that would not require FSIS label (F)
evaluation require FSIS evaluation evaluation
before rule evaluation after rule
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................................... 200,000 0 200,000 $0 1.00 $0
1..................................................... 202,000 50,985 252,985 1,274,625 0.9346 1,191,265
2..................................................... 204,020 52,515 256,535 1,312,864 0.8734 1,146,655
3..................................................... 206,060 54,090 260,150 1,352,250 0.8163 1,103,841
4..................................................... 208,121 55,713 263,833 1,392,817 0.7629 1,062,580
5..................................................... 210,202 57,384 267,586 1,434,602 0.7130 1,022,871
6..................................................... 212,304 59,106 271,410 1,477,640 0.6663 984,551
7..................................................... 214,427 60,879 275,306 1,521,969 0.6227 947,730
8..................................................... 216,571 62,705 279,276 1,567,628 0.5820 912,359
9..................................................... 218,737 64,586 283,323 1,614,657 0.5439 878,212
10.................................................... 220,924 66,524 287,448 1,663,097 0.5083 845,352
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 2,313,367 584,486 2,897,853 14,612,147 ............. 10,095,417
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description:
Col A: Estimate is for a 10-year period. Year ``0'' is the year before the enactment of the rule.
Col B: Total number of labels developed and applied by official establishments that do not currently require FSIS evaluation.
Col C: Increase in the number of labels generically developed and applied by establishments as a result of the rule (i.e., would not need FSIS
evaluation.
Col D: Total number of labels developed and applied by establishments after the rule was enacted.
Col E: Total cost savings realized to establishments, using an estimated $25 as the cost per label submission to LPDS.
Col F: Discount rate of 7 percent.
Col G: Discount cost savings over 10 years.
Source: FSIS Policy Analysis Staff Calculations.
Because fewer labels will need to be submitted to the Agency for
evaluation, establishments will realize a cost savings because they
will no longer need to incur costs to have certain types of labels
evaluated by FSIS. Establishments have the option to continue
submitting labels for review. FSIS believes that large and some small
establishments will voluntarily use generic labeling. Some small and
very small establishments will continue to
[[Page 66835]]
submit labels without a special statement or claim for review. FSIS
believes that the number of labels that will continue to be submitted
for review will be minimal.
B. Agency
The final rule will reduce the number of labels submitted to FSIS
for evaluation and enable the Agency to reallocate the staff hours from
evaluating labels towards the development of labeling policy, the
evaluation of new and novel labeling policy issues, and involvement in
other food safety and consumer protection activities. The final rule
will streamline the approval process by amending the regulations to
provide that, except in certain specified circumstances, the label of a
meat or poultry product is deemed to be approved generically.
Table 3--Estimated FSIS Cost Savings
[In 2010 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number Total number
of labels of labels Annual salary Annual salary
evaluated and evaluated and cost ($) of cost ($) of Annual salary To apply Discounted cost
Year approved by approved by LPDS \1\ LPDS \2\ difference discount rate savings (F)*(G)
LPDS before LPDS after before rule after rule (D)-(E) of 7.00%
rule rule
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................... 66,061 66,061 538,710 538,710 0 1.00 $0
1..................................... 68,980 16,995 554,871 134,677 420,194 0.935 392,705
2..................................... 70,019 17,505 571,517 138,717 432,800 0.873 378,024
3..................................... 72,120 18,030 588,663 142,879 445,784 0.816 363,893
4..................................... 74,284 18,571 606,323 147,165 459,158 0.763 350,289
5..................................... 76,512 19,128 624,513 151,580 472,932 0.713 337,194
6..................................... 78,807 19,702 643,248 156,128 487,120 0.666 324,589
7..................................... 81,172 20,293 662,545 160,811 501,734 0.623 312,455
8..................................... 83,607 20,902 682,422 165,636 516,786 0.582 300,774
9..................................... 86,115 21,529 702,894 170,605 532,290 0.544 289,530
10.................................... 88,698 22,175 723,981 175,723 548,258 0.508 278,707
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 845,315 260,829 6,899,688 2,082,631 4,817,057 ............. 3,328,160
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description:
Col A: Estimate is for a 10 year period. Year ``0'' is the year before the enactment of the rule.
Col B: Total number of labels evaluated and approved by LPDS prior to rule enactment assuming a 3 percent growth factor.
Col C: Total number of labels evaluated and approved by LPDS after rule enactment, assuming a 3 percent growth factor.
Col D: Annual salary cost of LPDS staff who evaluate labels, prior to enactment of rule, assuming a 3 percent growth factor.
Col E: Annual salary cost of LPDS personnel who evaluates labels, after rule enactment, assuming a 3 percent growth factor.
Col F: Annual salary difference between salary before rule enactment and after rule enactment, assuming a 3 percent growth factor.
Col G: Discount rate of 7 percent.
Col H: Discount cost savings.
Footnotes:
\1\ Total salary is based on a staff of 11 personnel paid at the average rate of a GS-13, step 4 of $47.09 per hour: 11 staff persons would review
labels at a cost of $538,710 per year ($47.09 an hour x 4 hours a day x 11 persons x 5 days a week = $10,359.80. $10,359.80 x 52 weeks = $538,710).
\2\ Total salary is based on a staff of 11 personnel paid at the average rate of a GS-13, step 4 at $47.09 per hour: 11 staff persons would review
labels at a cost of $134,677.40 per year ($47.09 an hour x 1 hour a day x 11 persons x 5 days a week = $2,589.95 x 52 weeks = $134,677.40.
Source: FSIS Policy Analysis Staff calculations.
Currently (represented as year 0), FSIS reviews 66,000 labels. In
years 1-10 (with year 1 representing the beginning of implementation),
FSIS is expected to experience a 69 percent reduction in the volume of
labels submitted for evaluation. Small and very small establishments
may continue to send labels in for review for minor changes. While FSIS
prioritizes its workload, establishments may commence to market their
products with the labels that are submitted for review, which will not
affect the Agency projected cost savings. FSIS will evaluate labels and
labeling for one hour per day, five days a week, as a result of the
reduction in the volume of labels or labeling submitted to FSIS due to
this final rule. Thus, it will permit the Agency to realize an
estimated discounted cost savings of $3.3 million over 10 years,\8\ at
a 7 percent discount rate or $4.1 million over 10 years at a 3 percent
discount rate. FSIS also considers this estimate to be an upper bound
because, as mentioned before, some establishments may continue to
submit labels to FSIS for review that would qualify as generic under
this final rule. The annualized cost savings will be $641 thousand at 7
percent over 10 years and $548 thousand at 3 percent over 10 years.
FSIS is expected to review a total of 260,890 labels under the rule as
compared with 845,315 under the current system.\9\ This cost savings
from fewer staff hours being allocated towards label evaluation can be
redirected towards other food safety and consumer protection
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Table 3.
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Costs
This final rule will not impose any new costs on meat and poultry
establishments that submit labels for review to FSIS and it minimizes
the regulatory burden on establishments that submit labels for review.
The final rule does not change the requirement that establishments
maintain copies of all labeling records, along with the product
formulations and a description of the processing procedures used to
formulate the products in accordance with 9 CFR 320.2 and part 381,
subpart Q. These labeling records must be made available to any
authorized Agency official within 24 hours upon request.
[[Page 66836]]
The final rule also does not impose any additional cost burden on
establishments because first, establishments are already applying
generically approved labels and maintaining all labeling records, and
second, establishments are experienced in submitting labels to FSIS for
evaluation. The cost of label design and products is not a part of this
final rule.
IV. Overview
This final rule is beneficial because it streamlines the generic
label approval process, while imposing no additional cost burden on
establishments or the Agency. FSIS estimates that establishments will
realize a discounted cost savings of $10.1 million as a result of their
ability to generically approve an additional 584,486 labels over a 10-
year period (discounted at 7 percent) or $12.4 million over a 10-year
period (discounted at 3 percent). Furthermore, the Agency will realize
a discounted cost savings of $3.3 million for evaluating 584,486 fewer
labels over a 10-year period (discounted at 7 percent) or 4.1 million
over 10 years (discounted at 3 percent). This cost savings in fewer
staff hours being spent evaluating labels can be redirected towards
other Agency initiatives. The annualized cost savings will be $2.58
million ($1.9 million for establishment + $641 thousand for the Agency)
at 7 percent over 10 years or $2.21 million ($1.7 million + $548
thousand) at 3 percent over 10 years. These costs savings estimates
should be considered an upper bound, as described earlier. Therefore,
the net benefit derived from the final rule is $13.4 million ($10.1
million in establishment savings plus $3.3 million in Agency savings),
discounted at 7 percent over a 10-year period or $16.5 million ($12.4
million in establishment savings plus $4.1 million, in Agency savings),
discounted at 3 percent, over a 10-year period.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The FSIS Administrator certifies that for the purpose of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602), the final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The final changes will affect those entities in the United
States that submit labels for review to FSIS. There are 6,099 meat and
poultry establishments that could possibly be affected by this rule
since all are eligible to submit labels for review and 12 small label
consulting firms that are involved in various labeling activities, such
as submitting labels to FSIS for evaluation on the behalf of meat and
poultry establishments. Of the 6,099 establishments, there are about
2,616 small federally inspected establishments (with more than 10 but
less than 500 employees) and 3,103 very small establishments (with
fewer than 10 employees) based on HACCP Classification. Therefore, a
total of 5,719 small and very small establishments could be affected by
this rule. These small and very small establishments, like the large
establishments, will be able to generically approve labels as long as
there are no special claims on the labels. Small entities will not be
disadvantaged because the final rule will minimize the regulatory
burden on all establishments. The final rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of label consulting firms.
Since the expanded use of generically approved labels in 1995, these
firms have modified their consulting services to specialize in certain
policy areas, e.g., the production and labeling of organic products and
animal production raising practices. Therefore, the Agency believes
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (establishments and labeling
consulting firms).
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule except as
discussed below.
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
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (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, or 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 http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register/interim-and-final-rules.
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 http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/programs-and-services/email-subscription-service. Options range from recalls to export information
to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete
subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their
accounts.
Paperwork Requirements
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq.), the information collection requirement associated with
this final rule on generic label approval has been submitted for
approval to OMB.
FSIS is expanding the circumstances in which FSIS will generically
approve the labels of meat and poultry products. Under this final rule,
more official and foreign establishments will be able to use the
generic approval of product labels. As a result, fewer sketch labels
will need to be submitted and evaluated by FSIS.
This information collection, after it is approved by OMB, will be
merged with 0583-0092, Marking, Labeling, and Packaging. The merged
information collection will result in a net reduction of 34,971 burden
hours because of the
[[Page 66837]]
increased use of generic labeling resulting in fewer label submissions
to FSIS.
E-Government Act
FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-
Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) by, among other things,
promoting the use of the Internet and other information technologies
and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
Having proceeded with this rulemaking, the Agency is now able to
accept the electronic submission of requests for the evaluation of
claims or special statements, which will significantly streamline the
approval process.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Parts 317, 318, 320, 327, 331, 381, 412,
and 424
Food labeling, Food packaging, Meat inspection, Poultry and poultry
products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FSIS is amending 9 CFR
Chapter III, as follows:
PART 317--LABELING, MARKING DEVICES, AND CONTAINERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 317 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
Sec. Sec. 317.4 and 317.5 [Removed and Reserved]
0
2. Sections 317.4 and 317.5 are removed and reserved.
0
3. In Sec. 317.8, revise paragraph (b)(32)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 317.8 False or misleading labeling or practices generally;
specific prohibitions and requirements for labels and containers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(32) * * *
(ii) Immediately adjacent to the calendar date there must be a
phrase explaining the meaning of the date, in terms of ``packing''
date, ``sell by'' date, or ``use before'' date, with or without a
further qualifying phrase, e.g., ``For Maximum Freshness'' or ``For
Best Quality.''
* * * * *
PART 318--ENTRY INTO OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENTS; REINSPECTION AND
PREPARATION OF PRODUCTS
0
4. The authority citation for part 318 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138, 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7
CFR 2.18, 2.53.
0
5. In Sec. 318.4, revise paragraph (f) introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 318.4 Preparation of products to be officially supervised;
responsibilities of official establishments; plant operated quality
control.
* * * * *
(f) Labeling Logo. Owners and operators of official establishments
having a total plant quality control system approved under the
provisions of paragraph (c) of this section may only use, as a part of
any label, the following logo.
* * * * *
PART 320--RECORDS, REGISTRATION, AND REPORTS
0
6. The authority citation for part 320 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, 2.53.
0
7. In Sec. 320.1, revise paragraph (b)(11) to read as follows:
Sec. 320.1 Records required to be kept.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(11) Records of labeling, product formulas, processing procedures,
and any additional documentation needed to show that the labels are
consistent with the Federal meat and poultry regulations and policies
on labeling, as prescribed in Sec. 412.1 of this chapter.
PART 327--IMPORTED PRODUCTS
0
8. The authority citation for part 327 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
0
9. In Sec. 327.14, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 327.14 Marking of products and labeling of immediate containers
thereof for importation.
* * * * *
(c) All marks and other labeling for use on or with immediate
containers, as well as private brands on carcasses or parts of
carcasses, must be approved by the Food Safety and Inspection Service
in accordance with part 412 of this chapter before products bearing
such marks, labeling, or brands will be entered into the United States.
The marks of inspection of foreign systems embossed on metal containers
or branded on carcasses or parts thereof need not be submitted to the
Food Safety and Inspection Service for approval, and such marks of
inspection put on stencils, box dies, labels, and brands may be used on
such immediate containers as tierces, barrels, drums, boxes, crates,
and large-size fiberboard containers of foreign products without such
marks of inspection being submitted for approval, provided the markings
made by such articles are applicable to the product and are not false
or misleading.
PART 331--SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR DESIGNATED STATES AND TERRITORIES;
AND FOR DESIGNATION OF ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH
AND FOR SUCH DESIGNATED ESTABLISHMENTS
0
10. The authority citation for part 331 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.53.
0
11. Amend Sec. 331.3 by revising paragraphs (e) introductory text,
(e)(1), and (e)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 331.3 States designated under paragraph 301(c) of the Act;
application of regulations.
* * * * *
(e) Sections 316.7, 317.3, and 412.1 of this chapter apply to such
establishments, except as provided in this paragraph (e).
(1) The operator of each such establishment will, prior to the
inauguration of inspection, identify all labeling and marking devices
in use, or proposed for use, (upon the date of inauguration of
inspection) to the Front Line Supervisor of the circuit in which the
establishment is located. Temporary approval, pending formal approval
under Sec. Sec. 316.7, 317.3, and 412.1 of this chapter, will be
granted by the Front Line Supervisor for labeling and marking devices
that he determines are neither false nor misleading, provided the
official inspection legend bearing the official establishment number is
applied to the principal display panel of each label, either by a
mechanical printing device or a self-destructive pressure sensitive
sticker, and provided the label shows the true product name, an
accurate ingredient statement, the name and address of the
manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and any other features required
by section 1(n) of the Act.
* * * * *
(3) The operator of the official establishment shall promptly
forward a copy of each item of labeling and a description of each
marking device for which temporary approval has been granted by the
Front Line Supervisor (showing any modifications required by the Front
Line Supervisor) to the FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery Staff,
[[Page 66838]]
accompanied by the formula and details of preparation and packaging for
each product. Within 90 days after inauguration of inspection, all
labeling material and marking devices temporarily approved by the Front
Line Supervisor must receive approval as required by Sec. Sec. 316.7,
317.3, and 412.1 of this chapter, or their use must be discontinued.
* * * * *
PART 381--POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
0
12. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7
CFR 2.18, 2.53.
0
13. Amend Sec. 381.129 by revising paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (c)(2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 381.129 False or misleading labeling or containers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6)(i) A raw poultry product whose internal temperature has ever
been below 26[emsp14][deg]F may not bear a label declaration of
``fresh.'' A raw poultry product bearing a label declaration of
``fresh'' but whose internal temperature has ever been below
26[emsp14][deg]F is mislabeled. The temperature of individual packages
of raw poultry product within an official establishment may deviate
below the 26[emsp14][deg]F standard by 1 degree (i.e., have a
temperature of 25[emsp14][deg]F) and still be labeled ``fresh.'' The
temperature of individual packages of raw poultry product outside an
official establishment may deviate below the 26[emsp14][deg]F standard
by 2 degrees (i.e., have a temperature of 24[emsp14][deg]F) and still
be labeled ``fresh.'' The average temperature of poultry product lots
of each specific product type must be 26[emsp14][deg]F. Product
described in this paragraph is not subject to the freezing procedures
required in Sec. 381.66(f)(2) of this subchapter.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Immediately adjacent to the calendar date will be a phrase
explaining the meaning of such date in terms of ``packing'' date,
``sell by'' date, or ``use before'' date, with or without a further
qualifying phrase, e.g., ``For Maximum Freshness'' or ``For Best
Quality.''
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 381.132 and 381.133 [Removed and Reserved]
0
14. Sections 381.132 and 381.133 are removed and reserved.
0
15. In Sec. 381.145, revise paragraph (f) introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 381.145 Poultry products and other articles entering or at
official establishments; examination and other requirements.
* * * * *
(f) Labeling Logo. Owners and operators of official establishments
having a total plant quality control system approved under the
provisions of paragraph (c) of this section may only use, as a part of
any label, the following logo.
* * * * *
0
16. In Sec. 381.175, revise paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 381.175 Records required to be kept.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Records of all labeling, along with the product formula,
processing procedures, and any additional documentation needed to
support that the labels are consistent with the Federal meat and
poultry regulations and policies on labeling, as prescribed in Sec.
412.1 of this chapter.
0
17. In Sec. 381.205, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 381.205 Labeling of immediate containers of poultry products
offered for entry.
* * * * *
(c) All marks and other labeling for use on or with immediate
containers must be approved for use by the Food Safety and Inspection
Service in accordance with part 412 of this chapter before products
bearing such marks and other labeling will be permitted for entry into
the United States.
0
18. In Sec. 381.222, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 381.222 States designated under paragraph 5(c) of the Act;
application of regulations.
* * * * *
(d) Subpart N of this part shall apply to such establishments
except as provided in this paragraph (d).
(1) The operator of each such establishment shall, prior to the
inauguration of inspection, identify all labeling and marking devices
in use, or proposed for use (upon the date of inauguration of
inspection) to the Front Line Supervisor in which the establishment is
located. Temporary approval, pending formal approval under Sec. 412.1
of this chapter, will be granted by the Front Line Supervisor for
labeling and marking devices that he determines are neither false nor
misleading, provided the official inspection legend bearing the
official establishment number is applied to the principal display panel
of each label, either by a mechanical printing device or a self-
destructive pressure sensitive sticker, and provided the label shows
the true product name, an accurate ingredient statement, the name and
address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and any other
features required by section 4(h) of the Act.
(2) The Front Line Supervisor will forward one copy of each item of
labeling and a description of each marking device for which he has
granted temporary approval to the FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery
Staff and will retain one copy in a temporary approval file for the
establishment.
(3) The operator of the official establishment shall promptly
forward a copy of each item of labeling and a description of each
marking device for which temporary approval has been granted by the
Front Line Supervisor (showing any modifications required by the Front
Line Supervisor) to the FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery Staff at
headquarters, accompanied by the formula and details of preparation and
packaging for each product. Within 90 days after inauguration of
inspection, all labeling material and marking devices temporarily
approved by the Front Line Supervisor must receive approval as required
by Sec. 412.1 or their use must be discontinued.
(4) The Front Line Supervisor will also review all shipping
containers to ensure that they do not have any false or misleading
labeling and are otherwise not misbranded. Modifications of
unacceptable information on labeling material by the use of pressure
sensitive tape of a type that cannot be removed without visible
evidence of such removal, or by blocking out with an ink stamp will be
authorized on a temporary basis to permit the maximum allowable use of
all labeling materials on hand. All unacceptable labeling material
which is not modified to comply with the requirements of the
regulations must be destroyed or removed from the official
establishment.
* * * * *
0
19. Add part 412 to subchapter E to read as follows:
PART 412--LABEL APPROVAL
Sec.
412.1 Label approval.
412.2 Approval of generic labels.
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 451-470, 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
[[Page 66839]]
Sec. 412.1 Label approval.
(a) No final label may be used on any product unless the label has
been submitted for approval to the FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery
Staff, accompanied by FSIS Form 7234-1, Application for Approval of
Labels, Marking, and Devices, and approved by such staff, except for
generically approved labels authorized for use in Sec. 412.2. The
management of the official establishment or establishment certified
under a foreign inspection system, in accordance with parts 327 and
381, subpart T, must maintain a copy of all labels used, in accordance
with parts 320 and 381, subpart Q, of this chapter. Such records must
be made available to any duly authorized representative of the
Secretary upon request.
(b) All labels required to be submitted for approval as set forth
in paragraph (a) of this section will be submitted to the FSIS Labeling
and Program Delivery Staff. A parent company for a corporation may
submit only one label application for a product produced in other
establishments that are owned by the corporation.
(c) The Food Safety and Inspection Service requires the submission
of labeling applications for the following:
(1) Sketch labels as defined in paragraph (d) of this section for
products which are produced under a religious exemption;
(2) Sketch labels for products for foreign commerce whose labels
deviate from FSIS regulations, with the exception of printing labels in
foreign language or printing labels that bear a statement of the
quantity of contents in accordance with the usage of the country to
which exported as described in Sec. 317.7 and part 381, subpart M of
this chapter.
(3) Special statements and claims as defined in paragraph (e) of
this section and presented in the context of a final label.
(4) Requests for the temporary use of final labels as prescribed in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(d) A ``sketch'' label is the concept of a label. It may be a
printer's proof or equivalent that is sufficiently legible to clearly
show all labeling features, size, and location. The Food Safety and
Inspection Service will accept sketches that are hand drawn or computer
generated, or other reasonable facsimiles that clearly reflect and
project the final version of the label.
(e) ``Special statements and claims'' are claims, logos,
trademarks, and other symbols on labels that are not defined in the
Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations or the Food
Standards and Labeling Policy Book, (except for ``natural'' and
negative claims (e.g., ``gluten free'')), health claims, ingredient and
processing method claims (e.g., high-pressure processing), structure-
function claims, claims regarding the raising of animals, organic
claims, and instructional or disclaimer statements concerning pathogens
(e.g., ``for cooking only'' or ``not tested for E. coli O157:H7'').
Examples of logos and symbols include graphic representations of hearts
and geographic landmarks. Special statements and claims do not include
allergen statements (e.g., ``contains soy'') applied in accordance with
the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act.
(f)(1) Temporary approval for the use of a final label that may be
deemed deficient in some particular may be granted by the FSIS Labeling
and Program Delivery Staff. Temporary approvals may be granted for a
period not to exceed 180 calendar days, under the following conditions:
(i) The proposed label would not misrepresent the product;
(ii) The use of the label would not present any potential health,
safety, or dietary problems to the consumer;
(iii) Denial of the request would create undue economic hardship;
and
(iv) An unfair competitive advantage would not result from the
granting of the temporary approval.
(2) Extensions of temporary approvals may also be granted by the
FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery Staff provided that the applicant
demonstrates that new circumstances, meeting the above criteria, have
developed since the original temporary approval was granted.
Sec. 412.2 Approval of generic labels.
(a)(1) An official establishment, or an establishment certified
under a foreign inspection system in accordance with part 327, or part
381, subpart T of this chapter, is authorized to use generically
approved labels, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, and thus
is free to use such labels without submitting them to the Food Safety
and Inspection Service for approval, provided the label, in accordance
with this section, displays all mandatory features in a prominent
manner in compliance with part 317 or part 381, and is not otherwise
false or misleading in any particular.
(2) The Food Safety and Inspection Service will select samples of
generically approved labels from the records maintained by official
establishments and establishments certified under foreign inspection
systems, in accordance with part 327 or part 381, subpart T, to
determine compliance with label requirements. If the Agency finds that
an establishment is using a false or misleading label, it will
institute the proceedings prescribed in Sec. 500.8 of this chapter to
revoke the approval for the label.
(b) Generically approved labels are labels that bear all applicable
mandatory labeling features (i.e., product name, safe handling
statement, ingredients statement, the name and place of business of the
manufacturer, packer or distributor, net weight, legend, safe handling
instructions, and nutrition labeling) in accordance with Federal
regulations. Labels that bear claims and statements that are defined in
FSIS's regulations or the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book
(except for natural and negative claims), such as a statement that
characterizes a product's nutrient content, such as ``low fat,'' has
geographical significance, such as ``German Brand,'' or makes a country
of origin statement on the label of any meat or poultry product
``covered commodity'',\1\ and that comply with those regulations are
also deemed to be generically approved by the Agency without being
submitted for evaluation and approval. Allergen statements (e.g.,
``contains soy'') applied in accordance with the Food Allergen Labeling
and Consumer Protection Act are also deemed generically approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 9 CFR 317.8(b)(40) and 381.129(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 424--PREPARATION AND PROCESSING PROCEDURES
0
20. The authority citation for part 424 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 451-470, 601-695;
7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
0
21. In Sec. 424.21, revise footnote 3 in the table in paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 424.21 Use of food ingredients and sources of radiation.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
\3\ Provided that its use is functional and suitable for the
product and it is permitted for use at the lowest level necessary to
accomplish the desired technical effect as determined in specific cases
prior to label approval under part 412 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
22. In Sec. 424.22, revise paragraph (c)(4)(i) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 424.22 Certain other permitted uses.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
[[Page 66840]]
(i) The labels on packages of meat food and poultry products
irradiated in their entirety, in conformance with this section and with
21 CFR 179.26(a) and (b), must bear the logo shown at the end of this
paragraph. Unless the word ``Irradiated'' is part of the product name,
labels also must bear a statement such as ``Treated with radiation'' or
``Treated by irradiation.'' The logo must be placed in conjunction with
the required statement, if the statement is used. The statement is not
required to be more prominent than the declaration of ingredients
required under Sec. 317.2(c)(2) of this chapter.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC on: November 1, 2013.
Alfred V. Almanza,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-26639 Filed 11-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P