Meeting To Discuss Possible Changes to the Regulatory Jurisdiction of Certain Food Products Containing Meat and Poultry, 67490-67494 [05-22123]
Download as PDF
67490
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices
special control guidance document to
support the classification of the low
energy ultrasound wound cleaner into
class II (special controls). This device is
intended for the cleaning and
maintenance debridement of wounds.
On April 29, 2004, Celleration, Inc.,
submitted a petition requesting
classification of the Celleration MIST
Therapy SystemTM under section
513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C.
360c(f)(2)).
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, FDA is publishing a final rule
classifying the low energy ultrasound
wound cleaner into class II (special
controls) under section 513(f)(2) of the
act. This guidance document will serve
as the special control for the low energy
ultrasound wound cleaner device.
Section 513(f)(2) of the act provides that
any person who submits a premarket
notification under section 510(k) of the
act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) for a device that
has not previously been classified may,
within 30 days after receiving an order
classifying the device in class III under
section 513(f)(1) of the act, request FDA
to classify the device under criteria set
forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act. FDA
shall, within 60 days of receiving such
a request, classify the device by written
order. This classification shall be the
initial classification of the device.
Within 30 days after the issuance of an
order classifying the device, FDA must
publish a notice in the Federal Register
announcing such classification. Because
of the timeframes established by section
513(f)(2) of the act, FDA has
determined, under § 10.115(g)(2) (21
CFR 10.115(g)(2)), that is not feasible to
allow for public participation before
issuing this guidance as a final guidance
document. Therefore, FDA is issuing
this guidance document as a level 1
guidance document that is immediately
in effect. FDA will consider any
comments that are received in response
to this notice to determine whether to
amend the guidance document.
II. Significance of Guidance
This guidance is being issued
consistent with FDA’s GGPs regulation
in § 10.115. The guidance represents the
agency’s current thinking on the low
energy ultrasound wound cleaner for
the cleaning and maintenance
debridement of wounds. It does not
create or confer any rights for or on any
person and does not operate to bind
FDA or the public. An alternative
approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statute and regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
III. Electronic Access
To receive ‘‘Class II Special Controls
Guidance Document: Low Energy
Ultrasound Wound Cleaner’’ by fax, call
the CDRH Facts-On-Demand system at
800–899–0381 or 301–827–0111 from a
touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter
the system. At the second voice prompt,
press 1 to order a document. Enter the
document number 1302 followed by the
pound sign (#). Follow the remaining
voice prompts to complete your request.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy
of the guidance may also do so by using
the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry
on the Internet for easy access to
information including text, graphics,
and files that may be downloaded to a
personal computer with Internet access.
Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH
home page includes device safety alerts,
Federal Register reprints, information
on premarket submissions (including
lists of approved applications and
manufacturers’ addresses), small
manufacturer’s assistance, information
on video conferencing and electronic
submissions, Mammography Matters,
and other device-oriented information.
The CDRH Web site may be accessed at
https://www.fda.gov/cdrh. A search
capability for all CDRH guidance
documents is available at https://
www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html.
Guidance documents are also available
on the Division of Dockets Management
Internet site at https://www.fda.gov/
ohrms/dockets.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This guidance contains information
collection provisions that are subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44
USC 3501–3520). The collections of
information addressed in the guidance
document have been approved by OMB
in accordance with PRA under the
regulations governing premarket
notification submissions (21 CFR part
807, subpart E, OMB control number
0910–0120). The labeling provisions
addressed in the guidance have been
approved by OMB under OMB control
number 0910–0485.
V. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) written or electronic
comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic
comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that
individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the
docket number found in brackets in the
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Dated: October 5, 2005.
Linda S. Kahan,
Deputy Director, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 05–22069 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety Inspection Service
[Docket No. 05–013N]
Meeting To Discuss Possible Changes
to the Regulatory Jurisdiction of
Certain Food Products Containing
Meat and Poultry
Food and Drug
Administration, HHS; Food Safety
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting;
request for comments.
AGENCIES:
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), in the
Department of Health and Human
Services, and the Food Safety Inspection
Service (FSIS), in the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), are
jointly announcing a public meeting to
discuss and solicit information on an
approach for providing consistency and
predictability with respect to which of
the two agencies should have
jurisdiction over certain types of food
products that contain meat and poultry
as ingredients, as well as the opening of
a joint agency docket to receive written
comments. This notice outlines that
approach and solicits comments on it
and on the specific questions asked in
section II below.
DATES: The public meeting will be held
on December 15, 2005, from 10 a.m. to
4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be
held at the Donald E. Stephens
Convention Center, 5555 North River
Road, Rosemont, IL 60018, 847–692–
0222.
You may submit comments, identified
with Docket No. 05–013N, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic mail:
FSIS: FSIS
regulationsComments@fsis.usda.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the Agency’s Web site.
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices
• FAX:
FSIS: 202–690–0486.
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (For
paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions):
FSIS: Docket Clerk, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, 300 12th Street,
SW., Room 102 Cotton Annex,
Washington, DC 20250
FDA: Division of Dockets
Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include Docket No. 05–013N. All
comments received will be posted
without change to: (FSIS) https://
www.fsis.usda.gov/
regulations_&_policies/
2005_Notices_Index/index.asp.; (FDA)
https://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
Submissions received must include
the Agency name and Docket No. 05–
013N. All comments submitted will be
available for public inspection in the
Agencies’ Docket Offices and on the
Agencies’ Web sites.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general questions about the meeting
contact Marion V. Allen, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(HFS–32), Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301–
436–1584, FAX: 301–436–2605, e-mail:
marion.allen@fda.hhs.gov.
Please see Section III. Registration, for
information on how to register for the
Public Meeting.
For technical questions about the
subject of the meeting: FDA: Karen
Carson, Director, Executive Operations
Staff (EOS), Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (HFS–22), Food and
Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301–
436–1664, FAX: 301–436–2668, e-mail:
kcarson@cfsan.fda.gov.
FSIS: Philip S. Derfler, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Policy,
Program, and Employee Development
(OPPED), Food Safety Inspection
Service, 1400 Independence Ave., SW.,
Suite 350–E Whitten Building,
Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720–2709,
FAX: (202) 720–2025, e-mail:
Philip.Derfler@fsis.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
I. Background
Both FSIS and FDA have regulatory
authority over the food supply. Under
the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA),
Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA),
and Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA),
FSIS has authority over all meat and
poultry products and processed egg
products. Under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FDA has
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
authority over all foods not under FSIS’
jurisdiction (e.g., dairy, bread and other
grain products, vegetables and other
produce, and other products such as
seafood).
Over the years, FSIS has made
jurisdictional decisions based on
various factors, including 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); and whether the product is
perceived by consumers as a product of
the meat or poultry industries. With
regard to the consumer perception
factor, FSIS has made decisions on a
case-by-case basis, mostly in response to
situations involving compliance and
enforcement. Although this case-by-case
approach resulted in decisions that
made sense at the time, a recent review
by the agencies highlighted that some
decisions do not appear to be fully
consistent with other product decisions
and that the reasoning behind various
determinations were not fully
articulated. For example, the reasoning
for deciding that a ‘‘bagel dog’’ (a
product composed of a hotdog wrapped
in bagel dough which is then baked)
was not a meat product was conveyed
in a letter from FSIS to a trade
association in 1979 (Letter from Irwin
Fried, Acting Director, Meat and Poultry
Standards and Labeling Division, to
Pacific Coast Meat Association, January
8, 1979). The letter stated that the
product was viewed as a ‘‘closed-face’’
sandwich and, thus, was not under FSIS
jurisdiction. However, the Agency did
not explain why such products were
viewed as closed-face sandwiches or the
importance of this view. Moreover, the
letter did not explain why bagel dogs
were different than other products that
were similarly configured, e.g., ‘‘corn
dogs’’ and ‘‘sausage turnovers,’’ that
were, and continue to be, manufactured
under FSIS jurisdiction.
Confusion persists about the
reasoning used with respect to various
decisions about which agency has
jurisdiction over certain food products
containing meat and poultry. For
example, manufacturers have wanted to
change the original formulations of
products that were the subject of
jurisdictional decisions, e.g., bagel dogs
and pepperoni rolls.1 By adding new
ingredients, e.g., adding cheese and
other meat and poultry ingredients,
manufacturers have created ‘‘bagel dogs
with cheese’’ and ‘‘pepperoni, ham, and
1 Pepperoni rolls are a product that was the
subject of a FSIS jurisdictional decision in 1986.
They are a product that is composed of pieces of
pepperoni that are distributed in bread dough
which is then baked.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67491
cheese rolls.’’ Although the
manufacturers requested that FSIS
categorize these new products like their
predecessors, FSIS has denied these
kinds of requests because, without a
clear rationale supporting the original
decisions, FSIS believed that confusion
would be compounded further by
perpetuating the rationale contained in
the original decision.
In other situations, manufacturers
have expressed confusion about the
classification of new versions of
traditional food products because
products with similar composition are
produced under the jurisdiction of a
different agency. For example, FSIS
decided decades ago that closed-face
sandwiches made with meat ingredients
were not meat products and, thus, were
products under FDA’s regulatory
jurisdiction. Recently, manufacturers of
‘‘wrap-type sandwiches with meat’’
have argued that wraps are similar
enough to closed-face sandwiches such
that wraps should fall under FDA’s
jurisdiction. There are wrap-like
products, (meat burritos, meat egg rolls,
and meat tamales), which FSIS has
categorized as meat products and which
are more similar in composition to the
wrap-sandwich. Because wrap-type
sandwiches are new to the market and
the historic decision about closed-face
sandwiches did not include them, FSIS
concluded that wrap-type sandwiches
are meat products.
These and other circumstances led
FSIS and FDA to conduct an in-depth
examination of the historic decisions
about regulatory jurisdiction made by
FSIS. An FSIS–FDA working group met
to explore the issue and to develop an
approach for making sound, clear, and
transparent decisions about product
categorization and agency jurisdiction.
As a result of the working group’s
findings, the agencies concluded that a
clearer approach to determining
jurisdiction is possible. This approach
involves considering the contribution of
the meat or poultry ingredients to the
identity of the food. In some cases, the
meat or poultry ingredients are
distinctive and significantly contribute
to a food’s basic nature by
characterizing the food. In other cases,
the meat or poultry ingredients are used
in such a way that they do not
contribute to the product’s basic nature
because they are not easily
distinguished and are used to simply
add flavor. The agencies recognized,
however, that application of this
approach could lead to changes in
jurisdiction for certain foods and
categories of foods and thus felt that it
was important to present this approach
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
67492
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices
for public comment before taking steps
to implement any changes.
A change in jurisdiction may be in
order for the products and product
categories described below. Bagel dogs,
closed-face meat and poultry-containing
sandwiches, and natural casings,
regulation of which would move from
FDA to FSIS jurisdiction, are products
or product categories characterized by
the meat or poultry ingredients that they
contain. Further, these products are
identified by terms that refer to the meat
and poultry ingredients, reflecting the
contribution of the meat and poultry
components. In contrast, meat and
poultry components are added to other
products/product categories, such as
bread/rolls/buns, cheese products,
flavors, pizzas, and salad dressings, to
add flavor but not to alter the character
of the products. Such products would
move from FSIS to FDA jurisdiction.
Bagel Dogs
Bagel dogs were the subject of a
jurisdiction decision that FSIS made
almost 20 years ago. The decision made
at that time was that a product
composed of a cooked hotdog wrapped
in bagel dough, which is baked, is not
itself a meat product. Bagel dogs thus
fell under FDA jurisdiction. Bagel dogs,
however, are similar to other meatfilled, dough-encased or wrapped
products—such as corn dogs and
sausage turnovers—which have
historically been under FSIS
jurisdiction. These products are
composed of a meat or poultry filling
that is encased or wrapped in dough or
crust which provides a convenient
container for the ingredients for handheld eating. The meat and poultry
components characterize the products
and the characteristics of the meat/
poultry ingredients are not changed by
the bread, dough, or crust around it.
Because the agencies have not been able
to distinguish bagel dogs from corn dogs
and similar products, the agencies are
considering changing the jurisdiction of
bagel dogs from FDA to FSIS.
Natural Casings
At least as far back as the 1950’s,
USDA made a jurisdictional decision
that natural casings, which are used for
sausages and other stuffed and formed
meat and poultry products, are not meat
byproducts because they serve as a
container or packaging for the meat or
poultry put in the casing. As a result,
natural casings have been under FDA
jurisdiction. But natural casings
originate from meat byproducts,
(specifically, from parts of livestock
digestive tracts) which are under FSIS
jurisdiction. The process of sanitizing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
and sizing the livestock materials does
not change them to the degree that their
basic identity as meat byproducts such
as bungs, stomachs, intestines is
changed. Therefore, the agencies are
considering changing the jurisdiction of
this category of products from FDA to
FSIS.
Closed-Face Sandwiches Made With
Meat or Poultry
According to FSIS policy going back
to the 1930’s, closed-face sandwiches
(products containing at least 35%
cooked meat and poultry products, by
weight, placed between 2 slices of
bread, biscuit, or bun, which are less
than 50 percent of the weight of the
product) were not meat or poultry
products because consumers viewed
them as products primarily prepared in
local food service establishments (FSIS
Food Standards and Labeling Policy
Book, 2003). Today, however,
sandwiches containing meat or poultry
components in their majority are made
in manufacturing facilities and are
shipped in interstate commerce.
Moreover, in determining regulatory
jurisdiction, it makes sense to consider
the contribution of the meat ingredient
to the product.
Meat and poultry sandwiches are
generally consumed for the distinctive
meat and poultry ingredients, not for the
bread that surrounds them. In other
words, it is the meat or poultry
ingredients that characterize the
sandwich, which is not changed by the
bread, biscuit, or bun between which
they are placed. Furthermore,
sandwiches are similar to the other
meat- or poultry-filled, dough-encased
or wrapped products that were
discussed earlier have historically been
under FSIS jurisdiction. Therefore, the
agencies are considering changing the
jurisdiction of these products from FDA
to FSIS.
Cheese and Cheese Products (Including
Cheese Dips) Made With Less Than 50
Percent Meat or Poultry
Products that meet the standards of
identity in 21 CFR Part 133 for Cheeses
and Cheese Products (i.e., pasteurized
blended cheese, process cheese, cheese
food, cheese spread) are not considered
meat or poultry products. The standard
of identity for such products allows for
optional ingredients, including meat
ingredients. Based on this standard,
FSIS decided many years ago that some
cheese products such as cheese balls
and cheese logs that include small
pieces of inspected and passed ready-toeat meat (e.g., dried sausage or cooked
bacon) at less than 50 percent of their
formulation (by weight) were not meat
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
products and should fall under FDA
jurisdiction. However, this FSIS
decision has never been extended to all
cheese and cheese products or to those
that contain poultry. The agencies have
considered this decision and, as a result,
the agencies are suggesting that the
addition of less than 50 percent
inspected and passed ready-to-eat meat
or poultry ingredients does not change
the characteristics of cheese or cheese
products (whether or not the product is
covered by an FDA standard of identity)
because, at less than 50 percent of the
weight of the product, the meat or
poultry added is used for flavoring
effect. Therefore, the agencies are
considering changing the jurisdiction of
these products from FSIS to FDA.
Bread, Rolls, and Buns Made With Less
Than 50 Percent Meat or Poultry
The jurisdiction of pepperoni rolls is
an example of a bread-based product
that has caused confusion since a
decision was made in 1986 by FSIS that
such a product is not a meat product,
and is, therefore, under FDA’s
jurisdiction (Letter from Margaret O.
Glavin to State of West Virginia,
Department of Agriculture, January 8,
1986). The original decision was made
for a product that was composed of
small pieces of pepperoni that were
dispersed throughout bread dough and
baked. At the time, the product was
prepared in such a way that it was
viewed by FSIS as being a product of
the bakery industry. More recently, FSIS
has viewed products with variations of
the original formulation (e.g.,
pepperoni, ham, and cheese rolls) as
meat and poultry products because
these products are not consistent with
the formulation of the product for which
the original jurisdictional decision was
made.
In reviewing the decision about
pepperoni rolls and the other decisions
made about bread-based products over
the years, the agencies considered the
standards of identity for bakery
products in 21 CFR Part 136, Bakery
Products. Such products, which include
bread, rolls, and buns, are foods
produced by baking dough made from
farinaceous ingredients into which
optional ingredients may be dispersed
for flavor. Meat and poultry are not
permitted optional ingredients in the
standards for breads, rolls, and buns in
Part 136. Therefore, these foods to
which meat or poultry are added are
non-standardized foods. The agencies
believe that meat and poultry
ingredients can be added to any bakery
product for flavoring.
The agencies are now considering
changing the jurisdiction from FSIS to
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices
FDA of the original pepperoni roll
products, as well as those foods with
variations of this original formulation.
Such products would be prepared with
less than 50 percent inspected and
passed ready-to-eat meat or poultry,
dispersed throughout the dough for a
flavoring effect. (As a general matter,
most products containing meat or
poultry are composed of well below or
well above 50 percent meat or poultry
by weight.)
Dried Poultry Soup Mixes
Dried meat soup mixes, regardless of
the amount of meat they contain, are
currently under FDA jurisdiction based
on a FSIS decision made decades ago,
which is reflected in the FSIS Food
Standards and Labeling Policy Book
(2003). Dried poultry soup mixes,
however, have historically been
considered to be poultry products (FSIS
Food Standards and Labeling Policy
Book). This has been a point of disparity
and confusion. Based on FSIS’
experience in reviewing product
formulations, dried soup mixes with
meat or poultry are composed of less
than 50 percent inspected and passed
dried/powdered meat/poultry (by
weight). The meat and poultry
components used to prepare these
products are not in a form that is
recognized as ‘‘meat’’ or ‘‘poultry’’ and
are used at low levels for seasoning or
flavoring effects. For this reason and for
the sake of parity, the agencies are
considering changing the jurisdiction of
dried poultry soup mixes from FSIS to
FDA.
Flavor Bases/Flavors
Flavor bases and reaction/process
flavors are produced by rigorous heating
(e.g., 100 °C or higher) and by chemical
processes (e.g., hydrolysis/enzymolysis).
Such products that are prepared with
inspected and passed meat or poultry
ingredients are in a powder, slurry, or
paste form. They are used in other
products for a flavoring effect, not for
their contribution to the meat or poultry
content of the food products.
Furthermore, such products are
typically sold for use within the food
industry, not for use by household
consumers. Therefore, the agencies are
considering changing the jurisdiction of
this category of products from FSIS to
FDA.
Pizzas With Meat or Poultry
In 2003, FSIS eliminated the standard
of identity for traditional pizzas with
meat or poultry (68 FR 44859, July 31,
2003). Thus, traditional pizzas
composed of sauce, cheese, and
inspected and passed meat or poultry
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
toppings on a layered crust need only
contain 2 percent meat or poultry by
weight to be under FSIS jurisdiction.
However, the base onto which toppings
are placed represents the majority of the
product, and meat or poultry
ingredients may be among any number
of toppings used for flavoring purposes.
While the meat or poultry toppings
provide flavoring to the finished food,
they do not change the character of the
food. Because non-meat/poultry pizzas
have always been under FDA’s
jurisdiction, and the meat or poultry
ingredients are generally used to
provide flavor, the agencies are
considering changing the jurisdiction of
these products from FSIS to FDA.
Salad Dressings Made With Less Than
50 Percent Meat or Poultry
Over the years, FSIS has made
jurisdictional decisions that salad
dressing products made with cooked
meat ingredients (e.g., cooked bacon) are
not meat products. The basis for the
decisions was that such products were
consistent with the standards of identity
for ‘‘dressings’’ in 21 CFR Part 169,
Food Dressings and Flavorings.
Although the standards do not list meat
ingredients as optional ingredients, the
meat ingredients were not considered to
characterize the dressings as meat
products, nor were they considered to
characterize non-standardized
dressings, such as vinaigrettes. As
optional ingredients, the meat or poultry
ingredients are intended to provide
flavor and do not contribute to the
characterization of the products as salad
dressings. There has, however, been
occasional confusion regarding under
which agency would regulate the
product. The agencies therefore are
contemplating making clear that salad
dressings that contain less than 50
percent inspected and passed, ready-toeat meat or poultry ingredients by
weight (e.g., cooked bacon), are not meat
or poultry products and are under FDA
jurisdiction.
The agencies recognize that these
jurisdictional changes would affect
firms and establishments, as well as the
agencies themselves. It is unlikely that,
in most cases, affected firms or
establishments would have to overhaul
production facilities or processing
operations, significantly alter marketing
approaches, or change product
formulations to take actions to meet the
regulatory requirements of one or the
other agency. It is likely, however, that
with the suggested changes in
jurisdiction, there will be additional
administrative, inspection, and labeling
requirements. For example, firms
moving to FSIS jurisdiction would need
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67493
to: receive grants of inspection; develop
and implement hazard analysis and
critical control point (HACCP) plans,
sanitation standard operating
procedures (SSOPs), and pathogen
control and other laboratory testing
procedures; develop and implement
systems of recordkeeping; and obtain
product label approvals.
II. Public Meeting
FSIS and FDA are holding this public
meeting in order to gain public input on
the ideas set out in this notice and on
the impact of the changes discussed
herein. In order to benefit from this
public meeting, the agencies are seeking
input on a number of questions,
including:
• Is the approach that is suggested by
the agencies a reasonable one? If not,
why not?
• Are there other food products or
product categories that have been the
subject of historical regulatory
jurisdictional decisions by FSIS, which
were based on a consumer perception
factor, that should be considered by the
agencies?
• How many firms or establishments
would be affected for each product and
product category? What is the volume of
production for each product or product
category?
• Would there be modifications in
equipment, facility design, labeling,
recordkeeping, or processing and
reporting responsibilities that are
needed in order for current operations
to continue making the products that are
the subject of the suggested changes,
and what are they?
• What would the administrative,
operational, marketing, and labeling
costs be associated with changes in
product jurisdiction?
• What would be a reasonable process
and time frame within which to
implement any changes in jurisdiction?
• What would be consumers’ views of
the subject products under the
suggested approach? More particularly,
what effect would changing regulatory
jurisdiction have on consumers’
perceptions of the subject products? For
example, what would consumers’
reaction be to the fact that dried chicken
soup mix is regulated by FDA?
• What effects would there be, if any,
on the way the subject products are
marketed?
The agencies seek as much
information as possible about the
impact of any changes in jurisdiction.
III. Registration
Please submit your registration
information (including name, title, firm
name, address, telephone number, e-
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
67494
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices
mail address, and fax number) at least
5 workdays before the public meeting
date. We encourage you to register
online at https://www.cfsan.fda.gov/comm/register.html. or to fax your
registration directly to Marion V. Allen
at 301–436–2605. We will accept
registrations onsite. Space is limited and
registration will be closed when
maximum seating capacity is reached
(250 people). If you need special
accommodations due to a disability,
please notify Marion V. Allen at least 7
workdays in advance.
We encourage individuals or firms
with relevant data or information to
present such information at the meeting
or in written comments to the record. If
you would like to make oral comments
at the meeting, please specify your
interest in speaking when you register.
The amount of time for each oral
presentation will be limited to 5
minutes.
IV. Transcripts
A transcript will be made of the
proceedings of the meeting. You may
request a copy of the meeting transcript
in writing approximately 30 working
days after the public meeting at a cost
of 10 cents per page from:
FDA: FDA’s Freedom of Information
Office (HFI–35), Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm.
12A–16, Rockville, MD 20857; or
FSIS: FSIS, Freedom of Information
Office, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave.,
SW., Room 1140 South Building,
Washington, DC 20250.
The transcript of the public meeting
and all comments submitted will be
available for public examination at the
Agencies’ Docket Offices (see
ADDRESSES for locations and hours).
V. Comments
In addition to presenting oral
comments at the public meeting,
interested persons may submit written
or electronic comments on the subject of
this meeting and Federal Register notice
to a joint agency docket housed at FSIS.
FSIS: Submit comments by any of the
following methods: Mail, including
floppy disks or CD–ROMs, and hand- or
courier-delivered items.
Comments are to be identified by the
Docket No. 05–013N. All comments
submitted in response to this notice will
be available for public inspection in the
Agencies’ Docket offices and web sites.
[See ADDRESSES section for location and
hours].
Additional Public Notification
Public awareness of all segments of
rulemaking and policy development is
important. Consequently, in an effort to
ensure that the public and in particular
minorities, women, and persons with
disabilities, are aware of this notice,
FSIS will announce it on-line through
the FSIS Web page located at https://
www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/
2005_Notices_Index/index.asp.
FSIS also will 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, recalls, and other
types of information that could affect or
would be of interest to our constituents
and stakeholders. The update is
communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail
subscription service consisting of
industry, trade, and farm groups,
consumer interest groups, allied health
professionals, scientific professionals,
and other individuals who have
requested to be included. The update
also is available on the FSIS web page.
Through Listserv and the web page,
FSIS is able to provide information to a
much broader, more diverse audience.
In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail
subscription service which provides an
automatic and customized notification
when popular pages are updated,
including Federal Register publications
and related documents. This service is
available at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
news_and_events/email_subscription/
and allows FSIS customers to sign up
for subscription options across eight
categories. 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
account.
Done in Washington DC on: November 2,
2005.
Jeffrey E. Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy, Food and
Drug Administration.
Sean Altekruse,
Deputy Executive Associate Administrator,
OPPED, Food Safety Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 05–22123 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am]
Estimated
number of
respondents
OS Participants ............................................................................................
16:38 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
National Institutes of Health
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request; Women’s Health Initiative
Observational Study
Summary: In compliance with the
requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
for opportunity for public comment on
proposed data collection projects, Office
of the Director, the National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) will
publish periodic summaries of proposed
projects to be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval.
Proposed Collection: Title: Women’s
Health Initiative (WHI) Observational
Study. Type of Information Collection
Request: Revision OMB #0925–0414
Exp: 04/06. Need for Use of Information
Collection: This study will be used by
the NIH to evaluate risk factors for
chronic disease among older women by
developing and following a large cohort
of postmenopausal women and relating
subsequent disease development to
baseline assessments of historical,
physical, psychosocial, and physiologic
characteristics. In addition, the
observational study will complement
the clinical trial (which has received
clinical exemption) and provide
additional information on the common
causes of frailty, disability and death for
postmenopausal women, namely,
coronary heart disease, breast and
colorectal cancer, and osteoporotic
fractures. Continuation of follow-up
years for ascertainment of medical
history update forms will provide
essential data for outcomes assessment
for this population of aging women.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Affected Public: Individuals and
physicians. Type of Respondents:
Women, next-of-kin, and physician’s
office staff. The annual reporting burden
is as follows:
BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P
Type of respondents
VerDate Aug<31>2005
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Estimated
number of responses per
respondent
85,786
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
Average burden
hours per
response
1
07NON1
.21
Estimated total
annual burden
hours requested
18,195
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67490-67494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22123]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety Inspection Service
[Docket No. 05-013N]
Meeting To Discuss Possible Changes to the Regulatory
Jurisdiction of Certain Food Products Containing Meat and Poultry
AGENCIES: Food and Drug Administration, HHS; Food Safety Inspection
Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in the Department of
Health and Human Services, and the Food Safety Inspection Service
(FSIS), in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), are
jointly announcing a public meeting to discuss and solicit information
on an approach for providing consistency and predictability with
respect to which of the two agencies should have jurisdiction over
certain types of food products that contain meat and poultry as
ingredients, as well as the opening of a joint agency docket to receive
written comments. This notice outlines that approach and solicits
comments on it and on the specific questions asked in section II below.
DATES: The public meeting will be held on December 15, 2005, from 10
a.m. to 4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the Donald E. Stephens
Convention Center, 5555 North River Road, Rosemont, IL 60018, 847-692-
0222.
You may submit comments, identified with Docket No. 05-013N, by any
of the following methods:
Electronic mail:
FSIS: FSIS regulationsComments@fsis.usda.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Agency's Web site.
[[Page 67491]]
FAX:
FSIS: 202-690-0486.
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (For paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions):
FSIS: Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 102 Cotton Annex,
Washington, DC 20250
FDA: Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received must include Docket No. 05-
013N. All comments received will be posted without change to: (FSIS)
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/2005_Notices_Index/
index.asp.; (FDA) https://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
Submissions received must include the Agency name and Docket No.
05-013N. All comments submitted will be available for public inspection
in the Agencies' Docket Offices and on the Agencies' Web sites.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions about the
meeting contact Marion V. Allen, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition (HFS-32), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-1584, FAX: 301-436-2605, e-mail:
marion.allen@fda.hhs.gov.
Please see Section III. Registration, for information on how to
register for the Public Meeting.
For technical questions about the subject of the meeting: FDA:
Karen Carson, Director, Executive Operations Staff (EOS), Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-22), Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-
436-1664, FAX: 301-436-2668, e-mail: kcarson@cfsan.fda.gov.
FSIS: Philip S. Derfler, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy,
Program, and Employee Development (OPPED), Food Safety Inspection
Service, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Suite 350-E Whitten Building,
Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-2709, FAX: (202) 720-2025, e-mail:
Philip.Derfler@fsis.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
I. Background
Both FSIS and FDA have regulatory authority over the food supply.
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), Poultry Products
Inspection Act (PPIA), and Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA), FSIS has
authority over all meat and poultry products and processed egg
products. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FDA
has authority over all foods not under FSIS' jurisdiction (e.g., dairy,
bread and other grain products, vegetables and other produce, and other
products such as seafood).
Over the years, FSIS has made jurisdictional decisions based on
various factors, including 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); and whether the product is perceived by consumers as a
product of the meat or poultry industries. With regard to the consumer
perception factor, FSIS has made decisions on a case-by-case basis,
mostly in response to situations involving compliance and enforcement.
Although this case-by-case approach resulted in decisions that made
sense at the time, a recent review by the agencies highlighted that
some decisions do not appear to be fully consistent with other product
decisions and that the reasoning behind various determinations were not
fully articulated. For example, the reasoning for deciding that a
``bagel dog'' (a product composed of a hotdog wrapped in bagel dough
which is then baked) was not a meat product was conveyed in a letter
from FSIS to a trade association in 1979 (Letter from Irwin Fried,
Acting Director, Meat and Poultry Standards and Labeling Division, to
Pacific Coast Meat Association, January 8, 1979). The letter stated
that the product was viewed as a ``closed-face'' sandwich and, thus,
was not under FSIS jurisdiction. However, the Agency did not explain
why such products were viewed as closed-face sandwiches or the
importance of this view. Moreover, the letter did not explain why bagel
dogs were different than other products that were similarly configured,
e.g., ``corn dogs'' and ``sausage turnovers,'' that were, and continue
to be, manufactured under FSIS jurisdiction.
Confusion persists about the reasoning used with respect to various
decisions about which agency has jurisdiction over certain food
products containing meat and poultry. For example, manufacturers have
wanted to change the original formulations of products that were the
subject of jurisdictional decisions, e.g., bagel dogs and pepperoni
rolls.\1\ By adding new ingredients, e.g., adding cheese and other meat
and poultry ingredients, manufacturers have created ``bagel dogs with
cheese'' and ``pepperoni, ham, and cheese rolls.'' Although the
manufacturers requested that FSIS categorize these new products like
their predecessors, FSIS has denied these kinds of requests because,
without a clear rationale supporting the original decisions, FSIS
believed that confusion would be compounded further by perpetuating the
rationale contained in the original decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pepperoni rolls are a product that was the subject of a FSIS
jurisdictional decision in 1986. They are a product that is composed
of pieces of pepperoni that are distributed in bread dough which is
then baked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other situations, manufacturers have expressed confusion about
the classification of new versions of traditional food products because
products with similar composition are produced under the jurisdiction
of a different agency. For example, FSIS decided decades ago that
closed-face sandwiches made with meat ingredients were not meat
products and, thus, were products under FDA's regulatory jurisdiction.
Recently, manufacturers of ``wrap-type sandwiches with meat'' have
argued that wraps are similar enough to closed-face sandwiches such
that wraps should fall under FDA's jurisdiction. There are wrap-like
products, (meat burritos, meat egg rolls, and meat tamales), which FSIS
has categorized as meat products and which are more similar in
composition to the wrap-sandwich. Because wrap-type sandwiches are new
to the market and the historic decision about closed-face sandwiches
did not include them, FSIS concluded that wrap-type sandwiches are meat
products.
These and other circumstances led FSIS and FDA to conduct an in-
depth examination of the historic decisions about regulatory
jurisdiction made by FSIS. An FSIS-FDA working group met to explore the
issue and to develop an approach for making sound, clear, and
transparent decisions about product categorization and agency
jurisdiction.
As a result of the working group's findings, the agencies concluded
that a clearer approach to determining jurisdiction is possible. This
approach involves considering the contribution of the meat or poultry
ingredients to the identity of the food. In some cases, the meat or
poultry ingredients are distinctive and significantly contribute to a
food's basic nature by characterizing the food. In other cases, the
meat or poultry ingredients are used in such a way that they do not
contribute to the product's basic nature because they are not easily
distinguished and are used to simply add flavor. The agencies
recognized, however, that application of this approach could lead to
changes in jurisdiction for certain foods and categories of foods and
thus felt that it was important to present this approach
[[Page 67492]]
for public comment before taking steps to implement any changes.
A change in jurisdiction may be in order for the products and
product categories described below. Bagel dogs, closed-face meat and
poultry-containing sandwiches, and natural casings, regulation of which
would move from FDA to FSIS jurisdiction, are products or product
categories characterized by the meat or poultry ingredients that they
contain. Further, these products are identified by terms that refer to
the meat and poultry ingredients, reflecting the contribution of the
meat and poultry components. In contrast, meat and poultry components
are added to other products/product categories, such as bread/rolls/
buns, cheese products, flavors, pizzas, and salad dressings, to add
flavor but not to alter the character of the products. Such products
would move from FSIS to FDA jurisdiction.
Bagel Dogs
Bagel dogs were the subject of a jurisdiction decision that FSIS
made almost 20 years ago. The decision made at that time was that a
product composed of a cooked hotdog wrapped in bagel dough, which is
baked, is not itself a meat product. Bagel dogs thus fell under FDA
jurisdiction. Bagel dogs, however, are similar to other meat-filled,
dough-encased or wrapped products--such as corn dogs and sausage
turnovers--which have historically been under FSIS jurisdiction. These
products are composed of a meat or poultry filling that is encased or
wrapped in dough or crust which provides a convenient container for the
ingredients for hand-held eating. The meat and poultry components
characterize the products and the characteristics of the meat/poultry
ingredients are not changed by the bread, dough, or crust around it.
Because the agencies have not been able to distinguish bagel dogs from
corn dogs and similar products, the agencies are considering changing
the jurisdiction of bagel dogs from FDA to FSIS.
Natural Casings
At least as far back as the 1950's, USDA made a jurisdictional
decision that natural casings, which are used for sausages and other
stuffed and formed meat and poultry products, are not meat byproducts
because they serve as a container or packaging for the meat or poultry
put in the casing. As a result, natural casings have been under FDA
jurisdiction. But natural casings originate from meat byproducts,
(specifically, from parts of livestock digestive tracts) which are
under FSIS jurisdiction. The process of sanitizing and sizing the
livestock materials does not change them to the degree that their basic
identity as meat byproducts such as bungs, stomachs, intestines is
changed. Therefore, the agencies are considering changing the
jurisdiction of this category of products from FDA to FSIS.
Closed-Face Sandwiches Made With Meat or Poultry
According to FSIS policy going back to the 1930's, closed-face
sandwiches (products containing at least 35% cooked meat and poultry
products, by weight, placed between 2 slices of bread, biscuit, or bun,
which are less than 50 percent of the weight of the product) were not
meat or poultry products because consumers viewed them as products
primarily prepared in local food service establishments (FSIS Food
Standards and Labeling Policy Book, 2003). Today, however, sandwiches
containing meat or poultry components in their majority are made in
manufacturing facilities and are shipped in interstate commerce.
Moreover, in determining regulatory jurisdiction, it makes sense to
consider the contribution of the meat ingredient to the product.
Meat and poultry sandwiches are generally consumed for the
distinctive meat and poultry ingredients, not for the bread that
surrounds them. In other words, it is the meat or poultry ingredients
that characterize the sandwich, which is not changed by the bread,
biscuit, or bun between which they are placed. Furthermore, sandwiches
are similar to the other meat- or poultry-filled, dough-encased or
wrapped products that were discussed earlier have historically been
under FSIS jurisdiction. Therefore, the agencies are considering
changing the jurisdiction of these products from FDA to FSIS.
Cheese and Cheese Products (Including Cheese Dips) Made With Less Than
50 Percent Meat or Poultry
Products that meet the standards of identity in 21 CFR Part 133 for
Cheeses and Cheese Products (i.e., pasteurized blended cheese, process
cheese, cheese food, cheese spread) are not considered meat or poultry
products. The standard of identity for such products allows for
optional ingredients, including meat ingredients. Based on this
standard, FSIS decided many years ago that some cheese products such as
cheese balls and cheese logs that include small pieces of inspected and
passed ready-to-eat meat (e.g., dried sausage or cooked bacon) at less
than 50 percent of their formulation (by weight) were not meat products
and should fall under FDA jurisdiction. However, this FSIS decision has
never been extended to all cheese and cheese products or to those that
contain poultry. The agencies have considered this decision and, as a
result, the agencies are suggesting that the addition of less than 50
percent inspected and passed ready-to-eat meat or poultry ingredients
does not change the characteristics of cheese or cheese products
(whether or not the product is covered by an FDA standard of identity)
because, at less than 50 percent of the weight of the product, the meat
or poultry added is used for flavoring effect. Therefore, the agencies
are considering changing the jurisdiction of these products from FSIS
to FDA.
Bread, Rolls, and Buns Made With Less Than 50 Percent Meat or Poultry
The jurisdiction of pepperoni rolls is an example of a bread-based
product that has caused confusion since a decision was made in 1986 by
FSIS that such a product is not a meat product, and is, therefore,
under FDA's jurisdiction (Letter from Margaret O. Glavin to State of
West Virginia, Department of Agriculture, January 8, 1986). The
original decision was made for a product that was composed of small
pieces of pepperoni that were dispersed throughout bread dough and
baked. At the time, the product was prepared in such a way that it was
viewed by FSIS as being a product of the bakery industry. More
recently, FSIS has viewed products with variations of the original
formulation (e.g., pepperoni, ham, and cheese rolls) as meat and
poultry products because these products are not consistent with the
formulation of the product for which the original jurisdictional
decision was made.
In reviewing the decision about pepperoni rolls and the other
decisions made about bread-based products over the years, the agencies
considered the standards of identity for bakery products in 21 CFR Part
136, Bakery Products. Such products, which include bread, rolls, and
buns, are foods produced by baking dough made from farinaceous
ingredients into which optional ingredients may be dispersed for
flavor. Meat and poultry are not permitted optional ingredients in the
standards for breads, rolls, and buns in Part 136. Therefore, these
foods to which meat or poultry are added are non-standardized foods.
The agencies believe that meat and poultry ingredients can be added to
any bakery product for flavoring.
The agencies are now considering changing the jurisdiction from
FSIS to
[[Page 67493]]
FDA of the original pepperoni roll products, as well as those foods
with variations of this original formulation. Such products would be
prepared with less than 50 percent inspected and passed ready-to-eat
meat or poultry, dispersed throughout the dough for a flavoring effect.
(As a general matter, most products containing meat or poultry are
composed of well below or well above 50 percent meat or poultry by
weight.)
Dried Poultry Soup Mixes
Dried meat soup mixes, regardless of the amount of meat they
contain, are currently under FDA jurisdiction based on a FSIS decision
made decades ago, which is reflected in the FSIS Food Standards and
Labeling Policy Book (2003). Dried poultry soup mixes, however, have
historically been considered to be poultry products (FSIS Food
Standards and Labeling Policy Book). This has been a point of disparity
and confusion. Based on FSIS' experience in reviewing product
formulations, dried soup mixes with meat or poultry are composed of
less than 50 percent inspected and passed dried/powdered meat/poultry
(by weight). The meat and poultry components used to prepare these
products are not in a form that is recognized as ``meat'' or
``poultry'' and are used at low levels for seasoning or flavoring
effects. For this reason and for the sake of parity, the agencies are
considering changing the jurisdiction of dried poultry soup mixes from
FSIS to FDA.
Flavor Bases/Flavors
Flavor bases and reaction/process flavors are produced by rigorous
heating (e.g., 100 [deg]C or higher) and by chemical processes (e.g.,
hydrolysis/enzymolysis). Such products that are prepared with inspected
and passed meat or poultry ingredients are in a powder, slurry, or
paste form. They are used in other products for a flavoring effect, not
for their contribution to the meat or poultry content of the food
products. Furthermore, such products are typically sold for use within
the food industry, not for use by household consumers. Therefore, the
agencies are considering changing the jurisdiction of this category of
products from FSIS to FDA.
Pizzas With Meat or Poultry
In 2003, FSIS eliminated the standard of identity for traditional
pizzas with meat or poultry (68 FR 44859, July 31, 2003). Thus,
traditional pizzas composed of sauce, cheese, and inspected and passed
meat or poultry toppings on a layered crust need only contain 2 percent
meat or poultry by weight to be under FSIS jurisdiction. However, the
base onto which toppings are placed represents the majority of the
product, and meat or poultry ingredients may be among any number of
toppings used for flavoring purposes. While the meat or poultry
toppings provide flavoring to the finished food, they do not change the
character of the food. Because non-meat/poultry pizzas have always been
under FDA's jurisdiction, and the meat or poultry ingredients are
generally used to provide flavor, the agencies are considering changing
the jurisdiction of these products from FSIS to FDA.
Salad Dressings Made With Less Than 50 Percent Meat or Poultry
Over the years, FSIS has made jurisdictional decisions that salad
dressing products made with cooked meat ingredients (e.g., cooked
bacon) are not meat products. The basis for the decisions was that such
products were consistent with the standards of identity for
``dressings'' in 21 CFR Part 169, Food Dressings and Flavorings.
Although the standards do not list meat ingredients as optional
ingredients, the meat ingredients were not considered to characterize
the dressings as meat products, nor were they considered to
characterize non-standardized dressings, such as vinaigrettes. As
optional ingredients, the meat or poultry ingredients are intended to
provide flavor and do not contribute to the characterization of the
products as salad dressings. There has, however, been occasional
confusion regarding under which agency would regulate the product. The
agencies therefore are contemplating making clear that salad dressings
that contain less than 50 percent inspected and passed, ready-to-eat
meat or poultry ingredients by weight (e.g., cooked bacon), are not
meat or poultry products and are under FDA jurisdiction.
The agencies recognize that these jurisdictional changes would
affect firms and establishments, as well as the agencies themselves. It
is unlikely that, in most cases, affected firms or establishments would
have to overhaul production facilities or processing operations,
significantly alter marketing approaches, or change product
formulations to take actions to meet the regulatory requirements of one
or the other agency. It is likely, however, that with the suggested
changes in jurisdiction, there will be additional administrative,
inspection, and labeling requirements. For example, firms moving to
FSIS jurisdiction would need to: receive grants of inspection; develop
and implement hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) plans,
sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOPs), and pathogen control
and other laboratory testing procedures; develop and implement systems
of recordkeeping; and obtain product label approvals.
II. Public Meeting
FSIS and FDA are holding this public meeting in order to gain
public input on the ideas set out in this notice and on the impact of
the changes discussed herein. In order to benefit from this public
meeting, the agencies are seeking input on a number of questions,
including:
Is the approach that is suggested by the agencies a
reasonable one? If not, why not?
Are there other food products or product categories that
have been the subject of historical regulatory jurisdictional decisions
by FSIS, which were based on a consumer perception factor, that should
be considered by the agencies?
How many firms or establishments would be affected for
each product and product category? What is the volume of production for
each product or product category?
Would there be modifications in equipment, facility
design, labeling, recordkeeping, or processing and reporting
responsibilities that are needed in order for current operations to
continue making the products that are the subject of the suggested
changes, and what are they?
What would the administrative, operational, marketing, and
labeling costs be associated with changes in product jurisdiction?
What would be a reasonable process and time frame within
which to implement any changes in jurisdiction?
What would be consumers' views of the subject products
under the suggested approach? More particularly, what effect would
changing regulatory jurisdiction have on consumers' perceptions of the
subject products? For example, what would consumers' reaction be to the
fact that dried chicken soup mix is regulated by FDA?
What effects would there be, if any, on the way the
subject products are marketed?
The agencies seek as much information as possible about the impact
of any changes in jurisdiction.
III. Registration
Please submit your registration information (including name, title,
firm name, address, telephone number, e-
[[Page 67494]]
mail address, and fax number) at least 5 workdays before the public
meeting date. We encourage you to register online at https://
www.cfsan.fda.gov/-comm/register.html. or to fax your registration
directly to Marion V. Allen at 301-436-2605. We will accept
registrations onsite. Space is limited and registration will be closed
when maximum seating capacity is reached (250 people). If you need
special accommodations due to a disability, please notify Marion V.
Allen at least 7 workdays in advance.
We encourage individuals or firms with relevant data or information
to present such information at the meeting or in written comments to
the record. If you would like to make oral comments at the meeting,
please specify your interest in speaking when you register. The amount
of time for each oral presentation will be limited to 5 minutes.
IV. Transcripts
A transcript will be made of the proceedings of the meeting. You
may request a copy of the meeting transcript in writing approximately
30 working days after the public meeting at a cost of 10 cents per page
from:
FDA: FDA's Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville, MD 20857; or
FSIS: FSIS, Freedom of Information Office, USDA, 1400 Independence
Ave., SW., Room 1140 South Building, Washington, DC 20250.
The transcript of the public meeting and all comments submitted
will be available for public examination at the Agencies' Docket
Offices (see ADDRESSES for locations and hours).
V. Comments
In addition to presenting oral comments at the public meeting,
interested persons may submit written or electronic comments on the
subject of this meeting and Federal Register notice to a joint agency
docket housed at FSIS.
FSIS: Submit comments by any of the following methods: Mail,
including floppy disks or CD-ROMs, and hand- or courier-delivered
items.
Comments are to be identified by the Docket No. 05-013N. All
comments submitted in response to this notice will be available for
public inspection in the Agencies' Docket offices and web sites. [See
ADDRESSES section for location and hours].
Additional Public Notification
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy
development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the
public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with
disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line
through the FSIS Web page located at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
regulations/2005_Notices_Index/index.asp.
FSIS also will 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, recalls, and other types of
information that could affect or would be of interest to our
constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv,
a free e-mail subscription service consisting of industry, trade, and
farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals,
scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to
be included. The update also is available on the FSIS web page. Through
Listserv and the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a
much broader, more diverse audience.
In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which
provides an automatic and customized notification when popular pages
are updated, including Federal Register publications and related
documents. This service is available at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_
and_events/email_subscription/ and allows FSIS customers to sign up
for subscription options across eight categories. 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 account.
Done in Washington DC on: November 2, 2005.
Jeffrey E. Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy, Food and Drug Administration.
Sean Altekruse,
Deputy Executive Associate Administrator, OPPED, Food Safety Inspection
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-22123 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P