2013-22574. United States Standards for Condition of Food Containers

AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is amending the regulations governing the United States (U.S.) Standards for Condition of Food Containers. The revisions to existing tables, removal of operating characteristic (OC) curves and updating language in the standards would enable the standards to be applicable to most types of food containers and align the standards to reflect current industry practices.

DATES:

Effective Date: October 17, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lynne Yedinak, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1536, South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; Telephone: [phone], FAX: [phone]; or email [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory action to the scale of business subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Food manufacturers are determined to be small businesses in accordance with the Small Business Size Standards by North American Industry Classification Systems (NAICS) codes in Title 13, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 13 CFR part 121. These businesses may have fewer than 500, 750, or 1,000 employees depending on their NAICS code.

There are approximately 22,058 establishments identified in the 2007 Economic Census as belonging to the North American Industry Classification System under the classification of “food manufacturing” and any number of these establishments could request their product containers be inspected under the provisions of the U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers. Only 402 of these establishments would qualify as small businesses under the definition provided by the Small Business Administration.

Under the final rule, utilization of the U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers continues to be voluntary. We have examined the economic implications of this final rule on small entities. Small entities would only incur direct costs when purchasers of their packaged food products stipulate in their procurement documents that the food containers should conform to the requirements of the U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers.

Since the standards were last amended in May 1983, innovations in packaging technologies have provided an increasingly wide variety of acceptable new food containers. Accordingly, we believe that the economic impact of this final rule will be minimal because the revisions are necessary in order to provide standards that reflect current industry practices. The changes concerning removal of OC curves and other non-substantive changes will have no adverse impact on small or large entities.

The revisions made herein enable the standards to be applicable to most types of food containers and align the standards to reflect current industry practices. With regard to alternatives, this action reflects revisions proposed to the standards as a result of the second proposed rule published in the Federal Register, January 18, 2012 [77 FR 2481].

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large establishments under the Paperwork Reduction Act, (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the Standards.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3601-3606; 3541-3549), to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not retroactive. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

Background

The U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers (Standards) currently provides sampling procedures and acceptance criteria for the inspection of stationary lots of filled food containers, which includes skip lot sampling and inspection procedures. It also provides on-line sampling and inspection procedures for food containers during production.

Stationary lot sampling is the process of randomly selecting sample units from a lot whose production has been completed. This type of lot is usually stored in a warehouse or in some other storage facility and is offered for inspection.

Skip lot sampling is a special procedure for inspecting stationary lots in which only a fraction of the submitted lots are inspected. Skip lot inspection can only be instituted when a certain number of lots of essentially the same quality have been consecutively accepted.

To be acceptable under the examination criteria in the standards, lots may contain only a limited number of defects classified as minor, major, or critical. Acceptance criteria are based on sampling plans for different lot sizes and levels of inspection such as normal, reduced, or tightened. Defect tables classify the severity of defects.

On-line sampling and inspection is a procedure in which subgroups of sample units or individual containers are selected randomly from pre-designated portions of production. The acceptability of these portions of production is determined by inspecting, at the time of sampling, the subgroups which represent these portions. For this type of sampling, only portions of a lot, rather than a whole lot, may be rejected. This helps to identify trouble spots in a production cycle quickly, and enables the producer to make timely corrections. This can reduce the corrective action costs and the amount of product destroyed as a result of packaging problems.

These standards were developed for use by Government agencies when requested to certify filled primary containers or shipping cases, or both, for condition. The standards are permissive, and they may be used in their entirety or in part by private parties.

Revision of the Standards includes:

(1) separating Tables I, I-A, II, II-A, III, III-A, and III-B of sampling plans for normal, tightened, and reduced inspection by the type of sampling plan used (single or double), as well as updating the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) for these tables

(2) updating Table IV—Metal Containers, (Rigid and Semi-Rigid), Table VI—Glass Containers, Table VIII—Rigid and Semi-Rigid Containers (Corrugated or Solid Fiberboard, Chipboard, Wood, Paperboard Aseptic Cartons, Polymeric Trays, etc.), Table IX—Flexible Containers (Plastic Bags, Cello, Paper, Textile, Laminated Multi-Layer Pouch, Bag, etc.), and Table XI—Defects of Label, Marking, or Code to incorporate new defects and revise existing defects to reflect new packaging technologies such as aseptic packaging, metal cans with easy open lids, and plastic rings that hold several containers together

(3) adding new defect tables, Table V—Composite Containers (Semi-Rigid Laminated or Multi-Layer Paperboard Body with Metal, Plastic, or Combination of Metal and Plastic Ends and a Safety Seal Inside the Cap), Table VII—Plastic Containers (Rigid and Semi-Rigid Bottles, Jars, Tubs, Trays, Pails, etc.), and Table XII—Interior Can Defects (a new section 42.114 is added to provide for procedures for evaluating interior container defects)

(4) removing the OC curves

(5) other minor non-substantive changes to clarify the text.

These revisions to existing tables, addition of new tables, removal of OC curves, and updating language in the U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers enables the standards to be applicable to most types of food containers and align the standards to reflect current industry practices.

OC curves found in §§ 42.140, 42.141, 42.142, and 42.143 from Subpart E—Miscellaneous, are removed. This final rule reflects the amendatory language removing these provisions that first appeared in the proposed rule published in the November 19, 2009, Federal Register. While these curves show the ability of the various sampling plans to distinguish between accepted and rejected lots, it is our experience that the inclusion of these curves is not critical to use of the standards. Furthermore, they are readily available in literature and on the Internet. Also, Standards for sampling plans including OC Curves are currently available in 7 CFR Part 43.

Comments

AMS published two proposed rules in the Federal Register in which six comments were received. The first proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2009 [74 FR 59920], with a sixty-day comment period which closed on January 19, 2010. Two comments were received. One commenter provided a comment that was determined to be outside the scope of the rule. Therefore, no changes were made based on this comment. The other commenter supported the proposed rule revision and provided statements regarding § 42.112—Defects of Containers. The commenter stated that while Table IV of § 42.112 has defects for composite cans listed as a subset of the metal can defects, composite cans also exhibit defects listed in Table VI—Rigid and Semi-rigid containers. The commenter proposed a separate table be added for composite cans extracting the composite can defects from Table IV and Table VI. Based on this comment, AMS added a new Table V that contained the information for composite can defects from Table IV and Table VI and removed the composite information in Table IV. The proposed rule was then reissued.

The second proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2012 [77 FR 2481] and provided a comment period of sixty days which closed on March 19, 2012. Four comments were received. Two commenters provided comments that were determined to be outside the scope of the rule. Therefore, no changes were made based on those comments.

The third commenter supported the revision of the proposed rule with several changes. Comments were received regarding: (1) the new proposed paragraph § 42.114—Procedures for Evaluating Interior Container Defects and Table XII—Interior Container Defects, and (2) the proposed modifications to two defects in Table IV—Metal Containers (Rigid and Semi-rigid). Comments received regarding Procedures for Evaluating Interior Container Defects stated that the last four defects in Table XII were vague and not defined. AMS determined the comment had merit and removed major defect 104 and minor defect 204, and revised major defect 105 and minor defect 205 to provide examples of what “other anomaly(ies)” are. The defects were then renumbered. In subsequent discussions, the commenter requested AMS change “Enamel cracked in metal container material not affecting usability” in minor defect 203, Table XII, to “Enamel breakdown in metal affecting usability” as the terms “cracked” and “breakdown” mean the same thing. AMS determined that this had merit and made the change. The commenter also provided comments on § 42.112—Defects of Containers, Table IV—Rigid and Semi-Rigid Containers. The comment concerned major defect 107 for “Metal pop-top: (b) Missing or incomplete score line:” and minor defect 203 for “Flexible pop-top: (b) Short pull tab.” The commenter stated that sometimes product design standards request a partial score for a metal pop-top or a shortened pull tab for a flexible pop-top. The commenter requested that AMS revise the defect descriptions to specify that these will not be considered defects when they are requested in a product specification. AMS determined the comment had merit and, to account for this exception, added the phrase “(not conforming to a relevant product specification)” to major defect 107 and minor defect 203.

The fourth commenter stated that using “Tetra Pak” is a reference to a company and not the actual type of packaging. The commenter recommended that AMS use one of the specific package trademarks or use the term “Tetra Pak cartons.” AMS determined the comment had merit. AMS has revised the package identification from “Tetra Pak” to “Paperboard Aseptic Cartons” to accurately identify all packaging made in a similar manner.

Based on the comments received and information gathered, AMS believes that revising these standards will bring the Standards inline to reflect current industry practices.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 42

• Food packaging, reporting and recordkeeping requirements

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 42 is amended as follows:

PART 42—[Amended]

1. The authority citation for part 42 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 203, 205, 60 Stat. 1087, as amended, 1090, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1622, 1624).

2. Section 42.102 is amended by:

a. Removing the definitions “Lot”, “Operating Characteristic Curve (OC Curve)” and “ Probability of acceptance”.

b. Revising the definitions “Administrator,” “Sample size (n),” and “Stationary lot sampling”

c. Adding the definition “Lot or inspection lot” in alphabetical order.

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 42.102

Definitions, general.

* * * * *

Administrator. The Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department or any other officer or employee of the Agency who is delegated, or who may be delegated the authority to act in the Administrator's stead.

* * * * *

Lot or inspection lot. A collection of filled food containers of the same size, type, and style. The term shall mean “inspection lot,” i.e., a collection of units of product from which a sample is to be drawn and inspected to determine conformance with the applicable acceptance criteria. An inspection lot may differ from a collection of units designated as a lot for other purposes (e.g., production lot, shipping lot, etc.).

* * * * *

Sample size (n). The number of sample units included in the sample.

* * * * *

Stationary lot sampling. The process of randomly selecting sample units from a lot whose production has been completed. This type of lot is usually stored in a warehouse or in some other storage facility and is offered in its entirety for inspection.

* * * * *

§ 42.106

[Amended]

3. In § 42.106, paragraph (a)(1), remove the word “attributed” and add in its place the word “attributed”.

4. Revise § 42.109, to read as follows:

§ 42.109

Sampling plans for normal condition of container inspection, Tables I and I-A.

Table I—Single Sampling Plans for Normal Condition of Container Inspection

Code	Lot size ranges— Number of containers in lot	Type of Plan	Acceptable quality levels
			Origin Inspection							Other Than Origin Inspection
			Sample size	0.25		1.5		6.5		0.25		2.5		10.0
				Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re
CA	6,000 or less	Single	84	0	1	3	4	9	10	0	1	4	5	13	14
CB	6,001-12,000	Single	168	1	2	5	6	16	17	1	2	7	8	23	24
CC	12,001-36,000	Single	315	2	3	8	9	28	29	2	3	13	14	41	42
CD	Over 36,000	Single	500	3	4	12	13	42	43	3	4	18	19	62	63
CE		Single	800	4	5	18	19	64	65	4	5	27	28	95	96
Ac = Acceptance number.
Re = Rejection number.

5. Revise § 42.110 to read as follows:

§ 42.110

Sampling plans for tightened condition of container inspection; Tables II and II-A.

Table II—Single Sampling Plans for Tightened Condition of Container Inspection

Code	Lot size ranges— Number of containers in lot	Type of Plan	Acceptable quality levels
			Origin Inspection							Other Than Origin Inspection
			Sample Size	0.25		1.5		6.5		0.25		2.5		10.0
				Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re
CB	6,000 or less	Single	168	0	1	4	5	11	12	0	1	5	6	16	17
CC	6,001-12,000	Single	315	1	2	6	7	19	20	1	2	8	9	28	29
CD	12,001-36,000	Single	500	2	3	9	10	28	29	2	3	12	13	42	43
CE	Over 36,000	Single	800	3	4	13	14	42	43	3	4	18	19	64	65
CF		Single	1,250	4	5	19	20	63	64	4	5	26	27	96	97

6. Revise § 42.111 to read as follows:

§ 42.111

Sampling plans for reduced condition of container inspection, Tables III and III-A; and limit number for reduced inspection, Table III-B.

Table III—Single Sampling Plans for Reduced Condition of Container Inspection

Code	Lot size ranges— Number of containers in lot	Type of Plan	Acceptable quality levels
			Origin inspection							Other Than Origin Inspection
			Sample Size	0.25		1.5		6.5		0.25		2.5		10.0
				Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re	Ac	Re
CAA	6,000 or less	Single	29	1	2	1	2	4	5	1	2	2	3	5	6
CA	6,001-36,000	Single	84	1	2	3	4	9	10	1	2	4	5	13	14
CB	Over 36,000	Single	168	1	2	5	6	16	17	1	2	7	8	23	24
CC		Single	315	2	3	8	9	28	29	2	3	13	14	41	42

Table III-B—Limit Numbers for Reduced Inspection

Number of sample units from last 10 lots inspected within 6 months	Acceptable quality level
	0.25	1.5	2.5	6.5	10.0
320-499	(*)	1	4	14	24
500-799	(*)	3	7	25	40
800-1,249	0	7	14	42	68
1,250-1,999	0	13	24	69	110
2,000-3,149	2	22	40	115	181
3,150-4,999	4	38	67	186	293
5,000-7,999	7	63	110	302	472
8,000-12,499	14	105	181	491	765
12,500-19,999	24	169	290	777	1207
* Denotes that the number of sample units from the last 10 inspection lots is not sufficient for reduced inspection for this AQL. In this instance more than 10 inspection lots may be used for the calculations if; the inspection lots used are the most recent ones in sequence within the last 6 months, they have all been on normal inspection, and none has been rejected on original inspection.

7. Section § 42.112 is revised to read as follows:

§ 42.112

Defects of containers: Tables IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X.

Table IV—Metal Containers

[Rigid and semi-rigid]

Defects	Categories
	Critical	Major	Minor
Type or size of container or component parts not as specified	None permitted
Closure incomplete, not located correctly or not sealed, crimped, or fitted properly:
(a) Heat processed primary container	1
(b) Non-heat processed primary container		101
(c) Other than primary container			201
Dirty, stained, or smeared container			202
Key opening metal containers (when required):
(a) Key missing		102
(b) Key does not fit tab		103
(c) Tab of opening band insufficient to provide accessibility to key		104
(d) Improper scoring (band would not be removed in one continuous strip)		105
Metal pop-top:
(a) Missing or broken pull tab		106
(b) Missing or incomplete score line (not conforming to a relevant product specification)		107
Flexible pop-top:
(a) Poor seal (wrinkle, entrapped matter, etc.)		108
(b) Short pull tab (not conforming to a relevant product specification)			203
(c) Missing pull tab		109
(d) Torn pull tab			204
Open top with plastic overcap (when required):
(a) Plastic overcap missing		110
(b) Plastic overcap warped (making opening or reapplication difficult)		111
Outside tinplate or coating (when required):
(a) Missing or incomplete			205
(b) Blistered, flaked, sagged, or wrinkled			206
(c) Scratched or scored			207
(d) Fine cracks			208
Rust (rust stain confined to the top or bottom double seam or rust that can be removed with a soft cloth is not scored a defect):
(a) Rust stain			209
(b) Pitted rust		112
Wet cans (excluding refrigerated containers)			210
Dent:
(a) Materially affecting appearance but not usability			211
(b) Materially affecting usability		113
Buckle:
(a) Not involving end seam			212
(b) Extending into the end seam		114
Collapsed container		115
Paneled side materially affecting appearance but not usability			213
Solder missing when required		116
Cable cut exposing seam		117
Improper side seam		118
Swell, springer, or flipper (not applicable to gas or pressure packed product nor frozen products)	2
Leaker or blown container	3
Frozen products only:
(a) Bulging ends3/16-inch to1/4-inch beyond lip			214
(b) Bulging ends more than1/4-inch beyond lip		119
Metal drums: leaking filling seal (bung) swell 1	4	120
1 Defect classification depends on the severity of the defect.

Table V—Composite Containers

[Fiberboard body with metal lids or metal bottoms, plastic or foil top with cap]

Defects	Categories
	Critical	Major	Minor
Type or size of container or component parts not as specified	None permitted
Closure incomplete, not located correctly or not sealed, crimped, or fitted properly	1
Dirty, stained, or smeared container			201
Easy open closure:
(a) Pull tab:
1. Missing or broken pull tab		101
2. Missing or incomplete score line		102
(b) Membrane top:
1. Poor seal (wrinkle, entrapped matter, etc.)		103
2. Short pull tab		104
3. Missing pull tab		105
4. Torn pull tab		106
(c) Open top with plastic overcap (when required):
1. Plastic overcap missing		107
2. Plastic overcap warped (making opening or reapplication difficult)		108
Outside tinplate or coating on ends (when required):
(a) Missing or incomplete			202
(b) Blistered, flaked, sagged, or wrinkled			203
(c) Scratched or scored			204
(d) Fine cracks			205
Collapsed container		109
Paneled side materially affecting appearance but not usability			206
Leaker	2
Wet or damp:
(a) Materially affecting appearance but not usability			207
(b) Materially affecting usability		110
Crushed or torn area:
(a) Materially affecting appearance but not usability			208
(b) Materially affecting usability		111

Table VI—Glass Containers

[Bottles, Jars]

Defects	Categories
	Critical	Major	Minor
Type or size of container or component parts not as specified	None permitted
Closure not sealed, crimped, or fitted properly:
(a) Heat processed	1
(b) Non-heat processed		101
Dirty, stained, or smeared container			201
Chip in glass			202
Stone (unmelted material) in glass			203
Pits in surface of glass			204
Sagging surface			205
Bead (bubble within glass):
(a) 1/8-inch to 1/16-inch in diameter			206
(b) Exceeding 1/8-inch in diameter		102
Checked		103
Thin spot in glass		104
Blister (structural defect)		105
Bird swing (glass appendage inside container)	2
Broken or leaking container	3
Cap (nonheat processed):
(a) Cross-threaded			207
(b) Loose but not leaking			208
(c) Pitted rust		106
Cap (heat processed):
(a) Cross-threaded or loose	4
(b) Pitted rust		107
Sealing tape or cello band (when required):
(a) Improperly placed			209
(b) Not covering juncture of cap and glass		108
(c) Ends overlap by less than 1/2-inch		109
(d) Loose or deteriorating		110
Missing or torn outer safety seal		111
Inner safety seal—missing, torn, poor seal		112

Table VII—Plastic Containers

[Rigid and Semi-Rigid, Bottles, Jars, Tubs, Trays, Pails, etc.]

Defects	Categories
	Critical	Major	Minor
Type or size of container or component parts not as specified	None permitted
Closure not sealed, crimped, or fitted properly:
(a) Heat processed	1
(b) Non-heat processed		101
Dirty, stained, or smeared container			201
Chip in plastic			202
Un-melted gels in plastic			203
Pits in surface of plastic			204
Sagging surface			205
Air bubble within plastic:
(a) 1/8-inch to 1/16-inch in diameter			206
(b) Exceeding 1/8-inch in diameter		102
Checked		103
Thin spot in plastic		104
Blister (structural defect)		105
Broken or leaking container	2
Cap (non-heat processed):
(a) Cross-threaded			207
(b) Loose but not leaking			208
Cap (heat processed), cross-threaded or loose	3
Security seals:
(a) Closure ring missing		106
(b) Missing or torn outer safety seal		107
(c) Inner safety seal—missing, torn, or poor seal		108
(d) Sealing tape or cello band (when required):
1. Improperly placed			209
2. Not covering juncture of cap and plastic		109
3. Ends overlap by less than 1/2-inch		110
4. Loose or deteriorating		111

Table VIII—Rigid and Semi-Rigid Containers—Corrugated or Solid Fiberboard, Chipboard, Wood, Paperboard Aseptic Cartons, Polymeric Trays, etc.

[Excluding metal, glass, and plastic]

Defects	Categories
	Critical	Major	Minor
Type or size of container or component parts not as specified	None permitted
Component part missing		101
Closure not sealed, crimped, or fitted properly:
(a) Primary container	1
(b) Other than primary container			201
Dirty, stained, or smeared container			202
Wet or damp (excluding ice packs):
(a) Materially affecting appearance but not usability			203
(b) Materially affecting usability		102
Moldy area	2
Crushed or torn area:
(a) Materially affecting appearance but not usability			204
(b) Materially affecting usability		103
Separation of lamination (corrugated fiberboard):
(a) Materially affecting appearance but not usability			205
(b) Materially affecting usability		104
Product sifting or leaking		105
Nails or staples (when required):
(a) Not as required, insufficient number or improperly positioned			206
(b) Nails or staples protruding		106
Glue or adhesive (when required); not holding properly, not covering area specified, or not covering sufficient area to hold properly:
(a) Primary container		107
(b) Other than primary container			207
Flap:
(a) Projects beyond edge of container more than1/4-inch			208
(b) Does not meet properly, allowing space of more than1/4-inch			209
Sealing tape or strapping (when required):
(a) Missing		108
(b) Improperly placed or applied			210
Missing component (straw, etc.)			211
Paperboard Aseptic Cartons:
(a) Missing re-sealable cap or tab		109
(b) Inner or outer safety seal—missing, torn, poor seal	3
Thermostabilized polymeric trays:
Tray body:
(a) Swollen container	4
(b) Tear, crack, hole, abrasion through more than one layer of multi-layer laminate for the tray	5
(c) Presence of delamination in multi-layered laminate			212
(d) Presence of any permanent deformation, such that deformed area is discolored or roughened in texture			213
Lid material:
(a) Closure seal not continuous along tray flange surface	6
(b) Foldover wrinkle in seal area extends into the closure seal such that the closure seal is reduced to less than1/8-inch	7
(c) Any impression or design on the seal surfaces which conceals or impairs visual detection of seal defects		110
(d) Areas of “wave-like” striations or wrinkles along the seal area that spans the entire width of seal			214
(e) Abrasion of lid material:
1. Within1/16-inch of food product edge of seal such that barrier layer is exposed	8
2. Greater than1/16-inch from food product edge of seal that barrier layer is exposed			215
(f) Presence of entrapped matter within1/16-inch of the food product edge of seal or entrapped moisture or vapor with1/16-inch of the food product edge of seal that results in less than1/16-inch of defect free seal width at the outside edge	9
(g) Presence of any seal defect or anomaly (for example, entrapped moisture, gases, etc.) within1/16-inch of food product edge of seal		111
(h) Closure seal width less than1/8-inch			216

Table IX—Flexible Containers

[Plastic, Cellophane, Paper, Textile, Laminated Multi-Layer Pouch, Bag, etc.]

Defects	Categories
	Critical	Major	Minor
Type or size of container or component parts not as specified	None permitted
Closure not sealed, crimped, stitched, or fitted properly:
(a) Heat processed primary container	1
(b) Non-heat processed primary container		101
(c) Other than primary container			201
Dirty, stained, or smeared container			202
Unmelted gels in plastic			203
Torn or cut container or abrasion (non-leaker):
(a) Materially affecting appearance but not usability			204
(b) Materially affecting usability		102
Moldy area	2
Individual packages sticking together or to shipping case (tear when separated)		103
Not fully covering product		104
Wet or damp (excluding ice packs):
(a) Materially affecting appearance but not usability			205
(b) Materially affecting usability		105
Over wrap (when required):
(a) Missing		106
(b) Loose, not sealed, or closed			206
(c) Improperly applied			207
Sealing tape, strapping, or adhesives (when required):
(a) Missing		107
(b) Improperly placed, applied, torn, or wrinkled			208
Tape over bottom and top closures (when required):
(a) Not covering stitching		108
(b) Torn (exposing stitching)		109
(c) Wrinkled (exposing stitching)		110
(d) Not adhering to bag:
1. Exposing stitching		111
2. Not exposing stitching			209
(e) Improper placement			210
Product sifting or leaking:
(a) Non-heat processed		112
(b) Heat processed	3
Flexible pop-top:
(a) Poor seal (wrinkle, entrapped matter, etc.) reducing intact seal to less than1/16-inch	4
(b) Short pull tab (materially affecting usability)			212
(c) Missing pull tab		113
(d) Torn pull tab (materially affecting usability)			213
Missing component (straw, etc.)			214
Two part container (poly lined box or bag in box):
(a) Outer case torn			215
(b) Poly liner:
1. Missing	5
2. Improper closure		114
Missing “zip lock” (re-sealable containers)			216
Loss of vacuum (in vacuum-packed)		115
Pre-formed containers:
(a) Dented or crushed area			217
(b) Deformed container			218
Missing re-sealable cap		116
Inner or outer safety seal—missing, torn, poor seal	6
Air bubble in plastic		117
Thermostabilized products (includes but not limited to tubes, pouches, etc.):
Foldover wrinkle in seal area (thermostabilized pouches):
(a) Extends through all plies across seal area or reduces seal less than1/16-inch	7
(b) Does not extend through all plies and effective seal is1/16-inch or greater			219
Incomplete seal (thermostabilized pouches)	8
Non-bonding seal (thermostabilized pouches)	9
Laminate separation in body of pouch or in seal within1/16-inch of food product edge:
(a) If food contact layer is exposed	10
(b) If food contact surface is exposed after manipulation or laminate separation expands after manipulation		118
(c) If lamination separation is limited to isolated spots that do not propagate with manipulation or is outer ply separation in seal within1/16-inch of food product edge of seal			220
Flex cracks (cracks in foil layer only)			221
Swollen container	11
Blister (in seal) reducing intact seal to less than1/16-inch	12
Compressed seal (overheated to bubble or expose inner layer) reducing intact seal to less than1/16-inch	13
Stringy seal (excessive plastic threads showing at edge of seal area)			222
Contaminated seal (entrapped matter) reducing intact seal to less than1/16-inch	14
Seal creep (product in pouch “creeping” into seal) reducing intact seal to less than1/16 inch	15
Misaligned or crooked seal reducing intact seal to less than1/16-inch	16
Seal formed greater than 1-inch from edge of pouch (unclosed edge flaps)			223
Waffling (embossing on surface from retort racks; not scorable unless severe)			224
Poor or missing tear notch (when required)			225

Table X—Unitizing

[Plastic or other type of casing/unitizing]

Defects	Categories
	Major	Minor
Not specified method	101
Missing tray (when required)	102
Missing shrink wrap (when required)	103
Loose or improperly applied wrap		201
Torn or mutilated		202
Off-center wrap (does not overlap both ends)		203

8. Section 42.113 is revised to read as follows:

§ 42.113

Defects of label, marking, or code.

Table XI—Label, Marking, or Code

Defects	Categories
	Major	Minor
Not specified method	101
Missing (when required)	102
Loose or improperly applied		201
Torn or mutilated		202
Torn or scratched, obliterating any markings on the label	103
Text illegible or incomplete		203
Incorrect	104
In wrong location		204

9. Add § 42.114 to subpart B to read as follows:

§ 42.114

Procedures for evaluating interior container defects.

(a) Sections 42.101-42.136 provide procedures for determining lot conformance with the U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers. This determination is based on the examination of the external characteristics of the food containers.

(b) As an option, if a user of the inspection service requests to have the interior characteristics of containers examined, and apply these results in the determination of lot acceptability, the defects listed in Table XII may be used.

(c) The determination of lot acceptability based on internal container defects shall be independent of the determination of lot acceptability for U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers. A user of the inspection service may choose to require inspection for internal can defects as well as inspection for U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers.

(d) If a user of the inspection service requests an examination for internal container defects in addition to an official USDA/USDC inspection for product quality and/or U.S. grade, the containers opened by the official inspection service for inspection of product quality and/or U.S. grade will be used for examination of interior container defects. The minimum sample size for evaluation of interior container defects will be 13 containers. As a result, additional containers will be required if the inspection for quality or U.S. grade calls for fewer than 13 containers. Table XIII provides acceptance numbers for internal container defects for selected sample sizes.

Table XII—Interior Container Defects

Defects	Categories
	Major	Minor
De-tinning in metal container materially affecting usability	101
De-tinning in metal container not materially affecting usability		201
Black spots in metal container		202
Enamel missing (when required) in metal container	102
Enamel breakdown in metal container material affecting usability	103
Enamel breakdown in metal container material not affecting usability		203
Other defect(s) of the interior of the container (metal, plastic, paper, rigid, etc.) e.g., interior damage, tear, delamination, missing layer, off-odor, interior blisters, etc. that materially affects usability	104
Defect(s) of the interior of the container (metal, plastic, paper, rigid, etc.) e.g., interior damage, tear, delamination, missing layer, off-odor, interior blisters, etc. that materially affects appearance but not usability		204

Table XIII—Acceptance Numbers for Internal Container Defects

Sample Size (n = number of containers)	Major		Total
	Interior Defects		Interior Defects
	Ac	Re	Ac	Re
n—13	0	1	2	3
n—21	1	2	3	4
n—29	1	2	4	5
n—38	2	3	5	6
n—48	2	3	6	7
n—60	2	3	7	8

Dated: September 11, 2013.

Rex A. Barnes,

Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.