Accredited Laboratory Program, 2483-2491 [06-284]
Download as PDF
2483
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 71, No. 10
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 318, 381, and 439
[Docket No. 03–020P; FDMS Docket Number
FSIS–2005–0023]
RIN: 0583–AD09
Accredited Laboratory Program
Food Safety and Inspection
Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing
to revise, edit, and consolidate
provisions of the standards and
procedures for the accreditation of nonFederal analytical chemistry
laboratories. Laboratories in the
Accredited Laboratory Program (ALP)
are accredited to analyze official meat
and poultry samples for specific
chemical residues or classes of chemical
residues, and moisture, protein, fat, and
salt. In particular, FSIS is proposing to
amend its current regulations regarding
the accreditation of non-Federal
analytical chemistry laboratories to
accommodate the adoption of newer
methods for analyzing chemical
residues and to correct some data. In
addition, FSIS is proposing to make
editorial changes to its accredited
laboratory regulations to reflect Agency
reorganizations and program changes
and to improve the clarity and
consistency of application for all
laboratories participating in the ALP.
Finally, FSIS is proposing to consolidate
the accredited laboratory regulations
from 9 CFR Part 318.21 of the meat
inspection regulations and 9 CFR Part
381.153 of the poultry products
inspection regulations into a single new
part, 9 CFR Part 439, that is applicable
to both meat and poultry
establishments. Along with the
consolidation, redundancies within the
regulations have been reduced, with the
net result being a more succinct set of
regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Comments must be submitted by
March 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested
persons to submit comments on this
proposed rule. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: This
website provides the ability to type
short comments directly into the
comment field on this Web page or
attach a file for lengthier comments.
FSIS prefers to receive comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Go to https://www.regulations.gov and,
in the ‘‘Search for Open Regulations’’
box, select ‘‘Food Safety and Inspection
Service’’ from the agency drop-down
menu, then click on ‘‘Submit.’’ In the
Docket ID column, select FDMS Docket
Number FSIS–2005–0023 to submit or
view public comments and to view
supporting and related materials
available electronically. After the close
of the comment period, the docket can
be viewed using the ‘‘Advanced Search’’
function in Regulations.gov.
• Mail, including floppy disks or CD–
ROM’s, and hand- or courier-delivered
items: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Food Safety
and Inspection Service, 300 12th Street,
SW., Room 102 Cotton Annex,
Washington, DC 20250.
• Electronic mail:
fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov.
All submissions received must
include the Agency name and docket
number 03–020P.
All comments submitted in response
to this proposal, as well as research and
background information used by FSIS in
developing this document, will be
available for public inspection in the
FSIS Docket Room at the address listed
above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. The comments
also will be posted on the Agency’s Web
site at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
regulations_&_policies/
2005_Proposed_Rules_Index/index.asp.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn Larsen, Ph.D., Senior Director for
Program Services, Office of Public
Health Science, FSIS, at (202) 690–6492
or fax (202) 690–6632.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Background
In order to ensure compliance with
the regulatory provisions of the Federal
Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
seq.) and the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.),
samples of meat and poultry products
are periodically tested to determine
moisture, protein, fat, and salt content.
Analyses also are conducted to
determine the presence of violative
concentrations of drugs or other
chemical residues.
When there is an indication of
noncompliance with the FMIA and the
PPIA, FSIS takes appropriate action
against the processor of the
noncompliant product. Depending on
the type of product and the severity of
the noncompliance, such actions may
range from requiring that a product be
reprocessed to the taking of an
enforcement action. Because correct and
accurate test results help prevent the
distribution of adulterated and
misbranded meat and poultry products,
it is necessary that laboratories that
conduct the tests in FSIS’ accredited
laboratory program maintain a high
degree of integrity.
Before 1962, most official samples
were analyzed by FSIS laboratories.
However, in response to the meat and
poultry industries’ need for more rapid
analytical results, and because of
limitations in FSIS laboratory capacity,
programs were established to certify
non-Federal laboratories for certain tests
of both meat and poultry products. In
1980 (45 FR 73947) and again in 1985
(50 FR 15435), the Agency proposed to
consolidate these programs and
establish an Accredited Laboratory
Program (ALP) that contained standards
and procedures for non-Federal
laboratories eligible to analyze official
samples. A final rule was issued in 1987
(52 FR 2176). A subsequent 1993 final
rule (58 FR 65254) established user fees
for the ALP and adjusted the standards
and procedures established in the
earlier rule for this program. User fees,
which cover the costs of the ALP, are
mandated by the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
(the 1990 Farm Bill), as amended.
A processor whose sample is to be
analyzed generally has the option of
using an FSIS laboratory or a nonFederal FSIS-accredited laboratory. The
cost of FSIS analysis is borne by the
government; the cost of non-Federal
analysis is borne by the processor.
Because of the limited number (three) of
FSIS laboratories and their heavy
workload, processors may prefer to use
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
2484
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
non-Federal accredited laboratories
given the convenience of their location
or the fact they can provide test results
more quickly. Some non-Federal
accredited laboratories are separate
entities, while others are located in and
owned by official establishments.
The Proposed Rule
This proposal updates the regulations
governing the accredited laboratory
program and clarifies and corrects some
data. Issuance of these proposed
regulations will give FSIS more
flexibility in keeping up with current
and future scientific changes without
having to periodically reissue new
regulations. For example, this proposal
deletes from the regulations all
references and footnotes to the
Association of Official Analytical
Chemists (AOAC) contained in the
current food chemistry accreditation
regulations and the definitions. The
name and address of the organization
have changed, and the cited edition of
the methods manual is not the current
edition. AOAC will no longer be
specifically cited. Instead, the ALP will
advise accredited laboratories, as
provided in the proposed accreditation
regulations, about suitable methods that
are available from various compendia,
such as FSIS guidebooks or current
AOAC manuals, for determining the
presence of the analytes covered by the
ALP.
This proposed rule deletes all
references to split samples because they
are no longer part of the ALP program.
In addition, this rule modifies Table 1
of the current regulations in §§ 318.21
and 381.153 by moving its footnote
information into the main body of the
table. The proposed rule modifies Table
2 and provisions for Quality Assurance
(QA) and Quality Control (QC) recovery
throughout the regulations by removing
explicit figures for minimum
proficiency levels (MPLs) and
recoveries. Information on current
recoveries established by FSIS for
laboratory quality assurance and quality
control will be available from the ALP
Web site at https://www.fsis.gov/Science/
Accredited_Laboratories/index.asp. A
link to information on current MPLs is
available on the ALP Web site, or you
can access the information directly at
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/
2003_Red_Book_Appendix3–4.PDF.
Finally, the proposed rule eliminates
duplicative provisions within the
current regulations and consolidates
§§ 318.21 and 381.153 into a single set
of regulations in new Part 439. For
example, new § 439.20 contains the
criteria for maintaining either a food
chemistry accreditation or a chemical
residue accreditation for both meat and
poultry products. A summary of the
changes made is contained in the
following table:
Meat
Poultry
New
Changes
318.21 .....................................
381.153 ...................................
Part 439
318.21(a) .................................
381.153(a) ..............................
439.1
318.21(b)(1), 318.21(c)(1) ......
318.21(b)(2), 318.21(c)(2) ......
318.21(b)(3), 318.21(c)(3) ......
381.153(b)(1), 381.153(c)(1) ..
381.153(b)(2), 381.153(c)(2) ..
381.153(b)(3), 381.153(c)(3) ..
439.5
439.10
439.20
318.21(d) .................................
381.153(d) ..............................
439.50
318.21(e) .................................
381.153(e) ..............................
439.51
318.21(f) ..................................
381.153(f) ...............................
439.52
318.21(g) .................................
381.153(g) ..............................
439.53
318.21(e), 318.21(f) ................
381.153(e), 381.153(f) ............
439.60
318.21(h) .................................
381.153(h) ..............................
439.70
Editorial and conforming changes throughout the regulations
are made, along with certain other revisions.
Updated to reflect change of address and to delete specific
references to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, amended to delete definition of split samples, to modify Tables 1 and 2 to revise performance standards, to
add new definitions and to reuse certain current definitions.
Updated and consolidated application requirements.
Revised, consolidated, and clarified accreditation criteria.
Revised and consolidated criteria for maintaining accreditation.
Deletes current (d)(4) and replaces it with a cross reference
to ‘‘violations of law’’ in new § 439.60 and makes certain
other revisions.
Updated to cross reference sections of new § 439.20 and to
make certain other revisions.
Deletes current (f) and instead cross references new
§ 439.60.
Updates and consolidates bases for revocation of accreditation. Deletes current (g)(4) and instead cross references
new § 439.60, ‘‘violations of law.’’
New section that consolidates references to ‘‘violations of
law.’’
Editorial changes.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Expansion of the Laboratory Program;
Request for Comments
Although recent rulemakings and
Agency policy decisions address a range
of chemical contaminants, including
most that present biosecurity concerns,
FSIS does not intend to expand the ALP
at this time. Expansion of the program
to other analytes would require a
statistical evaluation of historical data
in order to develop the appropriate
algorithms and correction factors
needed to implement the same type of
quality assurance procedures that are
applied to the analytes currently
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
included in the program. It would also
require FSIS to make policy decisions
regarding the acceptance of test results
from non-Federal laboratories for these
new analytes. The Agency does not
intend to include the additional
analytes (e.g., pesticide or drug
residues) by laboratories in the ALP
until such policy decisions have been
made, and the necessary scientific
foundation is established for them.
FSIS, however, would like to receive
comments from the public on whether
non-Federal laboratories should be
accredited to analyze official samples
for additional analytes and whether the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
laboratories should be used to
supplement further the analytical
capabilities of the three FSIS
laboratories.
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. The rule updates the
quality standards and procedures that
govern the accredited laboratory
program.
States and local jurisdictions are
preempted under the FMIA and the
PPIA from imposing any requirements
with respect to federally inspected
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
premises, facilities, and operations that
are in addition to, or different than,
those imposed under the FMIA or PPIA.
However, State or local jurisdictions
may exercise concurrent jurisdiction
over meat and poultry products that are
outside official establishments for the
purpose of preventing the distribution
of meat and poultry products that are
misbranded or adulterated under the
FMIA or PPIA or, in the case of
imported products, after their entry into
the United States. State and local
jurisdictions also may take other actions
that are consistent with the FMIA and
PPIA, with respect to any other matters
regulated under the Acts.
Under FMIA and PPIA, States that
maintain meat and poultry inspection
programs must impose requirements
that are at least equal to those required
under the Acts. However, these States
may impose more stringent
requirements on such State-inspected
products and establishments.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been
determined to be non-significant and
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866. The rule will
not result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more. The
rule will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, governments or
geographic regions.
Effect on Small Entities
There are about 90 laboratories that
have a total of about 110 accreditations
in the FSIS Accredited Laboratory
Program (ALP). About three-quarters of
these are large entities, based on their
volume of business, or are part of
entities such as large business
corporations, State universities, or State
governments. The smaller laboratories
participating in the ALP range from
medium-sized laboratory facilities to
one- or two-person operations. These
laboratories provide analytical services
of official samples to large and small
establishments.
Participation in the Agency’s ALP is
voluntary. It is expected that a decision
to participate would be based on a
calculation of the benefits and costs to
the firm, including a determination
whether the resulting loss of business as
a result of non-participation in ALP
would be significant.
The Administrator has made an initial
determination that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
effects of this proposed rule on the
laboratories and on the establishments
they serve will not be significant and
will apply equally to large and small
entities. The proposed rule does not
involve a change in the accreditation
fee, but rather adjustments and
clarifications in the operational
procedures and standards. The cost
savings brought about by improved
efficiencies in the requirements for
participants in the ALP are likely to be
small.
Paperwork Requirements
FSIS has reviewed the paperwork and
recordkeeping requirements in this
proposed rule in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Agency has
determined that the paperwork
requirements for the regulations that
govern the accreditation of non-Federal
analytical chemistry laboratories have
already been accounted for in the
Application for Inspection, Sanitation,
and Accredited Laboratories
information collection approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The OMB approval number for
the Application for Inspection,
Sanitation, and Accredited Laboratories
information collection is 0583–0082.
Government Paperwork Elimination
Act (GPEA)
FSIS is committed to compliance with
the GPEA, which requires Government
agencies, in general, to provide the
public the option of submitting
information or transacting business
electronically to the maximum extent
possible. The Agency will ensure that to
the extent possible, all forms used by
the laboratories are made available
electronically.
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
that minorities, women, and persons
with disabilities are aware of this
proposal, FSIS will announce it online
through the FSIS Web page located at
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
regulations_&_policies/
2005_Proposed_Rules_Index/index.asp.
The Regulations.gov Web site is the
central online rulemaking portal of the
United States Government. It is being
offered as a public service to increase
participation in the Federal
Government’s regulatory activities. FSIS
participates in Regulations.gov and will
accept comments on documents
published on the site. The site allows
visitors to search by keyword or
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2485
Department or Agency for rulemakings
that allow for public comment. Each
entry provides a quick link to a
comment form so that visitors can type
in their comments and submit them to
FSIS. The Web site is located at https://
www.regulations.gov.
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.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 318
Accredited laboratory program, Meat
inspection, Recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
9 CFR Part 381
Accredited laboratory program,
Poultry and poultry products
inspection, Recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
9 CFR Part 439
Meat inspection, Poultry and poultry
products inspection, Laboratory
accreditation.
Accordingly, Title 9, Chapter III,
Subchapter E of the Code of Federal
Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
2486
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Subchapter E—Regulatory
Requirements Under the Federal Meat
Inspection Act and the Poultry Products
Inspection Act
PART 318—ENTRY INTO OFFICIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS; REINSPECTION
AND PREPARATION OF PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 318
would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450, 1901–1906;
21 U.S.C. 601–695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
§ 318.21
[Removed and reserved]
2. Section 318.21 would be removed
and reserved.
PART 381—POULTRY PRODUCTS
INSPECTION REGULATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 381
would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450; 21 U.S.C.
451–470; 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, 2.53.
§ 381.153
[Removed and reserved]
4. Section 381.153 would be removed
and reserved.
5. A new part 439 would be added to
Subchapter E of Chapter III to read as
follows:
PART 439—ACCREDITATION OF
CHEMISTRY LABORATORIES
Sec.
439.1 Definitions.
439.5 Applications for accreditation.
439.10 Criteria for obtaining accreditation.
439.20 Criteria for maintaining
accreditation.
439.50 Refusal of accreditation.
439.51 Probation of accreditation.
439.52 Suspension of accreditation.
439.53 Revocation of accreditation.
439.60 Violations of law.
439.70 Notifications and hearings.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450, 1901–1906;
21 U.S.C. 451–470, 601–695; 7 CFR 2.18,
2.53.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
§ 439.1
Definitions.
(a) Accreditation: Determination by
FSIS that a laboratory is qualified to
analyze official samples of raw or
processed meat and poultry products,
because it has met the requirements for
accreditation specified in this part, for
the presence and amount of all four food
chemistry analytes (protein, moisture,
fat, and salt); or a determination by FSIS
that a laboratory is qualified to analyze
official samples of raw or processed
meat and poultry products, because it
has met the requirements for
accreditation in this part, for the
presence and amount of a specified
chemical residue of any one of several
classes of chemical residues. A
laboratory may hold more than one
accreditation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
(b) Accredited laboratory: A nonFederal analytical laboratory that has
met the requirements for accreditation
specified in this Part and, therefore, at
an establishment’s discretion, may be
used in lieu of an FSIS laboratory for
analyzing official regulatory samples.
Payment for the analysis of official
samples is to be made by the
establishment using the accredited
laboratory.
(c) Accredited Laboratory Program
(ALP): The FSIS program in which nonFederal laboratories are accredited as
eligible to perform analyses on official
regulatory samples of raw or processed
meat and poultry products, and through
which a check sample program for
quality assurance is conducted. Program
information and guidance can be
obtained from the ALP Web site at
www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/
Accredited_Laboratories/index.asp or
by writing to: Accredited Laboratory
Program, Box 17 Aerospace Center,
Room 377, 901 D Street SW,
Washington, DC 20024; facsimile
telephone number (202) 690–6632;
voicemail telephone number (202) 690–
6582.
(d) Chemical residue
misidentification: see ‘‘Correct chemical
residue identification’’ definition.
(e) Coefficient of variation (CV): The
standard deviation of a distribution of
analytical values multiplied by 100 and
divided by the mean of those values.
(f) Comparison mean: The average
result, for a sample, obtained from all
submitted results that have a large
deviation measure of zero. When only
two laboratories perform the analysis
and the large deviation measure is not
zero, alternative procedures for
establishing a comparison mean may be
employed by FSIS. For purposes of
computing the comparison mean, a
laboratory’s ‘‘result’’ for a food
chemistry analyte is the obtained
analytical value; a laboratory’s ‘‘result’’
for a chemical residue is the logarithmic
transformation of the obtained
analytical value.
(g) Correct chemical residue
identification: Reporting by a laboratory
of the presence and analytical value of
a chemical residue that was included in
the ALP check sample above the
minimum reporting level. Failure of a
laboratory to report the presence of such
a chemical residue is considered a
misidentification. In addition, reporting
the presence of and analytical value for
a residue that was not included in the
ALP check sample above the minimum
reporting level is considered a
misidentification.
(h) CUSUM: A class of statistical
procedures for assessing whether or not
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a process is ‘‘in control.’’ Each CUSUM
value is constructed by accumulating
incremental values obtained from
observed results of the process, and then
determined to either exceed or fall
within acceptable limits for that
process. The initial CUSUM values for
each laboratory whose application for
accreditation is accepted are set at zero.
The CUSUM values are reset to zero at
the beginning of each year; that is, the
CUSUM values associated with the first
maintenance check sample each year are
set equal to the CUSUM increment for
that sample.
The four CUSUM procedures are:
(1) Positive systematic laboratory
difference CUSUM (CUSUM–P)—
monitors how consistently an accredited
laboratory gets numerically greater
results than the comparison mean;
(2) Negative systematic laboratory
difference CUSUM (CUSUM–N)—
monitors how consistently an accredited
laboratory gets numerically smaller
results than the comparison mean;
(3) Variability CUSUM (CUSUM–V)—
monitors the average ‘‘total deviation’’
(i.e., the combination of the random
fluctuations and systematic differences)
between an accredited laboratory’s
results and the comparison mean; and
(4) Individual large deviation CUSUM
(CUSUM–D)—monitors the magnitude
and frequency of large differences
between the results of an accredited
laboratory and the comparison mean.
(i) Food chemistry: For the purposes
of Part 439, ‘‘food chemistry’’ will refer
to analysis of raw or processed meat or
poultry products for the analytes
moisture, protein, fat, and salt. All four
analytes must be determined when a
food chemistry analysis is conducted,
unless otherwise advised by the ALP.
(j) Individual large deviation: An
analytical result that differs from the
sample comparison mean by more than
would be expected assuming normal
laboratory variability.
(k) Initial accreditation check sample:
A sample provided by the ALP to a nonFederal laboratory to determine whether
the laboratory’s analytical capability
meets the standards for granting
accreditation.
(l) Inter-laboratory accreditation
maintenance check sample: A sample
provided by FSIS to an accredited
laboratory to assist in determining
whether the laboratory is maintaining
acceptable levels of analytical
capability.
(m) Large deviation measure: A
measure that quantifies an unacceptably
large difference between a laboratory’s
analytical result and the sample
comparison mean.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(n) Minimum proficiency level (MPL):
The minimum concentration of a
residue at which an analytical result
will be used to assess a laboratory’s
quantification capability. This
concentration is an estimate of the
smallest concentration for which the
average coefficient of variation (CV) for
reproducibility (i.e., combined within
and between laboratory variability) does
not exceed 20 percent. Information on
the current MPLs may be obtained from
the ALP staff at the address provided
above in the definition of ‘‘Accredited
Laboratory Program,’’ in § 439.1 or from
the ALP Web site at https://
www.fsis@usda.gov/Science/
Accredited_Laboratories/index.as.
(o) Minimum reporting level (MRL):
The number such that if any obtained
analytical value for a residue in a check
sample or official sample equals or
exceeds this number, then the residue is
reported together with the obtained
analytical value. Information on the
current MRLs may be obtained from the
ALP staff at the address provided above,
in the definition of ‘‘Accredited
Laboratory Program,’’ in § 439.1. Official
sample—A sample selected by an
inspector or inspection service
employee in accordance with FSIS
procedures for regulatory use.
(p) Probation: The period
commencing with official notification to
an accredited laboratory that its check
sample results no longer satisfy the
performance requirements specified in
this rule, and ending with official
notification that accreditation either is
fully restored, is suspended, or is
revoked.
(q) QA: (See Quality assurance
recovery)
(r) QC: (See Quality control recovery)
(s) Quality assurance (QA) recovery:
The ratio of a laboratory’s analytical
value for a check sample residue to the
established level of the analyte in the
check sample, multiplied by 100. As
dictated by the procedures for the
analyte, the analytical value may be
adjusted prior to the recovery
computation.
(t) Quality control (QC) recovery: The
ratio of a laboratory’s analytical value of
a quality control standard to the
established level of the analyte in the
standard, multiplied by 100. As dictated
by the procedures for the analyte, the
analytical value may be adjusted prior
to the recovery computation.
(u) Refusal of accreditation: An action
taken by FSIS when a laboratory that is
applying for accreditation is denied the
accreditation.
(v) Responsibly connected: Any
individual who or entity which is a
partner, officer, director, manager, or
owner of 10 percent or more of the
voting stock of the applicant or recipient
of accreditation or an employee in a
managerial or executive capacity or any
employee who conducts or supervises
the chemical analysis of FSIS official
samples.
(w) Revocation of accreditation: An
action taken by FSIS against a
laboratory, removing the laboratory’s
right to analyze official samples.
(x) Standardizing constant: A number
that results from a mathematical
adjustment to the ‘‘standardizing value’’
and is used to compute the standardized
difference for a check sample result. The
number takes into consideration the
expected variance of the difference
between the accredited or applying
laboratory’s result(s) and the
comparison mean for a sample, the
standardizing value, the correlation and
2487
number of repeated results by a
laboratory on a sample, and the number
of laboratories that analyzed a sample.
Information on the computation of the
standardizing constant may be obtained
from the ALP staff at the address
provided above in the definition of
‘‘Accredited Laboratory Program,’’ in
§ 439.1.
(y) Standardized difference: The
quotient of the difference between a
laboratory’s result on a sample and the
comparison mean of the sample divided
by the standardizing constant.
(z) Standardizing value: A number
representing the performance standard
deviation of an individual result. The
number is given, or computed by, the
information provided in Tables 1 and 2
and their footnotes.
(aa) Suspension of accreditation:
Action taken by FSIS against a
laboratory that temporarily removes the
laboratory’s right to analyze official
samples. Suspension of accreditation
ends when accreditation either is fully
restored or is revoked.
(bb) Systematic laboratory difference:
A comparison of one laboratory’s results
with the comparison mean for samples
that show, on average, a consistent
relationship. A laboratory that is
reporting, on average, numerically
greater results than the comparison
mean has a positive systematic
laboratory difference. Conversely,
numerically smaller results indicate a
negative systematic laboratory
difference.
(cc) Variability: Random fluctuations
in a laboratory’s processes that cause its
analytical results to deviate from a true
value.
(dd) Variance: The expected average
of the squared differences of sample
results from an expected sample mean.
TABLE 1.—STANDARDIZING VALUES FOR FOOD CHEMISTRY
[By product class and analyte]
Fat 1
Product/class
Moisture
Salt 1
Protein 1
<12.5%
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Cured Pork/Canned
Ham ..........................
Ground Beef .................
Other Meat Products ....
Poultry Products ...........
0.50
0.71
0.57
0.57
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.060
(X0.65)
(X0.65)
(X0.65)
(X0.65)
>12.5%
0.26 (X0.25)
N/A
0.26 (X0.25)
0.26 (X0.25)
0.30
0.35
0.30
0.30
<1%
(X0.25)
(X0.25)
(X0.25)
(X0.25)
0.127
0.127
0.127
0.127
1–4%
0.127
0.127
0.127
0.127
(X0.25)
(X0.25)
(X0.25)
(X0.25)
>4% 2
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
1 The standardizing value is either the value given in the table or is computed by the formula set forth in the table, where X is the comparison
mean of the sample. Standardizing values are provided for different percentages of fat and salt as indicated in the table.
2 For dry salami and pepperoni products.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
2488
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—STANDARDIZING VALUES
FOR CHEMICAL RESIDUES
Class of residues
Standardizing
value 3
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons: 1
Aldrin .............................
Benzene Hexachloride ..
Chlordane ......................
Dieldrin ..........................
DDT ...............................
DDE ...............................
TDE ...............................
Endrin ............................
Heptachlor .....................
Heptachlor Epoxide .......
Lindane .........................
Methoxychlor .................
Toxaphene ....................
Hexachlorobenzene ......
Mirex .............................
Nonachlor ......................
Polychlorinated Biphenyls:
Arsenic 2 ............................
Sulfonamides 2 ..................
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.25
accreditation fee(s). The fee(s) paid will
be nonrefundable and will be credited
to the account from which the expenses
of the laboratory accreditation program
are paid.
(d) Annually on the anniversary date
of each accreditation, FSIS will issue a
bill in the amount specified in 9 CFR
391.5 for each accreditation held. Bills
are payable upon receipt by check, bank
draft, or money order made payable to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
become delinquent 30 days from the
date of the bill.
(e) Accreditation will be terminated
without further procedure for having a
delinquent account. The fee(s) paid will
be nonrefundable and will be credited
to the account from which the expenses
of the ALP are paid.
§ 439.10 Criteria for obtaining
accreditation.
(a) Analytical laboratories may be
accredited for the analyses of food
1 Laboratory statistics are computed over all
chemistry analytes, as defined in
results (excluding PCB results), and for spe- § 439.1, or a specific chemical residue or
cific chemical residues.
a class of chemical residues in raw or
2 Laboratory statistics are only computed for
processed meat and poultry products.
specific chemical residues.
3 The standardizing value of all initial ac(b) Accreditation will be given only if
creditation and probationary check samples the applying laboratory successfully
computations is 0.15.
satisfies the requirements presented
below. For food chemistry accreditation,
§ 439.5 Applications for accreditation.
(a) Application for accreditation shall the requirements must be satisfied for
all four analytes.
be made on designated paper or
(c) This accreditation authorizes
electronic forms provided by FSIS, or
official FSIS acceptance of the analytical
otherwise in writing, by the owner or
test results provided by these
manager of a non-Federal analytical
laboratories on official samples.
laboratory. The forms shall be sent to
(d) To obtain FSIS accreditation, an
the ALP at the address provided above
analytical laboratory must:
in the definition of ‘‘Accredited
(1) Be supervised by a person holding,
laboratory’’ § 439.1 of this part, or may
as a minimum, a bachelor’s degree in
be submitted electronically when so
chemistry, food science, food
provided for by FSIS. The application
technology, or a related field.
shall specify the kinds of accreditation
(i) For food chemistry accreditation,
that are wanted by the owner or
the supervisor must also have 1 year’s
manager of the laboratory. A laboratory
whose accreditation has been refused or experience in food chemistry analysis,
or equivalent qualifications, as
revoked may reapply for accreditation
determined by the Administrator.
after 60 days from the effective date of
(ii) For chemical residue
that action, and must provide written
accreditation, either the supervisor or
documentation specifying what
the analyst assigned to analyze the
corrections were made.
(b) At the time that an Application for sample must also have 3 years’
experience determining analytes at or
Accreditation is filed with the ALP, the
below part per million levels, or
management of a laboratory shall, for
equivalent qualifications, as determined
each accreditation sought, submit a
check, bank draft, or money order in the by the Administrator.
(2) Demonstrate an ability to achieve
amount specified in 9 CFR 391.5 made
quality assurance levels that are within
payable to the U.S. Department of
acceptable limits for systemic laboratory
Agriculture, along with the completed
difference, variability, and individual
application for the accreditation(s).
large deviations, in the analyte category
When so provided for by FSIS,
for which accreditation is sought, using
electronic transfer of funds may be
analytical procedures designated by the
accepted.
(c) Accreditation will not be granted
FSIS ALP as being acceptable. An
or continued, without further
applying laboratory will successfully
procedure, for failure to pay the
demonstrate these capabilities for:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(i) Food chemistry if its results from
a 36 check sample accreditation study
each satisfy the criteria presented in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(ii) Chemical residues if its analytical
results for each specific chemical
residue provided in a check sample
accreditation study containing a
minimum of 14 check samples satisfy
the criteria presented in paragraph (e) of
this section, including criteria for QA
and QC recovery and for residue
identification. In addition, if the
laboratory is requesting accreditation for
the analysis of chlorinated
hydrocarbons, all analytical results for
the residue class must collectively
satisfy the criteria. [Conformance to
criteria in paragraph (e) of this section
will only be determined when six or
more analytical results with associated
comparison means at or above the
logarithm of the minimum proficiency
level are available.]
(3) Round all check sample statistical
computations to the nearest tenth,
except where otherwise noted.
(4) Complete a second set of the
requisite number of check samples if the
results of the first set of check samples
do not meet the criteria for obtaining
accreditation.
(i) The second set of check samples
will be provided within 30 days
following the date of receipt by FSIS of
a request from the applying laboratory.
The second set of food chemistry check
samples will be analyzed for only the
analyte(s) for which unacceptable initial
results had been obtained by the
laboratory.
(ii) If the results of the second set of
check samples do not meet the
accreditation criteria, the laboratory
may reapply after a 60-day waiting
period, commencing from the date of
refusal of accreditation by FSIS. At that
time, a new application, all fees, and all
documentation of corrective action
required for accreditation must be
submitted.
(5) Allow inspection of the laboratory
by FSIS officials prior to the
determination of granting accredited
status.
(6) Pay the accreditation fee by the
date required.
(e) Quality assurance levels. (1)
Systematic laboratory difference: The
absolute value of the average
standardized difference must not exceed
the following:
(i) For food chemistry, 0.73 minus the
product of 0.17 and the standard
deviation of the standardized
differences; and
(ii) For chemical residues, 1.67 (2.00
if there are less than 12 analytical
results) minus the product of 0.29 and
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the standard deviation of the
standardized differences.
(2) Variability: The estimated
standard deviation of the standardized
difference must not exceed the
following:
(i) For food chemistry, 1.15; and
(ii) For chemical residues, a computed
limit that is a function of the number of
analytical results used in the
computation of the standard deviation,
and of the amount of variability.
(3) Individual large deviations: One
hundred times the average of the large
deviation measures of the individual
samples must be less than 5.0. A result
will have a large deviation measure
equal to zero when the absolute value of
the result’s standardized difference, (d),
is less than 2.5 and otherwise a measure
equal to 1¥(2.5/d).
(4) For residue analyses, the following
additional quality assurance
requirements must be met.
(i) QA recovery: The average of the
QA recoveries of the individual check
sample analytical results must lie
within ranges established by FSIS.
Information on recovery ranges may be
obtained from the ALP at the address
provided in § 439.1 of this chapter.
(ii) QC recovery: All QC recoveries
must lie within ranges established by
FSIS. Information on recovery ranges
may be obtained from the ALP at the
address provided in § 439.1 of this
chapter. Supporting documentation
must be made available to FSIS upon
request.
(iii) Correct identification: There must
be correct identification of all chemical
residues in all samples.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
§ 439.20 Criteria for maintaining
accreditation.
(a) To maintain accreditation, an
analytical laboratory must fulfill the
requirements of paragraphs (b) through
(i) of this section.
(b) Official samples. (1) An accredited
laboratory must expeditiously report
analytical results, in the analyte
category for which accreditation was
granted, of official samples on
designated forms to the Data Center
Staff, USDA/FSIS Eastern Laboratory,
Russell Research Center, P.O. Box 6085,
Athens, GA 30604 (for U.S. Postal
Service delivery), or Data Center Staff,
USDA/FSIS Eastern Laboratory, Russell
Research Center, 950 College Station
Road, Athens, GA 30605 (for
commercial carrier delivery). When so
provided for by FSIS, analytical results
may be reported to the Data Center Staff
by facsimile at 706–546–3589, or
electronically. The Federal inspector at
any establishment may assign the
analysis of official samples to an FSIS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
laboratory if, in the inspector’s
judgment, there are delays in receiving
test results on official samples from an
accredited laboratory.
(2) Every QC recovery associated with
reporting of official samples must lie
within ranges established by FSIS.
Information on recovery ranges may be
obtained from the ALP at the address
provided in § 439.1 of this chapter.
Supporting documentation must be
made available to FSIS upon request.
(c) Records. An accredited laboratory
must:
(1) Maintain laboratory quality control
records for the most recent 3 years that
samples have been analyzed under this
Program.
(2) Maintain complete records of the
receipt, analysis, and disposition of
official samples for the most recent 3
years that samples have been analyzed
under this Program.
(3) Maintain in a secure electronic
format or in a standards book, which is
preferably a permanently bound book
with sequentially numbered pages, all
records, readings, and calculations for
standard solutions. All entries are to be
dated and signed by the analyst
immediately upon completion of the
entry, and by the supervisor, or in the
absence of the supervisor by the
supervisor’s designee, before use of the
standard solution but no later than
within 1 week. The standards book is to
be retained for 3 years after the last
recorded entry.
(4) Maintain records and supervisor
approvals of recoveries, and of
instrument maintenance and
calibration. The records are to be
retained for 3 years after the last
recorded entry.
(5) As provided in paragraph (f) of
this section, records should be available
for review by any duly authorized
representative of the Secretary of
Agriculture, including ALP personnel or
their designees.
(d) Check samples. (1) An accredited
laboratory must analyze interlaboratory
accreditation maintenance check
samples and return the results to FSIS
within 3 weeks of sample receipt. This
must be done whenever requested by
FSIS and at no cost to FSIS.
(2) Results must be those of the
accredited laboratory. Analyses of
maintenance check samples shall not be
contracted out by the accredited
laboratory.
(3) As provided by the requirements
in paragraph (h) of this section, a check
sample report will be considered
complete only if laboratories report all
analytes present in the check sample for
the analyte category in which
accreditation was granted.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2489
(e) Corporate changes. The ALP must
be informed at the address provided in
§ 439.1 in the definition of ‘‘Accredited
laboratory’’ of this part, by certified or
registered mail, within 30 days of any
change of address or in the laboratory’s
ownership, officers, directors,
supervisory personnel, or other
responsibly connected individual or
entity.
(f) On-site review. An accredited
laboratory must permit any duly
authorized representative of the
Secretary to perform both announced
and unannounced on-site laboratory
reviews of facilities and records, both
hard copy and electronic, during normal
business hours, and to copy any records
pertaining to the laboratory’s
participation in the ALP.
(g) Analytical procedures. An
accredited laboratory must use
analytical procedures designated by the
FSIS ALP as being acceptable.
(h) Quality assurance levels. (1) An
accredited laboratory must demonstrate
an ability to maintain quality assurance
levels that are within acceptable limits
for systematic laboratory difference,
variability, and individual large
deviations in the analysis of
interlaboratory check samples for the
analyte category for which accreditation
was granted. An accredited laboratory
will successfully demonstrate the
maintenance of these capabilities if its
analytical results from interlaboratory
accreditation maintenance check
samples satisfy the criteria presented in
this paragraph, § 439.20(h). All
statistical computations are to be
rounded to the nearest tenth, except
where otherwise noted.
(2) In addition, a laboratory accredited
for a specific chemical residue or a
chemical residue class:
(i) Must satisfy criteria presented in
this paragraph, § 439.20(h), for chemical
residue recoveries and proper
identification;
(ii) Will demonstrate the maintenance
of its capabilities by reporting its
analytical results for each specific
chemical residue found above the
minimum proficiency level; and
(iii) Must, if accredited for the
analysis of chlorinated hydrocarbons,
obtain analytical results that collectively
satisfy the criteria.
(3) Systematic laboratory difference:
The standardized difference between
the accredited laboratory’s result and
the comparison mean for each
interlaboratory accreditation
maintenance check sample is used to
determine two CUSUM values,
designated as CUSUM–P and CUSUM–
N.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
2490
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(i) When determining compliance
with this criterion for all chlorinated
hydrocarbon results in a sample
collectively, the following statistical
procedure must be followed to account
for the correlation of analytical results
within a sample: The average of the
standardized differences of the
analytical results within the sample,
divided by a constant, is used in place
of a single standardized difference to
determine the CUSUM–P (or CUSUM–
N) value for the sample. The constant is
a function of the number of analytical
results used to compute the average
standardized difference.
(ii) Positive systematic laboratory
difference: This value is computed and
evaluated as follows:
(A) Determine the CUSUM–P
increment for the sample.
(1) The CUSUM–P increment for food
chemistry, as defined in § 439.1 of this
Chapter, is set equal to:
2.0, if the standardized difference is
greater than 2.4,
¥2.0, if the standardized difference is
less than ¥1.6, or
the standardized difference minus 0.4,
if the standardized difference lies
between ¥1.6 and 2.4, inclusive.
(2) The CUSUM–P increment for
chemical residues is set equal to:
2.0, if the standardized difference is
greater than 2.5,
¥2.0, if the standardized difference is
less than ¥1.5, or
the standardized difference minus 0.5,
if the standardized difference lies
between ¥1.5 and 2.5, inclusive.
(B) Compute the new CUSUM–P
value. The new CUSUM–P value is
obtained by adding, algebraically, the
CUSUM–P increment to the last
previously computed CUSUM–P value.
If this computation yields a value
smaller than 0, the new CUSUM–P
value is set equal to 0.
(C) Evaluate the new CUSUM–P
value. The new CUSUM–P value must
not exceed:
(1) 5.2 for food chemistry.
(2) 4.8 for chemical residues.
(iii) Negative systematic laboratory
difference: This value is computed and
evaluated as follows:
(A) Determine the CUSUM–N
increment for the sample.
(1) The CUSUM–N increment for food
chemistry is set equal to:
2.0, if the standardized difference is
greater than 1.6,
¥2.0, if the standardized difference is
less than ¥2.4, or
the standardized difference plus 0.4,
if the standardized difference lies
between ¥ 2.4 and 1.6, inclusive.
(2) The CUSUM–N increment for
chemical residues is set equal to:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
2.0, if the standardized difference is
greater than 1.5,
¥2.0, if the standardized difference is
less than ¥2.5, or
the standardized difference plus 0.5,
if the standardized difference lies
between ¥2.5 and 1.5, inclusive.
(B) Compute the new CUSUM–N
value. The new CUSUM–N value is
obtained by subtracting, algebraically,
the CUSUM–N increment from the last
previously computed CUSUM–N value.
If this computation yields a value
smaller than 0, the new CUSUM–N
value is set equal to 0.
(C) Evaluate the new CUSUM–N
value. The new CUSUM–N value must
not exceed:
(1) 5.2 for food chemistry.
(2) 4.8 for chemical residues.
(4) Variability: The absolute value of
the standardized difference between the
accredited laboratory’s result and the
comparison mean for each
interlaboratory accreditation
maintenance check sample is used to
determine a CUSUM value, designated
as CUSUM–V.
(i) When determining compliance
with this criterion for all chlorinated
hydrocarbon results in a sample
collectively, the following statistical
procedure must be followed to account
for the correlation of analytical results
within a sample: The square root of the
sum of the within sample variance and
the average standardized difference of
the sample, divided by a constant, is
used in place of the absolute value of
the standardized difference to determine
the CUSUM–V value for the sample.
The constant is a function of the number
of analytical results used to compute the
average standardized difference.
(ii) The variability value is computed
and designated as follows:
(A) Determine the CUSUM–V
increment for the sample. The CUSUM
increment is set equal to the larger of
¥0.4 or the absolute value of the
standardized difference minus 0.9. If
this computation yields a value larger
than 1.6, the increment is set equal to
1.6.
(B) Compute the new CUSUM–V
value. The new CUSUM–V value is
obtained by adding, algebraically, the
CUSUM–V increment to the last
previously computed CUSUM–V value.
If this computation yields a value less
than 0, the new CUSUM–V value is set
equal to 0.
(C) Evaluate the new CUSUM–V
value. The new CUSUM–V value must
not exceed 4.3.
(5) Large deviations: The large
deviation measure of the accredited
laboratory’s result for each
interlaboratory accreditation
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
maintenance check sample is used to
determine a CUSUM value, designated
as CUSUM–D.
(i) A result will have a large deviation
measure equal to zero when the absolute
value of the result’s standardized
difference, (d), is less than 2.5, and
otherwise a measure equal to 1¥(2.5/d).
(ii) The large deviation value is
computed and evaluated as follows:
(A) Determine the CUSUM–D
increment for the sample. The CUSUM
increment is set equal to the value of the
large deviation measure minus 0.025.
(B) Compute the new CUSUM–D
value. The new CUSUM–D value is
obtained by adding, algebraically, the
CUSUM–D increment to the last
previously computed CUSUM–D value.
If this computation yields a value less
than 0, the new CUSUM–D value is set
equal to 0.
(C) Evaluate the new CUSUM–D
value. The new CUSUM–D value must
not exceed 1.0.
(6) For chemical residues:
(i) Each QC recovery must lie within
ranges established by FSIS. Information
on recovery ranges may be obtained
from the ALP at the address provided in
§ 439.1 of this Chapter. Supporting
documentation must be made available
to FSIS upon request.
(ii) Not more than 1 residue
misidentification may be made in any 2
consecutive check samples.
(iii) Not more than 2 residue
misidentifications may be made in any
8 consecutive check samples.
(i) Fees. An accredited laboratory
must pay the required accreditation fee
when it is due.
(j) Probation. An accredited laboratory
must meet the following requirements if
placed on probation pursuant to
§ 439.51 of this chapter:
(1) Send all official samples that have
not been analyzed as of the date of
written notification of probation to a
specified FSIS laboratory by certified
mail or private carrier or, as an
alternative and as directed by FSIS, to
a laboratory accredited by FSIS for the
designated analyte(s). Mailing expenses
will be paid by FSIS.
(2) Analyze a set of check samples
similar to those used for initial
accreditation, and submit the analytical
results to FSIS within 3 weeks of receipt
of the samples.
(3) Satisfy criteria for accreditation
check samples specified in § 439.10 of
this chapter.
§ 439.50
Refusal of accreditation.
Upon a determination by the
Administrator, a laboratory will be
refused accreditation for the following
reasons:
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(a) A laboratory will be refused
accreditation for failure to meet the
requirements of § 439.5 or § 439.10 of
this chapter.
(b) A laboratory will be refused
subsequent accreditation for failure to
return to an FSIS laboratory, by certified
mail or private carrier, or, as an
alternative and as directed by FSIS, to
a laboratory accredited by FSIS for the
designated analytes, all official samples
that have not been analyzed as of the
notification of a loss of accreditation.
(c) A laboratory will be refused
accreditation for the reasons described
in § 439.60 of this chapter.
§ 439.51
Probation of accreditation.
Upon a determination by the
Administrator, a laboratory will be
placed on probation for the following
reasons:
(a) If the laboratory fails to complete
more than one interlaboratory
accreditation maintenance check sample
analysis as required by § 439.20(d) of
this part within 12 consecutive months,
unless written permission is granted by
the Administrator.
(b) If the laboratory fails to meet any
of the criteria set forth in §§ 439.20(d)
and 439.20(h) of this chapter.
§ 439.52
Suspension of accreditation.
The accreditation of a laboratory will
be suspended for the reasons described
in § 439.60 of this chapter.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
§ 439.53
Revocation of accreditation.
The accreditation of a laboratory will
be revoked for the following reasons:
(a) An accredited laboratory that is
accredited to perform analysis under
§§ 439.5, 439.10 and 439.20 of this
chapter will have its accreditation
revoked for failure to meet any of the
requirements of § 439.20 of this chapter,
except for the following circumstances.
If the accredited laboratory fails to meet
any of the criteria set forth in
§§ 439.20(d) and 439.20(h) of this
chapter and it has not failed during the
12 months preceding its failure to meet
the criteria, it shall be placed on
probation, but if it has failed at any time
during those 12 months, its
accreditation will be revoked.
(b) An accredited laboratory will have
its accreditation revoked if the
Administrator determines that the
laboratory or any responsibly connected
individual or any agent or employee
has:
(1) Altered any official sample or
analytical finding; or
(2) Substituted any analytical result
from any other laboratory and
represented the result as its own.
(c) An accredited laboratory will have
its accreditation revoked for violations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
of law as described in § 439.60 of this
chapter.
§ 439.60
Notification and hearings.
Accreditation of any laboratory will
be refused, suspended, or revoked under
the conditions previously described in
this Part 439. The owner or operator of
the laboratory will be sent written
notice of the refusal, suspension, or
revocation of accreditation by the
Administrator. In such cases, the
laboratory owner or operator will be
provided an opportunity to present,
within 30 days of the date of the
notification, a statement challenging the
merits or validity of such action and to
request an oral hearing with respect to
the denial, suspension, or revocation
decision. An oral hearing will be
granted if there is any dispute of
material fact joined in such responsive
statement. The proceeding will be
conducted thereafter in accordance with
the applicable rules of practice which
will be adopted for the proceeding. Any
such refusal, suspension, or revocation
will be effective upon the receipt by the
laboratory of the notification and will
continue in effect until final
determination of the matter by the
Administrator.
Done in Washington, DC, on January 9,
2006.
Barbara J. Masters,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06–284 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Violations of law.
An applicant or an accredited
laboratory will have its accreditation
refused, suspended, or revoked, as
appropriate, if the laboratory or any
individual or entity responsibly
connected with the laboratory is
convicted of, or is under indictment for,
or has had charges on an information
brought against them in a Federal or
State court concerning any of the
following violations of law:
(a) Any felony.
(b) Any misdemeanor based upon
acquiring, handling, or distributing of
unwholesome, misbranded, or
deceptively packaged food or upon
fraud in connection with transactions in
food.
(c) Any misdemeanor based upon a
false statement to any governmental
agency.
(d) Any misdemeanor based upon the
offering, giving or receiving of a bribe or
unlawful gratuity.
§ 439.70
2491
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2003–NE–21–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; International
Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2522–A5,
V2524–A5, V2527–A5, V2527E–A5,
V2527M–A5, V2530–A5, and V2533–A5
Turbofan Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM);
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice revises an earlier
proposed airworthiness directive (AD)
that applies to certain IAE V2522–A5,
V2524–A5, V2527–A5, V2527E–A5,
V2527M–A5, V2530–A5, and V2533–A5
turbofan engines. That proposal would
have required initial and repetitive
inspections of the master magnetic chip
detector (MCD) or the No. 1, 2, 3 bearing
chamber MCD. That proposal would
also have required replacing certain No.
3 bearings and replacing or recoating
certain high pressure compressor (HPC)
stubshaft assemblies as mandatory
terminating actions to the repetitive
MCD inspections. That proposal
resulted from IAE developing a
terminating action to the repetitive
inspections of the chip detectors. This
action revises the proposed rule by
expanding its applicability to include
additional serial-numbered engines with
certain No. 3 bearings installed. We are
proposing this AD to prevent failure of
the No. 3 bearing, which could result in
an in-flight shutdown (IFSD) and smoke
in the cockpit and cabin.
DATES: We must receive comments by
March 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to comment on this proposed
AD:
• By mail: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England
Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003–NE–
21–AD, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803–5299.
• By fax: (781) 238–7055.
• By e-mail: 9-aneadcomment@faa.gov.
You can get the service information
identified in this proposed AD from
International Aero Engines AG, 400
Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108;
telephone: (860) 565–5515; fax: (860)
565–5510.
You may examine the AD docket, by
appointment, at the FAA, New England
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2483-2491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-284]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 2483]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 318, 381, and 439
[Docket No. 03-020P; FDMS Docket Number FSIS-2005-0023]
RIN: 0583-AD09
Accredited Laboratory Program
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to
revise, edit, and consolidate provisions of the standards and
procedures for the accreditation of non-Federal analytical chemistry
laboratories. Laboratories in the Accredited Laboratory Program (ALP)
are accredited to analyze official meat and poultry samples for
specific chemical residues or classes of chemical residues, and
moisture, protein, fat, and salt. In particular, FSIS is proposing to
amend its current regulations regarding the accreditation of non-
Federal analytical chemistry laboratories to accommodate the adoption
of newer methods for analyzing chemical residues and to correct some
data. In addition, FSIS is proposing to make editorial changes to its
accredited laboratory regulations to reflect Agency reorganizations and
program changes and to improve the clarity and consistency of
application for all laboratories participating in the ALP. Finally,
FSIS is proposing to consolidate the accredited laboratory regulations
from 9 CFR Part 318.21 of the meat inspection regulations and 9 CFR
Part 381.153 of the poultry products inspection regulations into a
single new part, 9 CFR Part 439, that is applicable to both meat and
poultry establishments. Along with the consolidation, redundancies
within the regulations have been reduced, with the net result being a
more succinct set of regulations.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by March 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this
proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: This website provides the
ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this
Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. FSIS prefers to
receive comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and, in the ``Search for Open Regulations'' box,
select ``Food Safety and Inspection Service'' from the agency drop-down
menu, then click on ``Submit.'' In the Docket ID column, select FDMS
Docket Number FSIS-2005-0023 to submit or view public comments and to
view supporting and related materials available electronically. After
the close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using the
``Advanced Search'' function in Regulations.gov.
Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROM's, and hand- or
courier-delivered items: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 300 12th Street, SW.,
Room 102 Cotton Annex, Washington, DC 20250.
Electronic mail: fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov.
All submissions received must include the Agency name and docket
number 03-020P.
All comments submitted in response to this proposal, as well as
research and background information used by FSIS in developing this
document, will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket
Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. The comments also will be posted on the Agency's
Web site at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/2005_
Proposed_Rules_Index/index.asp.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Larsen, Ph.D., Senior Director
for Program Services, Office of Public Health Science, FSIS, at (202)
690-6492 or fax (202) 690-6632.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In order to ensure compliance with the regulatory provisions of the
Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), samples of meat and
poultry products are periodically tested to determine moisture,
protein, fat, and salt content. Analyses also are conducted to
determine the presence of violative concentrations of drugs or other
chemical residues.
When there is an indication of noncompliance with the FMIA and the
PPIA, FSIS takes appropriate action against the processor of the
noncompliant product. Depending on the type of product and the severity
of the noncompliance, such actions may range from requiring that a
product be reprocessed to the taking of an enforcement action. Because
correct and accurate test results help prevent the distribution of
adulterated and misbranded meat and poultry products, it is necessary
that laboratories that conduct the tests in FSIS' accredited laboratory
program maintain a high degree of integrity.
Before 1962, most official samples were analyzed by FSIS
laboratories. However, in response to the meat and poultry industries'
need for more rapid analytical results, and because of limitations in
FSIS laboratory capacity, programs were established to certify non-
Federal laboratories for certain tests of both meat and poultry
products. In 1980 (45 FR 73947) and again in 1985 (50 FR 15435), the
Agency proposed to consolidate these programs and establish an
Accredited Laboratory Program (ALP) that contained standards and
procedures for non-Federal laboratories eligible to analyze official
samples. A final rule was issued in 1987 (52 FR 2176). A subsequent
1993 final rule (58 FR 65254) established user fees for the ALP and
adjusted the standards and procedures established in the earlier rule
for this program. User fees, which cover the costs of the ALP, are
mandated by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
(the 1990 Farm Bill), as amended.
A processor whose sample is to be analyzed generally has the option
of using an FSIS laboratory or a non-Federal FSIS-accredited
laboratory. The cost of FSIS analysis is borne by the government; the
cost of non-Federal analysis is borne by the processor. Because of the
limited number (three) of FSIS laboratories and their heavy workload,
processors may prefer to use
[[Page 2484]]
non-Federal accredited laboratories given the convenience of their
location or the fact they can provide test results more quickly. Some
non-Federal accredited laboratories are separate entities, while others
are located in and owned by official establishments.
The Proposed Rule
This proposal updates the regulations governing the accredited
laboratory program and clarifies and corrects some data. Issuance of
these proposed regulations will give FSIS more flexibility in keeping
up with current and future scientific changes without having to
periodically reissue new regulations. For example, this proposal
deletes from the regulations all references and footnotes to the
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) contained in the
current food chemistry accreditation regulations and the definitions.
The name and address of the organization have changed, and the cited
edition of the methods manual is not the current edition. AOAC will no
longer be specifically cited. Instead, the ALP will advise accredited
laboratories, as provided in the proposed accreditation regulations,
about suitable methods that are available from various compendia, such
as FSIS guidebooks or current AOAC manuals, for determining the
presence of the analytes covered by the ALP.
This proposed rule deletes all references to split samples because
they are no longer part of the ALP program. In addition, this rule
modifies Table 1 of the current regulations in Sec. Sec. 318.21 and
381.153 by moving its footnote information into the main body of the
table. The proposed rule modifies Table 2 and provisions for Quality
Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) recovery throughout the
regulations by removing explicit figures for minimum proficiency levels
(MPLs) and recoveries. Information on current recoveries established by
FSIS for laboratory quality assurance and quality control will be
available from the ALP Web site at https://www.fsis.gov/Science/
Accredited_Laboratories/index.asp. A link to information on current
MPLs is available on the ALP Web site, or you can access the
information directly at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/2003_Red_Book_
Appendix3-4.PDF.
Finally, the proposed rule eliminates duplicative provisions within
the current regulations and consolidates Sec. Sec. 318.21 and 381.153
into a single set of regulations in new Part 439. For example, new
Sec. 439.20 contains the criteria for maintaining either a food
chemistry accreditation or a chemical residue accreditation for both
meat and poultry products. A summary of the changes made is contained
in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat Poultry New Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
318.21................................ 381.153.................. Part 439 Editorial and conforming
changes throughout the
regulations are made, along
with certain other
revisions.
318.21(a)............................. 381.153(a)............... 439.1 Updated to reflect change of
address and to delete
specific references to the
Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, amended
to delete definition of
split samples, to modify
Tables 1 and 2 to revise
performance standards, to
add new definitions and to
reuse certain current
definitions.
318.21(b)(1), 318.21(c)(1)............ 381.153(b)(1), 439.5 Updated and consolidated
381.153(c)(1). application requirements.
318.21(b)(2), 318.21(c)(2)............ 381.153(b)(2), 439.10 Revised, consolidated, and
381.153(c)(2). clarified accreditation
criteria.
318.21(b)(3), 318.21(c)(3)............ 381.153(b)(3), 439.20 Revised and consolidated
381.153(c)(3). criteria for maintaining
accreditation.
318.21(d)............................. 381.153(d)............... 439.50 Deletes current (d)(4) and
replaces it with a cross
reference to ``violations of
law'' in new Sec. 439.60
and makes certain other
revisions.
318.21(e)............................. 381.153(e)............... 439.51 Updated to cross reference
sections of new Sec.
439.20 and to make certain
other revisions.
318.21(f)............................. 381.153(f)............... 439.52 Deletes current (f) and
instead cross references new
Sec. 439.60.
318.21(g)............................. 381.153(g)............... 439.53 Updates and consolidates
bases for revocation of
accreditation. Deletes
current (g)(4) and instead
cross references new Sec.
439.60, ``violations of
law.''
318.21(e), 318.21(f).................. 381.153(e), 381.153(f)... 439.60 New section that consolidates
references to ``violations
of law.''
318.21(h)............................. 381.153(h)............... 439.70 Editorial changes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expansion of the Laboratory Program; Request for Comments
Although recent rulemakings and Agency policy decisions address a
range of chemical contaminants, including most that present biosecurity
concerns, FSIS does not intend to expand the ALP at this time.
Expansion of the program to other analytes would require a statistical
evaluation of historical data in order to develop the appropriate
algorithms and correction factors needed to implement the same type of
quality assurance procedures that are applied to the analytes currently
included in the program. It would also require FSIS to make policy
decisions regarding the acceptance of test results from non-Federal
laboratories for these new analytes. The Agency does not intend to
include the additional analytes (e.g., pesticide or drug residues) by
laboratories in the ALP until such policy decisions have been made, and
the necessary scientific foundation is established for them.
FSIS, however, would like to receive comments from the public on
whether non-Federal laboratories should be accredited to analyze
official samples for additional analytes and whether the laboratories
should be used to supplement further the analytical capabilities of the
three FSIS laboratories.
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. The rule updates the quality standards and
procedures that govern the accredited laboratory program.
States and local jurisdictions are preempted under the FMIA and the
PPIA from imposing any requirements with respect to federally inspected
[[Page 2485]]
premises, facilities, and operations that are in addition to, or
different than, those imposed under the FMIA or PPIA. However, State or
local jurisdictions may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over meat and
poultry products that are outside official establishments for the
purpose of preventing the distribution of meat and poultry products
that are misbranded or adulterated under the FMIA or PPIA or, in the
case of imported products, after their entry into the United States.
State and local jurisdictions also may take other actions that are
consistent with the FMIA and PPIA, with respect to any other matters
regulated under the Acts.
Under FMIA and PPIA, States that maintain meat and poultry
inspection programs must impose requirements that are at least equal to
those required under the Acts. However, these States may impose more
stringent requirements on such State-inspected products and
establishments.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be non-significant and
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866. The rule will not result in an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major
increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries,
governments or geographic regions.
Effect on Small Entities
There are about 90 laboratories that have a total of about 110
accreditations in the FSIS Accredited Laboratory Program (ALP). About
three-quarters of these are large entities, based on their volume of
business, or are part of entities such as large business corporations,
State universities, or State governments. The smaller laboratories
participating in the ALP range from medium-sized laboratory facilities
to one- or two-person operations. These laboratories provide analytical
services of official samples to large and small establishments.
Participation in the Agency's ALP is voluntary. It is expected that
a decision to participate would be based on a calculation of the
benefits and costs to the firm, including a determination whether the
resulting loss of business as a result of non-participation in ALP
would be significant.
The Administrator has made an initial determination that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). The effects of this proposed rule on
the laboratories and on the establishments they serve will not be
significant and will apply equally to large and small entities. The
proposed rule does not involve a change in the accreditation fee, but
rather adjustments and clarifications in the operational procedures and
standards. The cost savings brought about by improved efficiencies in
the requirements for participants in the ALP are likely to be small.
Paperwork Requirements
FSIS has reviewed the paperwork and recordkeeping requirements in
this proposed rule in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Agency has determined that the
paperwork requirements for the regulations that govern the
accreditation of non-Federal analytical chemistry laboratories have
already been accounted for in the Application for Inspection,
Sanitation, and Accredited Laboratories information collection approved
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB approval number
for the Application for Inspection, Sanitation, and Accredited
Laboratories information collection is 0583-0082.
Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)
FSIS is committed to compliance with the GPEA, which requires
Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of
submitting information or transacting business electronically to the
maximum extent possible. The Agency will ensure that to the extent
possible, all forms used by the laboratories are made available
electronically.
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 that minorities, women, and persons with
disabilities are aware of this proposal, FSIS will announce it online
through the FSIS Web page located at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
regulations_&_policies/2005_Proposed_Rules_Index/index.asp.
The Regulations.gov Web site is the central online rulemaking
portal of the United States Government. It is being offered as a public
service to increase participation in the Federal Government's
regulatory activities. FSIS participates in Regulations.gov and will
accept comments on documents published on the site. The site allows
visitors to search by keyword or Department or Agency for rulemakings
that allow for public comment. Each entry provides a quick link to a
comment form so that visitors can type in their comments and submit
them to FSIS. The Web site is located at https://www.regulations.gov.
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.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 318
Accredited laboratory program, Meat inspection, Recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
9 CFR Part 381
Accredited laboratory program, Poultry and poultry products
inspection, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
9 CFR Part 439
Meat inspection, Poultry and poultry products inspection,
Laboratory accreditation.
Accordingly, Title 9, Chapter III, Subchapter E of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
[[Page 2486]]
Subchapter E--Regulatory Requirements Under the Federal Meat Inspection
Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act
PART 318--ENTRY INTO OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENTS; REINSPECTION AND
PREPARATION OF PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 318 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7
CFR 2.18, 2.53.
Sec. 318.21 [Removed and reserved]
2. Section 318.21 would be removed and reserved.
PART 381--POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 381 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR 2.7,
2.18, 2.53.
Sec. 381.153 [Removed and reserved]
4. Section 381.153 would be removed and reserved.
5. A new part 439 would be added to Subchapter E of Chapter III to
read as follows:
PART 439--ACCREDITATION OF CHEMISTRY LABORATORIES
Sec.
439.1 Definitions.
439.5 Applications for accreditation.
439.10 Criteria for obtaining accreditation.
439.20 Criteria for maintaining accreditation.
439.50 Refusal of accreditation.
439.51 Probation of accreditation.
439.52 Suspension of accreditation.
439.53 Revocation of accreditation.
439.60 Violations of law.
439.70 Notifications and hearings.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 451-470,
601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
Sec. 439.1 Definitions.
(a) Accreditation: Determination by FSIS that a laboratory is
qualified to analyze official samples of raw or processed meat and
poultry products, because it has met the requirements for accreditation
specified in this part, for the presence and amount of all four food
chemistry analytes (protein, moisture, fat, and salt); or a
determination by FSIS that a laboratory is qualified to analyze
official samples of raw or processed meat and poultry products, because
it has met the requirements for accreditation in this part, for the
presence and amount of a specified chemical residue of any one of
several classes of chemical residues. A laboratory may hold more than
one accreditation.
(b) Accredited laboratory: A non-Federal analytical laboratory that
has met the requirements for accreditation specified in this Part and,
therefore, at an establishment's discretion, may be used in lieu of an
FSIS laboratory for analyzing official regulatory samples. Payment for
the analysis of official samples is to be made by the establishment
using the accredited laboratory.
(c) Accredited Laboratory Program (ALP): The FSIS program in which
non-Federal laboratories are accredited as eligible to perform analyses
on official regulatory samples of raw or processed meat and poultry
products, and through which a check sample program for quality
assurance is conducted. Program information and guidance can be
obtained from the ALP Web site at www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/
Accredited_Laboratories/index.asp or by writing to: Accredited
Laboratory Program, Box 17 Aerospace Center, Room 377, 901 D Street SW,
Washington, DC 20024; facsimile telephone number (202) 690-6632;
voicemail telephone number (202) 690-6582.
(d) Chemical residue misidentification: see ``Correct chemical
residue identification'' definition.
(e) Coefficient of variation (CV): The standard deviation of a
distribution of analytical values multiplied by 100 and divided by the
mean of those values.
(f) Comparison mean: The average result, for a sample, obtained
from all submitted results that have a large deviation measure of zero.
When only two laboratories perform the analysis and the large deviation
measure is not zero, alternative procedures for establishing a
comparison mean may be employed by FSIS. For purposes of computing the
comparison mean, a laboratory's ``result'' for a food chemistry analyte
is the obtained analytical value; a laboratory's ``result'' for a
chemical residue is the logarithmic transformation of the obtained
analytical value.
(g) Correct chemical residue identification: Reporting by a
laboratory of the presence and analytical value of a chemical residue
that was included in the ALP check sample above the minimum reporting
level. Failure of a laboratory to report the presence of such a
chemical residue is considered a misidentification. In addition,
reporting the presence of and analytical value for a residue that was
not included in the ALP check sample above the minimum reporting level
is considered a misidentification.
(h) CUSUM: A class of statistical procedures for assessing whether
or not a process is ``in control.'' Each CUSUM value is constructed by
accumulating incremental values obtained from observed results of the
process, and then determined to either exceed or fall within acceptable
limits for that process. The initial CUSUM values for each laboratory
whose application for accreditation is accepted are set at zero. The
CUSUM values are reset to zero at the beginning of each year; that is,
the CUSUM values associated with the first maintenance check sample
each year are set equal to the CUSUM increment for that sample.
The four CUSUM procedures are:
(1) Positive systematic laboratory difference CUSUM (CUSUM-P)--
monitors how consistently an accredited laboratory gets numerically
greater results than the comparison mean;
(2) Negative systematic laboratory difference CUSUM (CUSUM-N)--
monitors how consistently an accredited laboratory gets numerically
smaller results than the comparison mean;
(3) Variability CUSUM (CUSUM-V)--monitors the average ``total
deviation'' (i.e., the combination of the random fluctuations and
systematic differences) between an accredited laboratory's results and
the comparison mean; and
(4) Individual large deviation CUSUM (CUSUM-D)--monitors the
magnitude and frequency of large differences between the results of an
accredited laboratory and the comparison mean.
(i) Food chemistry: For the purposes of Part 439, ``food
chemistry'' will refer to analysis of raw or processed meat or poultry
products for the analytes moisture, protein, fat, and salt. All four
analytes must be determined when a food chemistry analysis is
conducted, unless otherwise advised by the ALP.
(j) Individual large deviation: An analytical result that differs
from the sample comparison mean by more than would be expected assuming
normal laboratory variability.
(k) Initial accreditation check sample: A sample provided by the
ALP to a non-Federal laboratory to determine whether the laboratory's
analytical capability meets the standards for granting accreditation.
(l) Inter-laboratory accreditation maintenance check sample: A
sample provided by FSIS to an accredited laboratory to assist in
determining whether the laboratory is maintaining acceptable levels of
analytical capability.
(m) Large deviation measure: A measure that quantifies an
unacceptably large difference between a laboratory's analytical result
and the sample comparison mean.
[[Page 2487]]
(n) Minimum proficiency level (MPL): The minimum concentration of a
residue at which an analytical result will be used to assess a
laboratory's quantification capability. This concentration is an
estimate of the smallest concentration for which the average
coefficient of variation (CV) for reproducibility (i.e., combined
within and between laboratory variability) does not exceed 20 percent.
Information on the current MPLs may be obtained from the ALP staff at
the address provided above in the definition of ``Accredited Laboratory
Program,'' in Sec. 439.1 or from the ALP Web site at
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/Accredited_Laboratories/index.as.
(o) Minimum reporting level (MRL): The number such that if any
obtained analytical value for a residue in a check sample or official
sample equals or exceeds this number, then the residue is reported
together with the obtained analytical value. Information on the current
MRLs may be obtained from the ALP staff at the address provided above,
in the definition of ``Accredited Laboratory Program,'' in Sec. 439.1.
Official sample--A sample selected by an inspector or inspection
service employee in accordance with FSIS procedures for regulatory use.
(p) Probation: The period commencing with official notification to
an accredited laboratory that its check sample results no longer
satisfy the performance requirements specified in this rule, and ending
with official notification that accreditation either is fully restored,
is suspended, or is revoked.
(q) QA: (See Quality assurance recovery)
(r) QC: (See Quality control recovery)
(s) Quality assurance (QA) recovery: The ratio of a laboratory's
analytical value for a check sample residue to the established level of
the analyte in the check sample, multiplied by 100. As dictated by the
procedures for the analyte, the analytical value may be adjusted prior
to the recovery computation.
(t) Quality control (QC) recovery: The ratio of a laboratory's
analytical value of a quality control standard to the established level
of the analyte in the standard, multiplied by 100. As dictated by the
procedures for the analyte, the analytical value may be adjusted prior
to the recovery computation.
(u) Refusal of accreditation: An action taken by FSIS when a
laboratory that is applying for accreditation is denied the
accreditation.
(v) Responsibly connected: Any individual who or entity which is a
partner, officer, director, manager, or owner of 10 percent or more of
the voting stock of the applicant or recipient of accreditation or an
employee in a managerial or executive capacity or any employee who
conducts or supervises the chemical analysis of FSIS official samples.
(w) Revocation of accreditation: An action taken by FSIS against a
laboratory, removing the laboratory's right to analyze official
samples.
(x) Standardizing constant: A number that results from a
mathematical adjustment to the ``standardizing value'' and is used to
compute the standardized difference for a check sample result. The
number takes into consideration the expected variance of the difference
between the accredited or applying laboratory's result(s) and the
comparison mean for a sample, the standardizing value, the correlation
and number of repeated results by a laboratory on a sample, and the
number of laboratories that analyzed a sample. Information on the
computation of the standardizing constant may be obtained from the ALP
staff at the address provided above in the definition of ``Accredited
Laboratory Program,'' in Sec. 439.1.
(y) Standardized difference: The quotient of the difference between
a laboratory's result on a sample and the comparison mean of the sample
divided by the standardizing constant.
(z) Standardizing value: A number representing the performance
standard deviation of an individual result. The number is given, or
computed by, the information provided in Tables 1 and 2 and their
footnotes.
(aa) Suspension of accreditation: Action taken by FSIS against a
laboratory that temporarily removes the laboratory's right to analyze
official samples. Suspension of accreditation ends when accreditation
either is fully restored or is revoked.
(bb) Systematic laboratory difference: A comparison of one
laboratory's results with the comparison mean for samples that show, on
average, a consistent relationship. A laboratory that is reporting, on
average, numerically greater results than the comparison mean has a
positive systematic laboratory difference. Conversely, numerically
smaller results indicate a negative systematic laboratory difference.
(cc) Variability: Random fluctuations in a laboratory's processes
that cause its analytical results to deviate from a true value.
(dd) Variance: The expected average of the squared differences of
sample results from an expected sample mean.
Table 1.--Standardizing Values for Food Chemistry
[By product class and analyte]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fat \1\ Salt \1\
Product/class Moisture Protein \1\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<12.5% >12.5% <1% 1-4% >4% \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cured Pork/Canned Ham................... 0.50 0.060 (X0.65) 0.26 (X0.25) 0.30 (X0.25) 0.127 0.127 (X0.25) 0.22
Ground Beef............................. 0.71 0.060 (X0.65) N/A 0.35 (X0.25) 0.127 0.127 (X0.25) 0.22
Other Meat Products..................... 0.57 0.060 (X0.65) 0.26 (X0.25) 0.30 (X0.25) 0.127 0.127 (X0.25) 0.22
Poultry Products........................ 0.57 0.060 (X0.65) 0.26 (X0.25) 0.30 (X0.25) 0.127 0.127 (X0.25) 0.22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The standardizing value is either the value given in the table or is computed by the formula set forth in the table, where X is the comparison mean
of the sample. Standardizing values are provided for different percentages of fat and salt as indicated in the table.
\2\ For dry salami and pepperoni products.
[[Page 2488]]
Table 2.--Standardizing Values for Chemical Residues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standardizing
Class of residues value \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons: \1\
Aldrin.............................................. 0.20
Benzene Hexachloride................................ 0.20
Chlordane........................................... 0.20
Dieldrin............................................ 0.20
DDT................................................. 0.20
DDE................................................. 0.20
TDE................................................. 0.20
Endrin.............................................. 0.20
Heptachlor.......................................... 0.20
Heptachlor Epoxide.................................. 0.20
Lindane............................................. 0.20
Methoxychlor........................................ 0.20
Toxaphene........................................... 0.20
Hexachlorobenzene................................... 0.20
Mirex............................................... 0.20
Nonachlor........................................... 0.20
Polychlorinated Biphenyls:............................ 0.20
Arsenic \2\........................................... 0.25
Sulfonamides \2\...................................... 0.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Laboratory statistics are computed over all results (excluding PCB
results), and for specific chemical residues.
\2\ Laboratory statistics are only computed for specific chemical
residues.
\3\ The standardizing value of all initial accreditation and
probationary check samples computations is 0.15.
Sec. 439.5 Applications for accreditation.
(a) Application for accreditation shall be made on designated paper
or electronic forms provided by FSIS, or otherwise in writing, by the
owner or manager of a non-Federal analytical laboratory. The forms
shall be sent to the ALP at the address provided above in the
definition of ``Accredited laboratory'' Sec. 439.1 of this part, or
may be submitted electronically when so provided for by FSIS. The
application shall specify the kinds of accreditation that are wanted by
the owner or manager of the laboratory. A laboratory whose
accreditation has been refused or revoked may reapply for accreditation
after 60 days from the effective date of that action, and must provide
written documentation specifying what corrections were made.
(b) At the time that an Application for Accreditation is filed with
the ALP, the management of a laboratory shall, for each accreditation
sought, submit a check, bank draft, or money order in the amount
specified in 9 CFR 391.5 made payable to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, along with the completed application for the
accreditation(s). When so provided for by FSIS, electronic transfer of
funds may be accepted.
(c) Accreditation will not be granted or continued, without further
procedure, for failure to pay the accreditation fee(s). The fee(s) paid
will be nonrefundable and will be credited to the account from which
the expenses of the laboratory accreditation program are paid.
(d) Annually on the anniversary date of each accreditation, FSIS
will issue a bill in the amount specified in 9 CFR 391.5 for each
accreditation held. Bills are payable upon receipt by check, bank
draft, or money order made payable to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and become delinquent 30 days from the date of the bill.
(e) Accreditation will be terminated without further procedure for
having a delinquent account. The fee(s) paid will be nonrefundable and
will be credited to the account from which the expenses of the ALP are
paid.
Sec. 439.10 Criteria for obtaining accreditation.
(a) Analytical laboratories may be accredited for the analyses of
food chemistry analytes, as defined in Sec. 439.1, or a specific
chemical residue or a class of chemical residues in raw or processed
meat and poultry products.
(b) Accreditation will be given only if the applying laboratory
successfully satisfies the requirements presented below. For food
chemistry accreditation, the requirements must be satisfied for all
four analytes.
(c) This accreditation authorizes official FSIS acceptance of the
analytical test results provided by these laboratories on official
samples.
(d) To obtain FSIS accreditation, an analytical laboratory must:
(1) Be supervised by a person holding, as a minimum, a bachelor's
degree in chemistry, food science, food technology, or a related field.
(i) For food chemistry accreditation, the supervisor must also have
1 year's experience in food chemistry analysis, or equivalent
qualifications, as determined by the Administrator.
(ii) For chemical residue accreditation, either the supervisor or
the analyst assigned to analyze the sample must also have 3 years'
experience determining analytes at or below part per million levels, or
equivalent qualifications, as determined by the Administrator.
(2) Demonstrate an ability to achieve quality assurance levels that
are within acceptable limits for systemic laboratory difference,
variability, and individual large deviations, in the analyte category
for which accreditation is sought, using analytical procedures
designated by the FSIS ALP as being acceptable. An applying laboratory
will successfully demonstrate these capabilities for:
(i) Food chemistry if its results from a 36 check sample
accreditation study each satisfy the criteria presented in paragraph
(e) of this section.
(ii) Chemical residues if its analytical results for each specific
chemical residue provided in a check sample accreditation study
containing a minimum of 14 check samples satisfy the criteria presented
in paragraph (e) of this section, including criteria for QA and QC
recovery and for residue identification. In addition, if the laboratory
is requesting accreditation for the analysis of chlorinated
hydrocarbons, all analytical results for the residue class must
collectively satisfy the criteria. [Conformance to criteria in
paragraph (e) of this section will only be determined when six or more
analytical results with associated comparison means at or above the
logarithm of the minimum proficiency level are available.]
(3) Round all check sample statistical computations to the nearest
tenth, except where otherwise noted.
(4) Complete a second set of the requisite number of check samples
if the results of the first set of check samples do not meet the
criteria for obtaining accreditation.
(i) The second set of check samples will be provided within 30 days
following the date of receipt by FSIS of a request from the applying
laboratory. The second set of food chemistry check samples will be
analyzed for only the analyte(s) for which unacceptable initial results
had been obtained by the laboratory.
(ii) If the results of the second set of check samples do not meet
the accreditation criteria, the laboratory may reapply after a 60-day
waiting period, commencing from the date of refusal of accreditation by
FSIS. At that time, a new application, all fees, and all documentation
of corrective action required for accreditation must be submitted.
(5) Allow inspection of the laboratory by FSIS officials prior to
the determination of granting accredited status.
(6) Pay the accreditation fee by the date required.
(e) Quality assurance levels. (1) Systematic laboratory difference:
The absolute value of the average standardized difference must not
exceed the following:
(i) For food chemistry, 0.73 minus the product of 0.17 and the
standard deviation of the standardized differences; and
(ii) For chemical residues, 1.67 (2.00 if there are less than 12
analytical results) minus the product of 0.29 and
[[Page 2489]]
the standard deviation of the standardized differences.
(2) Variability: The estimated standard deviation of the
standardized difference must not exceed the following:
(i) For food chemistry, 1.15; and
(ii) For chemical residues, a computed limit that is a function of
the number of analytical results used in the computation of the
standard deviation, and of the amount of variability.
(3) Individual large deviations: One hundred times the average of
the large deviation measures of the individual samples must be less
than 5.0. A result will have a large deviation measure equal to zero
when the absolute value of the result's standardized difference, (d),
is less than 2.5 and otherwise a measure equal to 1-(2.5/d).
(4) For residue analyses, the following additional quality
assurance requirements must be met.
(i) QA recovery: The average of the QA recoveries of the individual
check sample analytical results must lie within ranges established by
FSIS. Information on recovery ranges may be obtained from the ALP at
the address provided in Sec. 439.1 of this chapter.
(ii) QC recovery: All QC recoveries must lie within ranges
established by FSIS. Information on recovery ranges may be obtained
from the ALP at the address provided in Sec. 439.1 of this chapter.
Supporting documentation must be made available to FSIS upon request.
(iii) Correct identification: There must be correct identification
of all chemical residues in all samples.
Sec. 439.20 Criteria for maintaining accreditation.
(a) To maintain accreditation, an analytical laboratory must
fulfill the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.
(b) Official samples. (1) An accredited laboratory must
expeditiously report analytical results, in the analyte category for
which accreditation was granted, of official samples on designated
forms to the Data Center Staff, USDA/FSIS Eastern Laboratory, Russell
Research Center, P.O. Box 6085, Athens, GA 30604 (for U.S. Postal
Service delivery), or Data Center Staff, USDA/FSIS Eastern Laboratory,
Russell Research Center, 950 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30605
(for commercial carrier delivery). When so provided for by FSIS,
analytical results may be reported to the Data Center Staff by
facsimile at 706-546-3589, or electronically. The Federal inspector at
any establishment may assign the analysis of official samples to an
FSIS laboratory if, in the inspector's judgment, there are delays in
receiving test results on official samples from an accredited
laboratory.
(2) Every QC recovery associated with reporting of official samples
must lie within ranges established by FSIS. Information on recovery
ranges may be obtained from the ALP at the address provided in Sec.
439.1 of this chapter. Supporting documentation must be made available
to FSIS upon request.
(c) Records. An accredited laboratory must:
(1) Maintain laboratory quality control records for the most recent
3 years that samples have been analyzed under this Program.
(2) Maintain complete records of the receipt, analysis, and
disposition of official samples for the most recent 3 years that
samples have been analyzed under this Program.
(3) Maintain in a secure electronic format or in a standards book,
which is preferably a permanently bound book with sequentially numbered
pages, all records, readings, and calculations for standard solutions.
All entries are to be dated and signed by the analyst immediately upon
completion of the entry, and by the supervisor, or in the absence of
the supervisor by the supervisor's designee, before use of the standard
solution but no later than within 1 week. The standards book is to be
retained for 3 years after the last recorded entry.
(4) Maintain records and supervisor approvals of recoveries, and of
instrument maintenance and calibration. The records are to be retained
for 3 years after the last recorded entry.
(5) As provided in paragraph (f) of this section, records should be
available for review by any duly authorized representative of the
Secretary of Agriculture, including ALP personnel or their designees.
(d) Check samples. (1) An accredited laboratory must analyze
interlaboratory accreditation maintenance check samples and return the
results to FSIS within 3 weeks of sample receipt. This must be done
whenever requested by FSIS and at no cost to FSIS.
(2) Results must be those of the accredited laboratory. Analyses of
maintenance check samples shall not be contracted out by the accredited
laboratory.
(3) As provided by the requirements in paragraph (h) of this
section, a check sample report will be considered complete only if
laboratories report all analytes present in the check sample for the
analyte category in which accreditation was granted.
(e) Corporate changes. The ALP must be informed at the address
provided in Sec. 439.1 in the definition of ``Accredited laboratory''
of this part, by certified or registered mail, within 30 days of any
change of address or in the laboratory's ownership, officers,
directors, supervisory personnel, or other responsibly connected
individual or entity.
(f) On-site review. An accredited laboratory must permit any duly
authorized representative of the Secretary to perform both announced
and unannounced on-site laboratory reviews of facilities and records,
both hard copy and electronic, during normal business hours, and to
copy any records pertaining to the laboratory's participation in the
ALP.
(g) Analytical procedures. An accredited laboratory must use
analytical procedures designated by the FSIS ALP as being acceptable.
(h) Quality assurance levels. (1) An accredited laboratory must
demonstrate an ability to maintain quality assurance levels that are
within acceptable limits for systematic laboratory difference,
variability, and individual large deviations in the analysis of
interlaboratory check samples for the analyte category for which
accreditation was granted. An accredited laboratory will successfully
demonstrate the maintenance of these capabilities if its analytical
results from interlaboratory accreditation maintenance check samples
satisfy the criteria presented in this paragraph, Sec. 439.20(h). All
statistical computations are to be rounded to the nearest tenth, except
where otherwise noted.
(2) In addition, a laboratory accredited for a specific chemical
residue or a chemical residue class:
(i) Must satisfy criteria presented in this paragraph, Sec.
439.20(h), for chemical residue recoveries and proper identification;
(ii) Will demonstrate the maintenance of its capabilities by
reporting its analytical results for each specific chemical residue
found above the minimum proficiency level; and
(iii) Must, if accredited for the analysis of chlorinated
hydrocarbons, obtain analytical results that collectively satisfy the
criteria.
(3) Systematic laboratory difference: The standardized difference
between the accredited laboratory's result and the comparison mean for
each interlaboratory accreditation maintenance check sample is used to
determine two CUSUM values, designated as CUSUM-P and CUSUM-N.
[[Page 2490]]
(i) When determining compliance with this criterion for all
chlorinated hydrocarbon results in a sample collectively, the following
statistical procedure must be followed to account for the correlation
of analytical results within a sample: The average of the standardized
differences of the analytical results within the sample, divided by a
constant, is used in place of a single standardized difference to
determine the CUSUM-P (or CUSUM-N) value for the sample. The constant
is a function of the number of analytical results used to compute the
average standardized difference.
(ii) Positive systematic laboratory difference: This value is
computed and evaluated as follows:
(A) Determine the CUSUM-P increment for the sample.
(1) The CUSUM-P increment for food chemistry, as defined in Sec.
439.1 of this Chapter, is set equal to:
2.0, if the standardized difference is greater than 2.4,
-2.0, if the standardized difference is less than -1.6, or
the standardized difference minus 0.4, if the standardized
difference lies between -1.6 and 2.4, inclusive.
(2) The CUSUM-P increment for chemical residues is set equal to:
2.0, if the standardized difference is greater than 2.5,
-2.0, if the standardized difference is less than -1.5, or
the standardized difference minus 0.5, if the standardized
difference lies between -1.5 and 2.5, inclusive.
(B) Compute the new CUSUM-P value. The new CUSUM-P value is
obtained by adding, algebraically, the CUSUM-P increment to the last
previously computed CUSUM-P value. If this computation yields a value
smaller than 0, the new CUSUM-P value is set equal to 0.
(C) Evaluate the new CUSUM-P value. The new CUSUM-P value must not
exceed:
(1) 5.2 for food chemistry.
(2) 4.8 for chemical residues.
(iii) Negative systematic laboratory difference: This value is
computed and evaluated as follows:
(A) Determine the CUSUM-N increment for the sample.
(1) The CUSUM-N increment for food chemistry is set equal to:
2.0, if the standardized difference is greater than 1.6,
-2.0, if the standardized difference is less than -2.4, or
the standardized difference plus 0.4, if the standardized
difference lies between - 2.4 and 1.6, inclusive.
(2) The CUSUM-N increment for chemical residues is set equal to:
2.0, if the standardized difference is greater than 1.5,
-2.0, if the standardized difference is less than -2.5, or
the standardized difference plus 0.5, if the standardized
difference lies between -2.5 and 1.5, inclusive.
(B) Compute the new CUSUM-N value. The new CUSUM-N value is
obtained by subtracting, algebraically, the CUSUM-N increment from the
last previously computed CUSUM-N value. If this computation yields a
value smaller than 0, the new CUSUM-N value is set equal to 0.
(C) Evaluate the new CUSUM-N value. The new CUSUM-N value must not
exceed:
(1) 5.2 for food chemistry.
(2) 4.8 for chemical residues.
(4) Variability: The absolute value of the standardized difference
between the accredited laboratory's result and the comparison mean for
each interlaboratory accreditation maintenance check sample is used to
determine a CUSUM value, designated as CUSUM-V.
(i) When determining compliance with this criterion for all
chlorinated hydrocarbon results in a sample collectively, the following
statistical procedure must be followed to account for the correlation
of analytical results within a sample: The square root of the sum of
the within sample variance and the average standardized difference of
the sample, divided by a constant, is used in place of the absolute
value of the standardized difference to determine the CUSUM-V value for
the sample. The constant is a function of the number of analytical
results used to compute the average standardized difference.
(ii) The variability value is computed and designated as follows:
(A) Determine the CUSUM-V increment for the sample. The CUSUM
increment is set equal to the larger of -0.4 or the absolute value of
the standardized difference minus 0.9. If this computation yields a
value larger than 1.6, the increment is set equal to 1.6.
(B) Compute the new CUSUM-V value. The new CUSUM-V value is
obtained by adding, algebraically, the CUSUM-V increment to the last
previously computed CUSUM-V value. If this computation yields a value
less than 0, the new CUSUM-V value is set equal to 0.
(C) Evaluate the new CUSUM-V value. The new CUSUM-V value must not
exceed 4.3.
(5) Large deviations: The large deviation measure of the accredited
laboratory's result for each interlaboratory accreditation maintenance
check sample is used to determine a CUSUM value, designated as CUSUM-D.
(i) A result will have a large deviation measure equal to zero when
the absolute value of the result's standardized difference, (d), is
less than 2.5, and otherwise a measure equal to 1-(2.5/d).
(ii) The large deviation value is computed and evaluated as
follows:
(A) Determine the CUSUM-D increment for the sample. The CUSUM
increment is set equal to the value of the large deviation measure
minus 0.025.
(B) Compute the new CUSUM-D value. The new CUSUM-D value is
obtained by adding, algebraically, the CUSUM-D increment to the last
previously computed CUSUM-D value. If this computation yields a value
less than 0, the new CUSUM-D value is set equal to 0.
(C) Evaluate the new CUSUM-D value. The new CUSUM-D value must not
exceed 1.0.
(6) For chemical residues:
(i) Each QC recovery must lie within ranges established by FSIS.
Information on recovery ranges may be obtained from the ALP at the
address provided in Sec. 439.1 of this Chapter. Supporting
documentation must be made available to FSIS upon request.
(ii) Not more than 1 residue misidentification may be made in any 2
consecutive check samples.
(iii) Not more than 2 residue misidentifications may be made in any
8 consecutive check samples.
(i) Fees. An accredited laboratory must pay the required
accreditation fee when it is due.
(j) Probation. An accredited laboratory must meet the following
requirements if placed on probation pursuant to Sec. 439.51 of this
chapter:
(1) Send all official samples that have not been analyzed as of the
date of written notification of probation to a specified FSIS
laboratory by certified mail or private carrier or, as an alternative
and as directed by FSIS, to a laboratory accredited by FSIS for the
designated analyte(s). Mailing expenses will be paid by FSIS.
(2) Analyze a set of check samples similar to those used for
initial accreditation, and submit the analytical results to FSIS within
3 weeks of receipt of the samples.
(3) Satisfy criteria for accreditation check samples specified in
Sec. 439.10 of this chapter.
Sec. 439.50 Refusal of accreditation.
Upon a determination by the Administrator, a laboratory will be
refused accreditation for the following reasons:
[[Page 2491]]
(a) A laboratory will be refused accreditation for failure to meet
the requirements of Sec. 439.5 or Sec. 439.10 of this chapter.
(b) A laboratory will be refused subsequent accreditation for
failure to return to an FSIS laboratory, by certified mail or private
carrier, or, as an alternative and as directed by FSIS, to a laboratory
accredited by FSIS for the designated analytes, all official samples
that have not been analyzed as of the notification of a loss of
accreditation.
(c) A laboratory will be refused accreditation for the reasons
described in Sec. 439.60 of this chapter.
Sec. 439.51 Probation of accreditation.
Upon a determination by the Administrator, a laboratory will be
placed on probation for the following reasons:
(a) If the laboratory fails to complete more than one
interlaboratory accreditation maintenance check sample analysis as
required by Sec. 439.20(d) of this part within 12 consecutive months,
unless written permission is granted by the Administrator.
(b) If the laboratory fails to meet any of the criteria set forth
in Sec. Sec. 439.20(d) and 439.20(h) of this chapter.
Sec. 439.52 Suspension of accreditation.
The accreditation of a laboratory will be suspended for the reasons
described in Sec. 439.60 of this chapter.
Sec. 439.53 Revocation of accreditation.
The accreditation of a laboratory will be revoked for the following
reasons:
(a) An accredited laboratory that is accredited to perform analysis
under Sec. Sec. 439.5, 439.10 and 439.20 of this chapter will have its
accreditation revoked for failure to meet any of the requirements of
Sec. 439.20 of this chapter, except for the following circumstances.
If the accredited laboratory fails to meet any of the criteria set
forth in Sec. Sec. 439.20(d) and 439.20(h) of this chapter and it has
not failed during the 12 months preceding its failure to meet the
criteria, it shall be placed on probation, but if it has failed at any
time during those 12 months, its accreditation will be revoked.
(b) An accredited laboratory will have its accreditation revoked if
the Administrator determines that the laboratory or any responsibly
connected individual or any agent or employee has:
(1) Altered any official sample or analytical finding; or
(2) Substituted any analytical result from any other laboratory and
represented the result as its own.
(c) An accredited laboratory will have its accreditation revoked
for violations of law as described in Sec. 439.60 of this chapter.
Sec. 439.60 Violations of law.
An applicant or an accredited laboratory will have its
accreditation refused, suspended, or revoked, as appropriate, if the
laboratory or any individual or entity responsibly connected with the
laboratory is convicted of, or is under indictment for, or has had
charges on an information brought against them in a Federal or State
court concerning any of the following violations of law:
(a) Any felony.
(b) Any misdemeanor based upon acquiring, handling, or distributing
of unwholesome, misbranded, or deceptively packaged food or upon fraud
in connection with transactions in food.
(c) Any misdemeanor based upon a false statement to any
governmental agency.
(d) Any misdemeanor based upon the offering, giving or receiving of
a bribe or unlawful gratuity.
Sec. 439.70 Notification and hearings.
Accreditation of any laboratory will be refused, suspended, or
revoked under the conditions previously described in this Part 439. The
owner or operator of the laboratory will be sent written notice of the
refusal, suspension, or revocation of accreditation by the
Administrator. In such cases, the laboratory owner or operator will be
provided an opportunity to