[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 250 (Friday, December 29, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67469-67474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31393]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 301, 304, 305, 306, 307, 318, 325, and 381
[Docket No. 95-008A]
RIN 0583-AB89
FSIS Agenda for Change: Regulatory Review
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has begun a
comprehensive review of its regulatory procedures and requirements to
determine which are still needed and which ought to be modified,
streamlined, or eliminated. This review is an integral part of the FSIS
initiative to improve the safety of meat and poultry products by
modernizing the Agency's system of food safety regulation. It also
moves beyond the page-by-page review of FSIS regulations carried out
earlier this year under the President's Reinvention of Government
Initiative. A thorough review of FSIS's regulations is needed to
prepare for implementation of the Agency's proposed Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Points (HACCP) regulations and a new food safety
strategy that will reduce reliance on command-and-control regulations
and increase reliance on science-based preventive measures and
performance standards to improve food safety. This review and any
changes in FSIS regulations that are necessary to make them compatible
with HACCP will be completed prior to implementation of HACCP. FSIS
invites comment from the public and all interested parties on the
Agency's preliminary review of its regulations and specific suggestions
on which regulations need to be eliminated or changed to be compatible
with HACCP, and how they should be changed, or to achieve Reinvention
of Government goals of having fewer, clearer, and more user-friendly
regulations.
Some of the rulemakings needed to streamline existing requirements
and carry out the FSIS food safety strategy are being initiated or
effectuated in documents that appear elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register: A proposed rule that would eliminate the FSIS prior
approval system for substances added to meat and poultry products; a
proposed rule that would facilitate marketing of nutritionally improved
alternatives to standardized meat and poultry food products; and a
final rule streamlining the prior approval system for meat and poultry
labels.
As FSIS progresses in its comprehensive regulatory review, FSIS
will publish further proposals to eliminate unnecessary regulations and
modify remaining regulations, replacing, to the extent possible,
command-and-control regulations with performance standards, clarifying
the role of inspectors in enforcing those standards, and reorganizing
and simplifying the regulations to make them easier to understand and
use.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 27, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and two copies of written comments
to Policy, Evaluation, and Planning Staff, Attn: FSIS Docket Clerk,
DOCKET No. 95-008A, Room 4352 South Building, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
20250. Oral comments, as permitted under the Poultry Products
Inspection Act, should be directed to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
[[Page 67470]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Paula M. Cohen, Director,
Regulations Development, at (202) 720-7164.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. FSIS Regulatory Reform Strategy
II. Comprehensive Review and Reorganization of FSIS Regulations
III. Initial Review of Regulations; Consistency with HACCP
IV. Request for Comments
I. FSIS Regulatory Reform Strategy
The Food Safety and Inspection Service is responsible for carrying
out the mandates of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), and
most recently, the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et
seq.), by ensuring that meat, meat food, poultry, and egg products are
safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and
packaged. FSIS and its predecessor agencies have protected consumers
for nearly a century primarily through in-plant inspection procedures
to assure that raw animal tissues are free of disease and visible
contamination, that further processed products are processed under
appropriate controls and meet applicable composition requirements, and
that all products are produced under sanitary conditions and are
packaged and labeled in a manner that is not misleading.
The Agency's inspection programs have contributed significantly to
the safety and quality of meat and poultry products consumed in this
country. Increasingly, however, the need to reassess these programs and
to reshape them to meet the challenges of the future has become
apparent. Today, FSIS is confronting three imperatives: (1) The need to
improve food safety to meet persistent as well as changing threats to
public health; (2) the need to make better use of scarce resources in
meeting those public health challenges; and (3) the need to reexamine
its regulations, culling out or reforming those that are obsolete,
impose unnecessary burdens or are inconsistent with Agency food safety
initiatives, and restructure the essential regulations that remain to
make them easier to understand and use.
Need To Improve Food Safety
The need to take steps to improve food safety has been underscored
by events of recent years. The early-1993 outbreak of illness in the
Western United States, linked to hamburger patties contaminated with
the bacterium E. coli O157:H7, showed that there are gaps in the
inspection system--most significantly the lack of measures to target,
control, and reduce contamination of raw meat and poultry products with
pathogenic microorganisms. Since 1993, the Agency has adopted
regulatory control, research, and education measures to help fill these
gaps in the system and address the public health problem of foodborne
illness associated with such contamination. Among these measures are
regulations mandating safe handling labels on all raw, not ready-to-
eat, meat and poultry products (9 CFR 317.2(l); 381.125(b)(1)(i)). The
Agency has strongly encouraged the regulated industry to find ways of
reducing and controlling the levels of microbial pathogens on meat and
poultry products. The Agency also has begun a program to test raw
ground beef for E. coli O157:H7 and to take regulatory action on
product found to be adulterated with this dangerous organism.
Pathogen Reduction/HACCP Proposal
On February 3, 1995, FSIS published a rulemaking proposal,
``Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)
Systems'' (60 FR 6774), which begins a fundamental transformation of
the Agency's program designed to reduce significantly the incidence of
foodborne illness associated with meat and poultry products. The notice
enunciated the FSIS food safety goal: To reduce the risk of foodborne
illness associated with the consumption of meat and poultry products to
the extent possible by ensuring that appropriate and feasible measures
are taken at each step in the food production process where hazards can
enter and where procedures and technologies exist or can be developed
to prevent the hazard or reduce the likelihood it will occur.
HACCP is conceptually a simple system by which food processors
identify and evaluate hazards to the production of safe products,
institute controls necessary to reduce or eliminate these hazards,
monitor the performance of these controls, and maintain records of this
monitoring, as a matter of routine. HACCP embodies the principle that
the management of every plant is responsible for building into its food
production process systematic measures to ensure the safety of the food
the plant produces.
For HACCP to be successful, it must be accompanied by appropriate
food safety performance standards, which can provide a means to
determine whether a plant's HACCP plan is adequate and working
effectively to achieve an acceptable level of food safety performance.
Such standards have long existed for chemical food additives and
pesticide residues, in the form of tolerances or legal limits on the
level of additive or residue that may be safely present in food. FSIS
has also maintained performance standards for pathogenic microorganisms
on cooked or ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, typically in the
form of zero tolerances (or prohibitions) on the presence of such
harmful bacteria as Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes. In
conjunction with HACCP and the Agency's new food safety strategy, FSIS
is now moving for the first time toward performance standards for
pathogenic microorganisms on raw products.
With this approach, slaughter plants will have an additional
incentive to improve their processes to reduce the risk of harmful
contamination and greater flexibility to adopt innovative new pathogen
reduction procedures and technologies in a more efficient and effective
manner than under the current system.
Where appropriate and useful, and to mitigate any negative impact
of proposed rules, FSIS intends to propose performance standards which,
while affording plants the freedom to innovate, could be met by
following the procedures in the current regulations.
Performance standards are consistent with the HACCP philosophy,
which more clearly delineates the roles and responsibilities of
industry and Government than does the current regulatory approach. With
establishments free to develop plant-specific means of achieving FSIS-
defined food safety objectives, the Agency will be able to better focus
inspection resources on essential HACCP-related functions and other
tasks more focused on process than product.
II. Comprehensive Review and Reorganization of FSIS Regulations
To be better prepared to pursue its food safety goals, FSIS has
thoroughly reexamined its regulatory oversight roles, resource
allocation, and organizational structure. This top-to-bottom review of
the Agency was conducted in parallel with and in support of the
Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rulemaking. FSIS made the preliminary reports
on this review available to the public and, in a Federal Register
notice (60 FR 47346; September 12, 1995), invited comment on the
analysis and options that had been developed. How to redeploy
inspectional resources to more
[[Page 67471]]
productively focus on food safety objectives was a key component of the
top-to-bottom review, and continues to engage the Agency.
The inspection regulations have accumulated over many years. The
meat inspection regulations (9 CFR subchapter A), the poultry
inspection regulations (9 CFR subchapter C), and the egg product
inspection regulations, under FSIS jurisdiction since June 1995 (7 CFR
part 59), were developed independently of one another; all began
separately as programs administered by different agencies. These
distinct sets of regulations have retained their separate identities in
the Code of Federal Regulations, despite the fact that they are now
administered by the same agency and a large proportion of the
regulations are virtually identical. Because of this structure, when a
change is made to one of these inspection programs, the same or a
similar change must usually be made to the others.
Many of the provisions in the meat and poultry (and now egg
products) regulations should be, but are not, identical. The
differences in the provisions addressing similar topics are largely
historical artifacts which should be eliminated. These differences
frequently cause confusion, making the administration of inspection
more difficult and resource-intensive than it ought to be. For example,
a time limit for appealing inspection decisions exists under the
poultry regulations but not under the meat regulations (9 CFR 306.5;
381.35). Similarly, there is a 180 deg.F temperature requirement for
water used to clean and disinfect meat slaughterhouses (9 CFR
308.3(d)(4), 308.8) but not poultry establishments (9 CFR 381.50(b),
381.58(a)).
Although there are necessary differences in how products of the
different industries are regulated, there are many differences for
which there is no clear necessity. In some cases, it is argued, these
differences are not only unjustified, but they are unfair in favoring
one industry at the expense of the other.
In 1992, FSIS contracted with the Research Triangle Institute (RTI)
to conduct a review and comparison of the Agency's meat and poultry
regulations. The report, delivered to the Agency in June 1993, found 12
areas with substantive differences in the regulations that might be
``potentially significant in terms of relative costs of administering
the two regulatory programs.''
A review of that report suggests at least three areas of regulation
where this may currently be the case: slaughter inspection controls
(only poultry has detailed finished product standards, which permit
faster line speeds and other plant efficiencies), removal of
contamination (poultry can be reprocessed by washing, but meat must be
trimmed), and exemptions from inspection (there are more categories of
exempted poultry establishments than there are exempted meat
establishments, and the poultry regulations are more definitive in
describing products not subject to inspection). Significant differences
in a fourth area, ``mechanically separated product,'' were resolved in
a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 3, 1995 (60
FR 55962).
FSIS will carefully scrutinize all meat, poultry, and egg
inspection regulations with a view to merging and restructuring the
regulations and to unifying most of the provisions that are common to
them. As each regulatory area is reviewed, FSIS will carefully consider
the validity of any differences in how the industries are regulated and
will keep separate only those provisions that must remain separate. The
merging and restructuring would simplify the regulations; enhance
administrative efficiency; and remove unnecessary, often confusing, and
sometimes burdensome, differences in the regulatory treatment of FSIS-
inspected establishments and their products.
During the next few years, the Agency will review and restructure
all of its regulations to make them easier to use. This reflects the
Agency's position that its regulations could be more clearly understood
if better organized and written in ``plain English.''
In conjunction with the comprehensive regulatory review now in
progress, FSIS is undertaking a review of its manuals, bulletins,
directives, notices, and instructions to its employees on how to
implement specific regulations. FSIS will address longstanding concerns
that, as the inspection program has evolved, procedural changes have
been introduced without systematic consideration of whether the new
procedures overlap or are inconsistent with other procedures. The
result has been the creation of redundant or conflicting procedures on
top of one another, causing confusion and the potential for nonuniform
application of inspection requirements from place to place. Further,
FSIS questions whether the many kinds of issuances continue to be
useful, and requests comment on how the Agency can best communicate
instructions for implementing regulations.
III. Initial Review of Regulations; Consistency With HACCP
As discussed in conjunction with the FSIS regulatory proposal of
February 3, 1995 (60 FR 6774), FSIS does not intend simply to add the
new HACCP system to the current system of inspection and regulation.
FSIS intends to integrate HACCP into a modernized system of inspection
and regulation that will harness the power of prevention and
performance standards to improve food safety and make better use of the
Agency's resources. To accomplish this, FSIS must review all of its
existing regulatory requirements and procedures and modify, streamline,
or eliminate them, as appropriate, to be compatible with the new food
safety strategy. FSIS has already targeted a number of its regulations
for elimination or reform and is seeking in this document public input
as a first step in the rulemaking required to achieve the needed
changes.
Earlier this year, partly to identify rule changes needed for
HACCP-based inspection and partly to meet requirements of the
President's Reinventing Government Initiative, FSIS conducted an
initial page-by-page review of existing regulations. The Agency
identified for possible revision or elimination more than 400 pages of
regulations. Almost three-quarters of the regulations administered by
FSIS were projected to be eliminated or changed to make them simpler,
less burdensome, or more performance-based.
As part of its overall food safety initiative, the Agency is
committed to moving beyond that initial review to making specific
proposals for the near term and to comprehensive regulatory reform to
be completed during the next few years.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Further, in line with the Administration's policy to reduce
reporting requirements in Government programs, FSIS invites comment on
its paperwork or recordkeeping requirements. The Agency seeks specific
recommendations for eliminating, simplifying, or otherwise changing
information collection requirements. FSIS also seeks recommendations
for improving or eliminating currently required forms (FSIS Form 7234-
1, the form accompanying label submissions, for example, or FSIS Form
8820-2, the form meat and poultry establishment personnel complete if
inspectors find deficiencies in processing operations).
Questions of particular concern include the following:
Despite efforts to prevent this, has FSIS issued
duplicative or redundant
[[Page 67472]]
requirements? Do FSIS' information and recordkeeping requirements
overlap with those of other Federal, State, or local agencies?
Should individual FSIS forms be modified or combined? If
so, how?
Should FSIS allow respondents to use facsimiles,
computers, or other automated collection systems or information
transfer technologies? If so, for which information requirements?
Would it be helpful for FSIS to accompany information
requirements with format suggestions?
Generally, how might FSIS make information collection
activities less burdensome?
Current Activity
FSIS has decided to publish the following documents at this time:
Rulemaking to make FSIS food safety regulations compatible
with HACCP and to eliminate redundant or unnecessary rules, initiated
in this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR);
Rulemaking to eliminate the FSIS prior-approval system for
substances added to meat and poultry products, a process initiated in a
proposed rule, ``Substances Approved for Use in the Preparation of Meat
and Poultry Products,'' docket #88-026P, published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register;
Rulemaking to amend existing standards of identity to give
manufacturers greater flexibility in marketing nutritionally improved
(e.g., reduced-fat) meat and poultry products, ``Food Standards:
Processed Meat and Poultry Products Named by Use of an Expressed
Nutrient Content Claim and Standardized Name'' (docket #92-024P),
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register); and
A final rule streamlining the prior-approval system for
meat and poultry labels, ``Prior Labeling Approval System,'' docket
#92-012F, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Further, FSIS is actively developing the following: a proposal to
convert remaining rules as much as possible from command-and-control
prescriptions to performance standards (``Performance Standards for the
Production of Certain Cooked Meat and Poultry Products''); a proposal
to eliminate prior-approval programs for facility blueprints,
processing equipment, and most quality control plans (``Elimination of
Prior Approval Requirements for Establishment Drawings and
Specifications, Equipment, and Certain Partial Quality Control
Programs''); and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting
comments and information on whether to modify or eliminate specific
standards and whether, and if so how, to modify the Agency's overall
approach to product standards (``Meat and Poultry Standards of Identity
and Composition'').
Planned Actions
Review of all prior-approval regulations not addressed in
the above-mentioned documents, with related rulemaking proposals
projected for publication during 1996;
Restructuring of FSIS meat inspection regulations and
poultry inspection regulations, which are currently in different
subchapters of the Code of Federal Regulations, to eliminate
duplicative and redundant requirements and make the regulations easier
to use (initiated in this ANPR).
FSIS invites public comment on all aspects of this regulatory
reform initiative based on the discussion contained in the ANPR and in
the companion rulemaking proposals.
Command-and-Control Regulations and Consistency With HACCP
The Pathogen Reduction/HACCP proposal referred to above reflects a
basic shift in FSIS's approach to overseeing the safety of meat and
poultry products. FSIS intends to rely less on command-and-control
requirements, which specify, often in great detail, how a plant is to
achieve a particular food safety objective, and more on performance
standards, which state an objective or level of performance plants are
expected to achieve, and allow for greater flexibility on the part of
the plant in determining how to achieve them. This shift to performance
standards and greater flexibility for meat and poultry plants is the
basis of FSIS's intention to further stimulate the innovative capacity
of the meat and poultry industry to improve the safety of its products.
This shift is also compelled by the philosophy underlying HACCP.
HACCP enables plant management to build science-based controls to
prevent food safety hazards into its food production processes, and
recognizes that the specific controls and related measures--the HACCP
plans--required to ensure food safety can vary from plant to plant.
Where appropriate, command-and-control regulations must be changed
to provide greater flexibility for industry to design and implement
processes and HACCP systems of control, tailored to the circumstances
of each plant. This is consistent with the HACCP approach, which
clearly delineates industry and Government responsibility for food
safety, with plants establishing procedures they will follow to ensure
the production of safe food. FSIS must carefully reconsider all of its
regulations that mandate specific actions, techniques, or processing
parameters designed to achieve a food safety objective and determine
whether they should be eliminated or modified to provide the
flexibility required to be consistent with HACCP. However, any changes
will not compromise food safety standards or objectives required to
protect public health.
FSIS must also modify its regulations in varying respects to
reflect the anticipated changes in the roles FSIS inspectors will play
in plants operating under HACCP.
Table 1 lists the regulations FSIS has identified as candidates for
modification or elimination to be consistent with HACCP. Comments
submitted during that public comment period also identified candidates
for modification or elimination. The comments are being evaluated by
FSIS and will be taken into account as the Agency proceeds with the
necessary rulemaking. Any changes in these or other FSIS regulations
that are required to be consistent with HACCP will be completed before
plants are required to comply with new HACCP requirements.
Notably, the following categories of regulations in title 9 of the
CFR are being reviewed for consistency with HACCP:
Definitions (Secs. 301.2 and 381.1);
Inauguration, suspension, and withdrawal of inspection
(Secs. 305.4, 305.5, and 381.19-381.21, and 381.29);
Appeals procedures and related administrative procedures
(Secs. 306.5, 335.40, and 381.35);
Reinspection of product entering establishments, and
retention and disposition of product (Secs. 318.2 and 381.145);
Restrictive, command-and-control-type regulations which
delimit processing and treatment methods intended to eliminate specific
food safety hazards such as trichinae in pork; mechanically separated
product, and various poultry products; and the potential hazards of
improper thermal processing of meat and poultry products and
irradiation of poultry (Secs. 318.6, 318.10, 318.12-318.20, 318.22-
318.24, and 318.300-318.311; and 381.148-381.152 and 318.300-381.311);
and
Recordkeeping and access to records under the Freedom of
Information Act (Secs. 320.5-320.7, 381.179-381.181; 390.1-390.8).
FSIS is also reviewing all of its regulations, policies, and
inspection
[[Page 67473]]
procedures concerning plant sanitation (Secs. 308.3-308.16 and
Secs. 381.45-381.61). Although implementation of the requirement
proposed on February 3, 1995, for sanitation standard operating
procedures (SOP's) would not depend on revisions to the Agency's
sanitation regulations, the Agency recognizes the need to more clearly
state the performance standards in this area. Basic sanitation and
plant hygiene practices are, from a food-safety perspective, among the
most important requirements in the regulations. The Agency believes
that the regulations can be made much clearer in describing the
establishments' roles and their responsibility for much of the routine
work in this area, so that Federal inspection resources can be
allocated to new, HACCP-related functions.
FSIS also invites comment on the relationship between HACCP and the
existing regulations governing postmortem inspection in slaughter
plants (9 CFR parts 310 and 381.76 et seq.). HACCP is intended to
address all significant avenues of hazard affecting the safety of meat
and poultry products. The FSIS postmortem inspection program, which
carries out the statutory mandate for carcass-by-carcass examination by
Federal inspectors, is designed to achieve an array of consumer
protection values, including exclusion of diseased animals from the
food supply and enforcement of standards regarding visible carcass
defects and contamination with visible filth, fecal matter, or other
extraneous materials, some of which affect the safety of the product
and some of which do not. HACCP plans for slaughter plants will include
one or more critical control points in the slaughter and carcass
dressing process, which will require inspectional oversight by FSIS
and, possibly, some modification of the current postmortem inspection
regulations. FSIS invites comment on what the relationship should be
between HACCP and the current postmortem inspection regulations and
activity, including specific suggestions for the manner in which
current regulations should be modified to be consistent with HACCP.
Table 1.--Regulations That Are Candidates for Revision or Removal Prior to HACCP Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulations--FMIA, PPIA Subject Possible action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 CFR Part
301, 381, Subpart A......... Definitions...................... Include general HACCP-related terms and
redefine inspection organization and
activity terms.
304, 381, Subpart D......... Application for and grant or Revise prior approval procedures (e.g.,
refusal of inspection. eliminating provisions of Sec. 381.19);
shift to performance standards.
305 and 306, 381, Subparts E Inauguration and withdrawal of Clarify role of inspection program. (See,
and F. inspection; inspection program e.g., Sec. 305.4). Integrate Secs. 305.5
employees. and 381.29 with rules for suspending and
withdrawing inspection. (See Part 335 and
Part 381, Subpart W.)
Assure that appeal procedures in Secs.
306.5 and 381.35 comport with enforcement
under HACCP.
307, 381, Subpart G......... Facilities for inspection........ Clarify standards for essential facilities.
(See, e.g., Secs. 307.1, 307.2, and
381.36.)
Convert requirements for sanitation and
facilities to performance standards or
decision criteria; supplement with
guidelines as needed. (See, e.g., Secs.
308.3, 308.4, and 381.46-381.52.)
Simplify detailed requirements for
equipment and cleanliness, for example;
convert to performance standards and/or
decision criteria; supplement with
guidelines as needed. (See Secs. 308.6-
308.9, 308.12, 308.13, and 308.16.)
Convert equipment and cleaning requirements
to performance standards and/or decision
criteria; supplement with guidelines as
needed. (See Secs. 381.54-381.61.)
Remove obsolete provisions for slack
barrels, similar containers and means of
conveyance, and burlap wrapping. (See
Secs. 308.10 and 308.11.)
Clarify decision criteria concerning
employment of diseased persons. (See Sec.
308.14.)
Convert tagging insanitary equipment,
utensils, rooms, and compartments
provisions to performance standards;
clarify role of inspection program
employees. (See Secs. 308.15 and 381.99.)
Update rules for temperatures and chilling
and freezing procedures for poultry and
make changes to accommodate HACCP (i.e.,
changes in addition to pathogen reduction
amendments proposed 2/3/95). (See Sec.
381.66 paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6).)
318, 381, Subparts O and X.. Entry into official Convert rules for articles entering
establishments; reinspection; establishments, and product disposal to
reinspections, preparing and performance standards and clarify role of
processing establishments. inspection program employees. (See Secs.
318.3 and 381.45(a),(b), and (i).)
Eliminate prior approval procedures for
total quality control systems. (See Secs.
318.4(c)-(h) and 381.145(c)-(g).)
Convert requirements for processing
procedures and articles used in preparing
products to performance standards and
clarify role of inspection program
employees. (See Secs. 318.5, 318.6,
318.8, and 381.148.)
[[Page 67474]]
Eliminate command-and-control type
requirements for the use of nitrite and
sodium ascorbate or erythorbate in bacon;
convert these requirements to performance
standards and clarify role of inspection
program employees. (See Sec. 318.7(b).)
Convert requirements for the treatment of
pork and pork products to destroy
trichinae in to performance standards;
supplement with guidelines as needed. (See
Sec. 318.10.)
Convert requirements for preparing articles
not for use as human food (e.g., dog food)
to performance standards; clarify role of
inspection program employees; eliminate
command-and-control type requirements.
(See Secs. 318.12 and 381.152.)
Eliminate redundancy with other provisions
(mixtures containing product that are not
classed as meat food products). (See Sec.
318.13.)
Convert procedure for handling product
adulterated by polluted water to
performance standards and decision
criteria; supplement with guidelines as
needed. (See Secs. 318.14 and 381.151.)
Convert requirements for tagging chemicals,
preservatives, cereals, spices, etc., to
performance standards; clarify role of
inspection program employees. (See Sec.
318.15.)
Convert rules for substances such as
pesticide chemical residues, food
additives, and color additives to
performance standards and role of
inspection program employees. (See Sec.
318.16.)
Make requirements for handling of certain
material for mechanical deboning
consistent with any new time-temperature
requirements. (See Sec. 318.18.)
Convert compliance procedures for meat
derived from advanced meat/bone separation
machinery and recovery systems to
performance standards and clarify role of
inspection program employees. (See Sec.
318.24.)
Convert requirements for canning and canned
products to performance standards and
clarify role of inspection program
employees. (See Secs. 318.300-318.311 and
381.300-381.311.)
325, 381, Subpart S......... Transportation................... Eliminate obsolete provisions; focus on and
clarify policies and performance
standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Request for Comments
This ANPR is intended to elicit comments, suggestions, and
information that will enable FSIS to provide more efficient and
effective service and to focus its organizational resources more
closely on health and safety matters, which are of vital concern to all
Americans. FSIS specifically requests comment on its efforts to
transform its regulations from heavy reliance on command-and-control
approaches to greater reliance on performance standards, and solicits
detailed suggestions concerning which existing regulations need to be
changed to be consistent with HACCP, and how those regulations should
be changed. The Agency notes that several individuals and groups,
including at least one trade association, responded to a similar
request in the February 3, 1995, proposal. FSIS would also appreciate
comments on the economic burdens and the paperwork, recordkeeping, or
other information collection burdens associated with the regulations
discussed in this document.
Comments supported by scientific or other data on the impacts, such
as the public health effects, of changing or eliminating existing
regulations, would be especially valuable.
Executive Order 12866
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12866. This rule has been determined to be significant
for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
FSIS does not have data necessary to assess how the regulatory
changes discussed in this document might affect various sectors of the
meat and poultry industries. Therefore, the Agency invites comment on
potential effects, including economic costs or benefits, of any
specific changes that may be suggested.
Done, at Washington, D.C., on December 21, 1995.
Michael R. Taylor,
Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety.
[FR Doc. 95-31393 Filed 12-26-95; 3:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
