This script search US Code. View Rule
Menu Item - Home
Menu Item - Agenda Main page
Menu Item - Historical Agenda
Menu Item - Historical Agenda
Menu Item - Agenda Search
Menu Item - Agenda XML Reports
Menu Item - EO Dashboard
Menu Item - Reg Review
Menu Item - EO Agency lists
Menu Item - EO Search
Menu Item - EO Historical Reports
Menu Item - Review Counts
Menu Item - OIRA Letters
Menu Item - EOM 12866 Search
Menu Item - EO XML Reports
Menu Item - ICR Dashboard page
Menu Item - ICR Main page
Menu Item - ICR Search
Menu Item - ICR XML Reports
Menu Item - FAQ
Menu Item - Additional Resources
Menu Item - Contact Us
Search: Agenda Reg Review ICR

View Rule

View EO 12866 Meetings Printer-Friendly Version     Download RIN Data in XML

USDA/FSIS RIN: 0583-AD28 Publication ID: Fall 2009 
Title: Changes to Regulatory Jurisdiction Over Certain Food Products Containing Meat and Poultry 
Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have concluded that a clearer approach to determining jurisdiction over meat and poultry products is possible. This approach involves considering the contribution of the meat or poultry ingredients to the identity of the food. FSIS is proposing to amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to provide consistency and predictability in the regulatory jurisdiction over nine products or product categories. Historically there has been confusion about whether these products fall within the jurisdiction of FSIS or FDA. These proposed changes would exempt cheese and cheese products prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry; breads, rolls and buns prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry; dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases and flavors; pizza with meat or poultry; and salad dressings prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry from the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Product Inspection Act and would clarify that bagel dogs, natural casings, and close faced-sandwiches are subject to the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. 
Agency: Department of Agriculture(USDA)  Priority: Other Significant 
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Stage 
Major: Undetermined  Unfunded Mandates: No 
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 303.1    9 CFR 381.15   
Legal Authority: 21 USC 601(j)    21 USC 454(f)   
Legal Deadline:  None

Statement of Need: Over the years, FSIS has made decisions about the jurisdiction under which food products containing meat or poultry ingredients are produced based on the amount of meat or poultry in the product; whether the product is represented as a meat or poultry product (that is, whether a term that refers to meat or poultry is used on labeling); whether the product is perceived by consumers as a product of the meat or poultry industries; and whether the product contains poultry or meat from an accepted source. With regard to the consumer perception factor, FSIS made decisions on a case-by-case basis, mostly in response to situations involving determinations for compliance and enforcement. Although this case-by-case approach resulted in decisions that made sense at the time that they were made, a review in 2004 to 2005 by a working group of FSIS and FDA representatives showed that some of the decisions do not appear to be fully consistent with other product decisions and that the reasoning behind various determinations was not fully articulated or supported.

Summary of the Legal Basis: Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1032), and the regulations that implement these Acts, FSIS has authority over all meat food and poultry products and processed egg products. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the regulations that implement it, FDA has authority over all foods not under FSISí jurisdiction, including dairy, bread and other grain products, vegetables and other produce, and other products, such as seafood. According to the provisions of the FMIA and PPIA, the Secretary has the authority to exempt certain human food products from the definition of a meat food product (21 U.S.C. 601(j)) or a poultry product (20 U.S.C. 454(f)) based on either of two factors: (1) The product contains only a relatively small proportion of livestock ingredients or poultry ingredients, or (2) the product historically has not been considered by consumers as a product of the meat food or poultry industry, and under such conditions as he or she may prescribe to ensure that the livestock or poultry ingredients are not adulterated and that the products are not represented as meat food or poultry products.

Alternatives: FSIS has considered over the years a number of variations to clarify the confusion regarding jurisdiction for these various products. Alternative 1: Maintain the status quo. Although FSIS has considered taking no action at this time, the Agency does not recommend this option because of the continued confusion that exists among industry and consumers as to jurisdictional coverage for nine categories of products. Alternative 2: Reassess the statutory factors for making jurisdiction decision and recommend an amendment. The amendment of the statute would be from the historical perception factor because that is the factor, of the two statutory factors, that the working group identified as leading to the state of confusion about the jurisdiction of certain products containing meat or poultry. Alternative 3: Adopt some of the FDA/FSIS working groupís suggested approach to making clear and transparent jurisdiction decisions by proposing changes to regulations to codify the current policies on exempted products.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: FSIS estimates that the initial and recurring costs of the rule to industry would be approximately $5 million and $7 million, respectively. These costs would be attributable to new Sanitation SOP and HACCP plan development, as well as to labeling changes and training. FSIS would incur $7 million in annual recurring costs (salaries and benefits). Establishments coming under FSIS jurisdiction also would incur costs for recordkeeping, monitoring, testing, and annual HACCP plan reassessment. Benefits to industry would accrue from reduced confusion over Agency jurisdiction, which may affect labeling and recordkeeping costs. There may be spill-over benefits accruing from changes in consumer behavior. Also, there would be improvement in efficiency in use of FDA and FSIS resources.

Risks: None

Action Date FR Cite
NPRM  03/00/2010    
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined  Government Levels Affected: None 
Small Entities Affected: Businesses  Federalism: No 
Included in the Regulatory Plan: Yes 
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No 
Agency Contact:
Charles Gioglio
Special Assistant, Office of the Assistant Administrator Office of Policy and Program Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20250
Phone:202 720-5025
Fax:202 720-2025

About Us   Vertical Spacer Spacer Related Resources   Vertical Spacer Spacer Disclosure   Vertical Spacer Spacer Accessibility   Vertical Spacer Spacer Privacy Policy   Vertical Spacer Spacer Contact Us