Implementation of Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 2005, 22713-22723 [2010-10078]
Download as PDF
22713
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321–
7716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to
participate in this proposed rulemaking
by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis
supporting the views and suggestions
presented are particularly helpful in
developing reasoned regulatory
decisions on the proposal. Comments
are specifically invited on the overall
regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related
aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both
docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above.
Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this notice must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: ‘‘Comments to
Docket No. FAA–2010–0406/Airspace
Docket No. 10–ASW–8.’’ The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned
to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through
the FAA’s Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/
air_traffic/publications/
airspace_amendments/.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see
ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. An informal docket
may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the
Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
Persons interested in being placed on
a mailing list for future NPRMs should
contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking
(202) 267–9677, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application
procedure.
The Proposal
This action proposes to amend Title
14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class D
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Apr 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
airspace at San Marcos Municipal
Airport, San Marcos, TX. An air traffic
control tower established at the airport
has made controlled airspace necessary
for the safety and management of IFR
operations.
Class D airspace areas are published
in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order
7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009 and
effective September 15, 2009, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class D airspace designation
listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1,
Section 106 describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency’s
authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use
of airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority as it would
establish controlled airspace at San
Marcos Municipal Airport, San Marcos,
TX.
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
HHS.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
The Proposed Amendment
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is issuing an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) to request data and
information on the food transportation
industry and its practices. FDA also is
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9T,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, is
amended as follows:
Paragraph 5000
Class D Airspace.
*
*
*
*
*
AGL TX D San Marcos Municipal Airport,
TX [New]
San Marcos Municipal Airport, TX
(Lat. 29°53′34″ N., long. 97°51′47″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 3,100 feet MSL
within a 4.2-mile radius of San Marcos
Municipal Airport, and within 1 mile each
side of the 313° bearing from the airport
extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.6
miles northwest of the airport. This Class D
airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and
times will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Issued in Fort Worth, TX on April 19,
2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO
Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010–10039 Filed 4–29–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0013]
RIN 0910–AG52
Implementation of Sanitary Food
Transportation Act of 2005
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
Food and Drug Administration,
30APP1
22714
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
requesting data and information on the
contamination of transported foods and
any associated outbreaks. FDA is taking
this action as part of its implementation
of the Sanitary Food Transportation Act
of 2005 (2005 SFTA), which requires the
Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to issue regulations setting forth
sanitary transportation practices to be
followed by shippers, carriers by motor
vehicle or rail vehicle, receivers, and
others engaged in food transport. This
action is also part of a larger agency
effort to focus on prevention of food
safety problems throughout the food
chain. The regulations would address
the risks to human or animal health
associated with the transportation of
food.
DATES: Submit electronic or written
comments by August 30, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. FDA–2010–N–
0013, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the
following ways:
• FAX: 301–827–6870.
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For
paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions]:
Division of Dockets Management (HFA–
305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking. All
comments received may be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
additional information on submitting
comments, see the ‘‘Comments’’ heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the
heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Division of Dockets
Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Regarding the provisions with respect
to human food: Michael Kashtock,
Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition (HFS–317), Food and
Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:57 Apr 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
20740–3835, 301–436–2022.
Regarding the provisions with respect
to food for animals: Shannon
Jordre, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV–235), Food and
Drug Administration, 7519 Standish
Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–
9229.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
FDA is issuing this ANPRM as part of
its implementation of the 2005 SFTA,
which requires the Secretary of HHS to
issue regulations setting forth sanitary
transportation practices to be followed
by shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or
rail vehicle, receivers, and others
engaged in food transport. Food is
defined by section 201(f) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act)
(21 U.S.C. 321(f)) as ‘‘articles used for
food or drink for man or other animals,
chewing gum, and articles used for
components of any such article.’’ FDA
notes that ‘‘food’’ includes live animals
intended for food use and food such as
meat and poultry during transport
outside of official U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) establishments.1 2
This ANPRM is also part of a larger
agency effort to focus on prevention of
food safety problems throughout the
food chain; preventing harm to
consumers is the primary principle
described in the Key Findings of the
President’s Food Safety Working Group
(Ref. 3). The regulations would address
the risks to human or animal health
associated with the transportation of
food.
A. Risk for Foodborne Illness Associated
With Transportation of Food
Over the past few decades, there have
been persistent concerns about the
potential that food might become
contaminated during transportation;
however, only a limited number of such
events have been documented. In this
section, we discuss the events we are
aware of, in chronologic order. The first
two events described in the following
paragraphs involved contamination of
1 With regard to the latter, FDA notes that, to
prevent duplication of effort, its compliance policy
is to inform the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) when an apparent violation is
encountered involving a meat or poultry product
that has left a USDA inspected establishment (Ref.
1). FDA will not normally initiate action involving
such products unless USDA does not wish to do so.
As FDA moves forward to implement the SFTA,
FDA intends to consult with FSIS to harmonize
new regulations with current regulations as
practicable.
2 USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) has issued guidelines entitled ‘‘FSIS Safety
and Security Guidelines for the Transportation and
Distribution of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products’’
(Ref. 2).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
food for animals; the remainder
concerned food for humans.
In 1974, an incident involving
contamination of a component of food
for animals in a rail car occurred. This
case, which FDA investigated after
receiving reports of several sickened
dogs, involved corn gluten used in dog
food. The corn gluten was determined to
have been transported in a rail car that
had been previously used to transport
lead monoxide. Samples taken of the
dog food in which the corn gluten was
used revealed that it was contaminated
with lead monoxide at levels ranging up
to 28,000 parts per million. A Class I
recall was issued for the dog food and
other food for animals manufactured at
the same plant within the same time
period. Additionally, FDA successfully
prosecuted the carrier involved in this
incident. See United States v. Penn
Central Transportation Co. (S.D. Ill
1978) (Refs. 4 and 5).
In 1989, soybean hulls used as a
component in animal feed were
contaminated by barium carbonate, a
chemical used in rat poison and paint,
when they were transported in a rail car
that had previously been used to
transport the chemical (Refs. 6 and 7).
The soybean hulls were incorporated
into bulk dairy cow feeds distributed to
farms in Louisiana and Texas. The
contamination resulted in the deaths of
dairy cows in herds from both Louisiana
and Texas, and high levels of barium
carbonate were detected in milk from
two of the affected herds by the State of
Louisiana. The manufacturer of the
animal feed voluntarily recalled
implicated feeds.
During the late 1980s, there were a
number of press reports that some
trucks that hauled garbage from the New
York/New Jersey area to Midwestern
landfills were used subsequently to
carry meat, poultry, and produce (Ref.
8). An investigation by the U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO, now called the
Government Accountability Office)
found only limited, anecdotal
information about food being
transported in trucks that previously
carried garbage, the types of trucks
doing so, and the foodstuffs carried (Ref.
8). However, in its report (the 1990 GAO
report), GAO concluded that longdistance transport of garbage was clearly
on the increase. GAO also concluded
that long-distance transport of garbage
primarily originated in certain
northeastern communities that generate
more garbage than they can dispose of
locally. In these communities, the
quantity of consumer goods, including
food, arriving by truck exceeded the
quantity of goods leaving, and garbage
had become a paying trucking
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
commodity on what might otherwise be
an empty return trip (Ref. 8). GAO
concluded that the extent to which the
same trucks might subsequently carry
food could not be determined at the
time of the report because federal
regulations did not require that type of
recordkeeping.
In 1994, a large multi-state outbreak of
salmonellosis was associated with an
ice cream mix that became
contaminated during transport in tanker
trucks that had previously hauled raw
liquid eggs (Ref. 9). Public health
officials who analyzed data and
information associated with 150
confirmed cases of salmonellosis in the
State of Minnesota concluded that the
outbreak may have affected more than
29,000 persons in Minnesota and more
than 224,000 persons nationwide (Ref.
9).
In July 1999, an outbreak of
Salmonella Muenchen occurred in 15
States and 2 Canadian provinces with
more than 300 cases reported (66 FR
6138 at 6172, January 19, 2001). The
product was fresh orange juice, a
portion of which was imported. Several
serotypes of Salmonella were isolated
from tanker truckloads of juice tested at
the United States/Mexican border. In
such circumstances, there is a potential
that Salmonella from one contaminated
shipment could contaminate future
shipments.
In 2007, the Motor Carrier Division of
the Michigan State Police reported 22
cases of illegal and unsafe food
transport on Michigan highways during
2006 (Ref. 10). The report listed findings
such as:
• Raw poultry hanging from the roof
inside the cargo area of a truck, with
juices dripping onto open boxes of
produce below, and with juices from the
raw poultry dripping out onto the
pavement from under the rear cargo box
doors. The food was being transported
in an unrefrigerated truck with an
internal temperature greater than 70° F;
• Truck(s) with no refrigeration unit;
• Truck(s) with the refrigeration unit
turned off or not working; and
• Truck(s) with a working
refrigeration unit that was not set at the
correct temperature.
As with the 1999 transport of
contaminated orange juice in tanker
truckloads, recent outbreaks of
foodborne disease demonstrate the
possibility of contaminated foods being
widely transported, which could lead to
cross-contamination between
shipments. For example, in 2009,
peanut butter and peanut paste were
confirmed as the source of a large multistate outbreak caused by Salmonella
Typhimurium (74 FR 10598, March 11,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Apr 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
2009). These peanut-derived products
were manufactured by two facilities
owned by a single firm and distributed
through various channels (Refs. 11 and
12). The firm recalled a large number of
its products, including products
distributed in 1,700–pound tanker
containers, because the products had
the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella (Ref. 13).
B. Sanitary Food Transportation Act of
1990 and Associated Actions by the U.S.
Department of Transportation
After receiving the 1990 GAO report,
Congress enacted the Sanitary Food
Transportation Act of 1990 (1990 SFTA)
(49 U.S.C. 5701 et seq. (2000), amended
by Public Law 109–59 (2005)). The 1990
SFTA directed the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) to prescribe
regulations regarding the transportation
of food and food additives (including
food and food additives intended for
consumption by animals) in motor
vehicles and rail vehicles that are used
to transport nonfood products that
would make the food or food additives
unsafe to humans or animals.3 In
essence, the 1990 SFTA directed DOT to
establish regulations to prevent food or
food additives transported in tank
trucks, rail tank cars, or cargo tanks
(tank vehicles) from being contaminated
by nonfood products that are
simultaneously or previously
transported in those tank vehicles.
Section 5704(b) of the 1990 SFTA
specifically directed DOT to publish a
list of acceptable nonfood products that
DOT (in consultation with the
Secretaries of the USDA, U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection
Agency) determined would not make
food or food additives unsafe to humans
or animals because of transportation of
the nonfood products in a tank vehicle
used to transport food or food additives.
On May 21, 1993, DOT’s Research and
Special Programs Administration
(RSPA) issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (the 1993 NPRM) (58 FR
29698) that would restrict a cargo tank,
tank car, or portable tank to carrying
either food products or nonfood
products. Under the 1993 NPRM, a
cargo tank, tank car, or portable tank
that carried food products would have
been prohibited from carrying nonfood
products. In the 1993 NPRM, RSPA
3 The 1990 SFTA also directed DOT to prescribe
regulations regarding the transportation of
cosmetics, devices, or drugs in motor vehicles and
rail vehicles that are used to transport nonfood
products that would make the cosmetics, devices,
or drugs unsafe to humans. We do not discuss those
provisions in this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22715
stated that it had not identified any
nonfood products that were acceptable
to be carried in a tank vehicle that
carries food products and, therefore,
was not issuing a list of acceptable
nonfood products within the meaning of
section 5704(b) of the 1990 SFTA. For
motor and rail vehicles other than tank
vehicles, RSPA also proposed to forbid
the transportation of food products in
the same vehicle as poisons, infectious
substances, hazardous wastes, or solid
wastes (i.e., ‘‘unacceptable nonfood
products’’). However, such vehicles
would be allowed to carry unacceptable
nonfood products before or after they
carried food products, provided the
vehicles were free of any contaminating
residues.
Subsequent to the publication of the
1993 NPRM, in a report issued on
March 27, 1998, DOT’s Office of the
Inspector General (DOT/OIG) found that
(1) DOT did not have the expertise to
implement the 1990 SFTA, (2)
performing food inspections could be
incompatible with significant aspects of
DOT’s safety inspection operations, and
(3) FDA had the requisite expertise,
capability, and a directly related
primary mission for regulating food
safety (Ref. 14). DOT/OIG concluded
that HHS/FDA should have primary
responsibility for food transportation
safety (Ref. 14).
Comments to the 1993 NPRM
generally opposed its proposed
provisions and recommended that DOT
defer to FDA and USDA on food safety
issues (69 FR 76423, December 21,
2004). In light of both these comments
and the 1998 report of DOT/OIG, RSPA
issued a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (69 FR 76423,
December 21, 2004) (the 2004 SNPRM).
Under the 2004 SNPRM, RSPA’s
regulations would reference
requirements and recommendations,
established by USDA or FDA, applying
to persons who transport (or offer for
transportation) food or food products by
motor vehicle or rail car.
RSPA did not issue a final rule based
on the 2004 SNPRM. Following the
enactment of the 2005 SFTA (see
discussion in section I.D of this
document), which amended the 1990
SFTA and directed HHS (and, by
delegation, FDA) to issue regulations
prescribing sanitary transportation
practices to ensure the safe
transportation of food, DOT’s Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (formerly RSPA)
withdrew both the 1993 NPRM and the
2004 SNPRM (70 FR 76228, December
23, 2005).
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
22716
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
C. The 1996 Joint ANPRM
In 1996, FDA and FSIS jointly issued
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (61 FR 59372, November 22,
1996) (the 1996 joint ANPRM). FDA and
FSIS issued the 1996 joint ANPRM in
part to address FDA’s safety concerns
regarding the transportation of food
raised by a 1994 outbreak of
salmonellosis involving ice cream mix
that became contaminated during
transport in tanker trucks that had
previously hauled raw liquid eggs (Ref.
9). In the 1996 joint ANPRM, FDA and
FSIS requested comments and
information about approaches FDA and
FSIS might take, under existing legal
authorities, to foster food safety
improvements that may be needed in
the transportation and storage of
potentially hazardous foods.4
FDA took no subsequent action on the
1996 joint ANPRM. Data and
information received in response to the
1996 joint ANPRM are now more than
10 years old.
D. The 2005 SFTA
In 2005, Congress passed the 2005
SFTA, Public Law 109–59, 119 Stat.
1911, which:
• Requires the Secretary of HHS to
issue regulations setting forth sanitary
transportation practices to be followed
by shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or
rail vehicle, receivers, and others
engaged in food transport; and
• Requires the Secretary of DOT, in
consultation with the Secretaries of
HHS and USDA, to establish procedures
for transportation safety inspections for
the purpose of identifying suspected
incidents of contamination or
adulteration of a food.5
1. Our Responsibilities Under Section
416 of the Act
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
The statutory authority in section 416
of the act extends to broader aspects of
the sanitary transportation of food than
the statutory authority in the 1990
4 As discussed in the 1996 joint ANPRM (61 FR
59372), potentially hazardous foods, including
meat, poultry, eggs and egg products, fish, seafood,
and dairy products, are those that are capable of
supporting the rapid multiplication of
microorganisms that cause foodborne illness.
Currently, we generally use the term ‘‘Time/
Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) Food’’ rather
than ‘‘potentially hazardous food’’ and define a TCS
food as a food that requires time/temperature
control for safety to limit pathogenic microorganism
growth or toxin formation (Ref. 14). Examples of
TCS foods include the foods identified as
potentially hazardous foods in the 1996 joint
ANPRM, and plant foods such as raw seed sprouts
and cut melons (Ref. 14).
5 The procedures DOT would establish are
outside the scope of this document. We intend to
assist DOT as appropriate in developing DOT’s
procedures for these inspections.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Apr 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
SFTA, which was primarily directed
toward preventing the contamination of
food products by previously hauled
nonfood products. The authority in
section 416 of the act places a statutory
obligation upon HHS (and, by
delegation, to FDA) to issue regulations
establishing requirements for the food
transportation industry to use sanitary
transportation practices to ensure that
food is not transported under conditions
that may render food adulterated. We
describe key provisions of section 416 of
the act in the following bulleted
paragraphs.
• Section 416(b) (21 U.S.C. 350e(b))
requires us to establish regulations
requiring shippers, carriers by motor
vehicle or rail vehicle, receivers, and
other persons engaged in the
transportation6 of food to use sanitary
transportation practices prescribed by
us to ensure that food is not transported
under conditions that may render the
food adulterated.
• Section 416(c) (21 U.S.C. 350e(c))
addresses the content of the regulations
to be established under section 416(b).
Æ Section 416(c)(1) (21 U.S.C.
350e(c)(1)) requires these
regulations to prescribe such
practices as we determine to be
appropriate relating to: (A)
sanitation; (B) packaging, isolation,
and other protective measures; (C)
limitations on the use of vehicles;
(D) information to be disclosed (to
a carrier by a person arranging for
the transportation of food, and to a
manufacturer or other person that
arranges for the transportation of
food by a carrier; or furnishes a tank
vehicle or bulk vehicle7 for the
transportation of food); and (E)
recordkeeping.
Æ Section 416(c)(2) (21 U.S.C.
350e(c)(2)) requires these
regulations to include: (A) a list of
nonfood products that we
determine may, if shipped in a bulk
vehicle, render adulterated food
that is subsequently transported in
the same vehicle; and (B) a list of
nonfood products that we
determine may, if shipped in a
motor vehicle or rail vehicle (other
than a tank vehicle or bulk vehicle),
render adulterated food that is
simultaneously or subsequently
transported in the same vehicle.
6 ‘‘Transportation’’ is defined by section 416(a)) of
the act (21 U.S.C. 350e(a)) as ‘‘any movement in
commerce by a motor vehicle or rail vehicle.’’
7 ‘‘Bulk vehicle‘‘ is defined by section 416(a) of the
act as ‘‘a tank truck, hopper truck, rail tank car,
hopper car, cargo tank, portable tank, freight
container, or hopper bin, and any other vehicle in
which food is shipped in bulk, with the food
coming into direct contact with the vehicle.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Section 416(d) (21 U.S.C. 350e(d))
provides that we may waive any
requirement under section 416, with
respect to any class of persons, vehicles,
food, or nonfood products, if we
determine that the waiver (A) will not
result in the transportation of food
under conditions that would be unsafe
for human or animal health; and (B) will
not be contrary to the public interest.
We must publish in the Federal Register
any waiver and the reasons for the
waiver.
• Section 416(e) (21 U.S.C. 350e(e))
provides that State or local requirements
concerning transportation of food are
preempted if: (A) complying with both
the State or local requirement and
section 416, or a regulation prescribed
under section 416, is not possible; or (B)
the State or local requirement as applied
or enforced is an obstacle to
accomplishing and carrying out section
416 or a regulation prescribed under
section 416.
2. Amendments to Sections 301, 402,
and 703 of the Act
The 2005 SFTA also amended the act
to add or revise provisions as follows:
• Sections 402(i) and 301(hh) (21
U.S.C. 342(i) and 331(hh)): Section
402(i) provides that a food shall be
deemed adulterated if it is transported
or offered for transport by a shipper,
carrier by motor vehicle or rail vehicle,
receiver, or any other person engaged in
the transportation of food under
conditions that are not in compliance
with regulations issued under section
416 of the act. Under section 301(hh),
the failure (or the causing thereof) by a
shipper, carrier by motor vehicle or rail
vehicle, receiver, or any other person
engaged in the transportation of food to
comply with the sanitary transportation
practices prescribed by us under section
416 is a prohibited act subject to the
sanctions and penalties provided in
Chapter III of the act.
• Sections 703(b) and 301(e) (21
U.S.C. 373(b) and 331(e)): Section 703(b)
requires any person subject to section
416 to permit a designated officer or
employee who requests required records
(i.e., records required to be kept in
accordance with section 416(c)(1)(E)) to
have access to all such records at
reasonable times and to copy all such
records. Under section 301(e), the
refusal to permit access to or copying of
any record as required by section 416,
or the failure to establish or maintain
any record required under section 416,
or the refusal to permit access to or
verification or copying of any such
required record is a prohibited act
subject to the sanctions and penalties
provided in Chapter III of the act.
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
22717
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
E. Our Current Regulations and
Guidance Documents Addressing
Transportation of Food
We have addressed the transportation
of food in several regulations (in Title
21 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(21 CFR)) and guidance documents that
are limited in scope. We describe the
most relevant regulations and guidance
documents in table 1 of this document.
The regulations DOT proposed in the
2004 SNPRM would have included a
recommendation that each person who
offers for transportation or transports
food or food products by motor vehicle
or rail car use guidance documents and
materials issued by FDA and USDA, and
specifically identified three of FDA’s
guidance documents that were then in
effect: FDA Guidance on Bulk Transport
of Juice Concentrates and Certain Shelf
Stable Juices; FDA Guidance on Food
Security Preventive Measures for Dairy
Farms, Bulk Milk Transporters, Bulk
Milk Transfer Stations, and Fluid Milk
Processors; and FDA Guidance on Food
Security Preventive Measures for Food
Producers, Processors, and Transporters
(i.e., the guidances in Refs. 16, 17, and
18).
TABLE 1.—FDA REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCES ADDRESSING THE TRANSPORTATION OF FOOD
Title
1976 (§ 225.65; 41
FR 52612 at
52618, November 30, 1976)
Current Good Manufacturing
Practice for Medicated Feeds;
Equipment Cleanout Procedures
1986; (§ 110.93 51
FR 22458, June
19, 1986)
Description
Circumstances
Regulation
Requires adequate cleanout
procedures for all equipment
used in the manufacture or
distribution of medicated
feeds that are essential to
avoiding unsafe contamination of feeds with drugs
Implemented requirements in
section 501(a)(2)(B) of the act
(21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B))
Current Good Manufacturing
Practice In Manufacturing,
Packing, Or Holding Human
Food; Warehousing and Distribution
Regulation
Requires that storage and transportation of finished food be
under conditions that will protect food against physical,
chemical, and microbial contamination as well as against
deterioration of the food and
the container
Issued as part of a broad revision to our current good manufacturing practice (CGMP)
regulations for food
1997
(§§ 589.2000(c)
through (e); 62
FR 30936, June
5, 1997), updated in 2008
(§§ 589.2000(c)
through (e); 73
FR 22720, April
25, 2008)
[Related Small Entity Compliance
Guide (SECG)
published in
1998 (Ref. 19)]
Listing of Specific Substances
Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Requirements for renderers; Requirements for protein blenders,
feed manufacturers, and distributors; and Requirements
for persons that intend to separate mammalian and nonmammalian materials
Regulation
Requires distributors of mammalian and nonmammalian
materials for animal food to
provide for measures to avoid
commingling or cross-contamination of the materials
To provide animal feed protections by prohibiting the feeding of mammalian protein to
ruminant animals
1998; (Ref. 20)
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Year & Reference*
Guide to Minimize Microbial
Food Safety Hazards for
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables**
Guidance
Includes recommendations regarding microbial food safety
hazards and good agricultural
and management practices
common to the growing,
packing, and transporting of
most fresh fruits and vegetables
Issued as part of the 1997 Presidential ‘‘Initiative to Ensure
the Safety of Imported and
Domestic Fruits and Vegetables’’ (Ref. 21)
2001; (§ 120.24(c));
66 FR 6138 at
6172, January
19, 2001)
[Related SECG
published in
2003 (Ref. 22)]
Hazard Analysis And Critical
Control Point (HACCP) Systems; Process Controls
Regulation
Requires that juice processors
complete a 5-log pathogen reduction treatment and final
product packaging within a
single processing facility operating under CGMPs*** (‘‘single
facility requirement’’)
Added to the final rule to address comments expressing
concern about the potential
for recontamination or regrowth of surviving pathogens
if individual treatments designed to achieve a 5-log reduction are separated by time
or space
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Apr 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
Type
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
22718
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—FDA REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCES ADDRESSING THE TRANSPORTATION OF FOOD—Continued
Year & Reference*
Title
Type
Description
Circumstances
Guidance on Bulk Transport of
Juice Concentrates and Certain Shelf Stable Juices
Guidance
Provides industry with recommendations for appropriate
control measures to use in
the bulk transport of covered
juice products to ensure that
the products do not become
contaminated or re-contaminated with microbial pathogens during bulk transport,
and stated FDA’s intent to
consider the exercise of enforcement discretion with respect to the single facility requirement in § 120.24(c) provided that certain conditions
are met.
Issued in response to a citizen
petition requesting an exemption from the requirement in
§ 120.24(c) when certain
products manufactured in one
facility are sent to another facility for final packaging
2003 (updated
2007); (Ref. 17)
Dairy Farms, Bulk Milk Transporters, Bulk Milk Transfer
Stations and Fluid Milk Processors: Food Security Preventive Measures Guidance
Guidance
Identifies the kinds of preventive
measures operators of bulk
milk transportation operations
may take to minimize the risk
that fluid milk under their control will be subject to tampering or other malicious,
criminal, or terrorist actions
Issued in light of the potential
for tampering or other malicious, criminal, or terrorist actions
2003 (updated
2007) (Ref. 18)
Food Producers, Processors,
and Transporters: Food Security Preventive Measures
Guidance
Guidance
Identifies the kinds of preventive
measures operators of human
or animal food establishments
(including firms that distribute
or transport food or food ingredients) may take to minimize the risk that food under
their control will be subject to
tampering or other malicious,
criminal, or terrorist actions
Issued in light of the potential
for tampering or other malicious, criminal, or terrorist actions
2004 (Ref. 19)
Guidance for Industry #122:
Manufacture and Labeling of
Raw Meat Foods for Companion and Captive Noncompanion Carnivores and
Omnivores
Guidance
Provides guidance on transport
of foods that contain raw
meat, or other raw animal tissues, for consumption by
dogs, cats, other companion
or pet animals, and captive
noncompanion animal carnivores and omnivores
Issued to address health risks
when raw meat foods are
used, particularly by pet owners
2004 (§ 1.352 and
§§ 1.360 through
1.363; 69 FR
71562, December 9, 2004)
[Related SECG
published in
2004 (Ref. 24)]
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
2003; (Ref. 16)
Establishment, Maintenance,
and Availability of Records:
What information must transporters establish and maintain?; What are the record retention requirements?; What
are the record availability requirements?; What records
are excluded from this subpart?; What are the consequences of failing to establish or maintain records or
make them available to FDA?
Regulation
Requires persons who transport
food for humans and animals
to establish and maintain
records identifying the immediate previous source of all
food received, and the immediate subsequent recipient of
all food released, as well as
certain other information related to the transported food;
Sets forth the record retention
and record availability requirements for transporters
Implementation of section 306
of the 2002 Bioterrorism Act,
which directs the HHS Secretary to issue regulations requiring persons who manufacture, process, pack, transport,
distribute, receive, hold, or
import food for humans and
animals to establish and
maintain records identifying
the immediate previous
source of all food received,
and the immediate subsequent recipient of all food released
2005 (revised
2006) (Ref. 25)
Notice from FDA to Growers,
Food Manufacturers, Food
Warehouse Managers, and
Transporters of Food Products on Decontamination of
Transport Vehicles
Guidance
Provides information and references that can be used for
the decontamination of food
transport vehicles that have
been flooded or otherwise impacted by hurricanes, before
being placed back in service
to transport or store food
Developed following Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita in August
and September 2005
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Apr 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
22719
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—FDA REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCES ADDRESSING THE TRANSPORTATION OF FOOD—Continued
Year & Reference*
Title
Type
Description
Circumstances
2007 (Ref. 26)
Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, Appendix B, Milk
Sampling, Hauling and Transportation
Model standard
for voluntary
adoption by
State and local
authorities
Sets forth training requirements,
evaluation criteria, and standards to be met by bulk milk
haulers and milk transporters
To facilitate the shipment and
acceptance of milk and milk
products of high sanitary
quality in interstate and intrastate commerce
2008 (Ref. 27)
Guidance for Industry: Guide to
Minimize Microbial Food
Safety Hazards of Fresh-Cut
Fruits and Vegetables
Guidance
Recommends practices for
transporting fresh-cut produce
under conditions that will protect the food against physical,
chemical, and microbiological
contamination
Part of recommendations to enhance the safety of fresh-cut
produce by minimizing microbial food safety hazards
2008
(§ 589.2001(c);
73 FR 22720;
April 25, 2008)
Cattle Materials Prohibited in
Animal Food or Feed to Prevent the Transmission of Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy
Regulation
Requires the use of dedicated
equipment for handling and
transporting cattle materials
prohibited in animal feed
To provide an additional layer of
animal feed protections by removing that material at highest risk for transmitting BSE
through animal feed
2009 (21 CFR
118.1(b) and
118.4(e); 74 FR
33030, July 9,
2009)
Production, Storage, And Transportation Of Shell Eggs
Regulation
Establishes requirements for refrigeration of shell eggs during transportation
Part of a rule requiring measures to prevent Salmonella
Enteritidis in shell eggs during
production, storage, and
transportation
* All
section numbers cited in Table 1 refer to sections in 21 CFR.
have requested comments and scientific data to enable us to improve this guidance (73 FR 51306, September 2, 2008).
*** If a treated juice is transported to another facility for final packaging or blending and packaging operations, the entire 5-log reduction must
be repeated (66 FR 6138 at 6172, January 19, 2001).
** We
F. Current Industry Practices and Areas
Where Food Is At Greatest Risk For
Contamination
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
1. Interstate Food Transportation
Assessment Project
In 2007, the Michigan Department of
Agriculture released information
obtained from its Interstate Food
Transportation Assessment Project,
conducted with the States of Michigan,
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (Ref. 28). The
purpose of the project was to determine
the current state of food safety and food
defense in the context of in-transit food
in interstate commerce. The project
identified several areas of concern in
food transport that increase the
likelihood of food contamination, such
as improper refrigeration, transport of
raw meat and poultry simultaneously or
sequentially in trucks also used to carry
fruit and vegetables, food products
lacking label or source information,
improper packaging, infestation with
insects, insanitary storage (e.g., roof
leaks and moldy walls, animal blood
and food on bed floors), lack of security
seals or locks, low driver awareness of
safe food temperatures, and inadequate
food safety training of drivers (Refs. 28
and 29). Most of the specific instances
where food transportation problems
were found involved smaller box trucks
and transporters of ethnic food; there
were ‘‘little or no areas of concern’’
identified with larger (semi-tractor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Apr 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
trailer) trucks inspected during the
survey (Ref. 28).
2. Report by Eastern Research Group,
Inc.
The data and information we received
in response to the 1996 joint ANPRM
are now dated. To obtain more current
data and information, we recently
contracted with Eastern Research
Group, Inc. (ERG) to undertake a study
designed to characterize current
baseline practices in the sectors
involved in food transportation and to
identify current areas where food is at
risk for adulteration (Ref. 29). In 2009,
ERG issued a report (the ERG report)
with its findings (Ref. 29). The ERG
report describes the results of a
comprehensive literature review
pertaining to food handling practices in
the food transportation industry. The
ERG report also presents the findings
from an expert opinion elicitation study,
which ERG conducted to identify the
main problems that pose
microbiological, chemical, and/or
physical safety hazards to food during
transportation and storage, and to
determine the preventive controls
needed to address each of the problems
identified. The ERG report largely
discusses its findings from the
perspective of food intended for
consumption by humans (e.g., raw
seafood, meat, poultry, produce, eggs,
and refrigerated foods that are ready-to-
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
eat) but also reports some findings
related to animal feed.
In its report, ERG provides an
overview of the domestic food supply
chain (Ref. 29). A manufacturing facility
may be served by a tier of suppliers.
These manufacturing facilities then
serve distribution facilities, which
eventually serve retailer outlets,
including restaurant retail facilities that
serve the end consumer. Some food
manufacturers use third-party logistics
providers to outsource transportation
procurement, while others organize the
transport of their goods internally. (A
third-party logistics provider is a firm
that provides outsourced or ‘‘third
party’’ logistics services to companies
for part or sometimes all of their supply
chain management function.) In this
complex system, risk associated with an
undetected problem increases the
further one moves back in the supply
chain, because a problem that is
introduced further back in the supply
chain system can spread out to many
distributors and retailers who serve
consumers.
Through its literature review, ERG
identified:
• Existing food transportation
guidelines prepared by Federal
agencies, foreign countries,
international organizations, and trade
associations;
• Three types of potential
contamination that could arise during
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
22720
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
transportation and storage (i.e.,
physical, chemical, and biological
contamination) and risk factors during
transportation and holding; and
• Best practices for food
transportation and holding (i.e.,
temperature control, increased security
and tracking, proper loading/unloading
practices, monitoring and ensuring the
sanitation and condition of
transportation vehicles, good
communication, employee awareness
and training, and pest control
programs).
Through its literature review and
expert opinion elicitation study, ERG
identified the following 15 problem
areas where food may be at risk for
physical, chemical, or biological
contamination during transport and
storage:
• Improper refrigeration or
temperature control of food products
(temperature abuse). This may be
intentional (abuse or violation of
practices by drivers, i.e., turning off
refrigeration units) or unintentional
(due, for example, to improper holding
practices or shortages of appropriate
shipping containers or vessels).
• Improper management of
transportation units or storage facilities
to preclude cross-contamination,
including improper sanitation,
backhauling hazardous materials, not
maintaining tanker wash records,
improper disposal of wastewater, and
aluminum phosphide fumigation
methods in railcar transit;
• Improper packing of transportation
units or storage facilities, including
incorrect use of packing materials and
poor pallet quality;
• Improper loading practices,
conditions, or equipment, including
improper sanitation of loading
equipment, not using dedicated units
where appropriate, inappropriate
loading patterns, and transporting
mixed loads that increase the risk for
cross-contamination;
• Improper unloading practices,
conditions, or equipment, including
improper sanitation of equipment and
leaving raw materials on loading docks
after hours;
• Lack of security for transportation
units or storage facilities, including lack
of or improper use of security seals and
lack of security checks or records of
transporters;
• Poor pest control in transportation
units or storage facilities;
• Lack of driver/employee training
and/or supervisor/manager/owner
knowledge of food safety and/or
security;
• Poor transportation unit design and
construction;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Apr 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
• Inadequate preventive maintenance
for transportation units or storage
facilities, resulting in roof leaks, gaps in
doors, and dripping condensation or ice
accumulations;
• Poor employee hygiene;
• Inadequate policies for the safe and/
or secure transport or storage of foods;
• Improper handling and tracking of
rejected loads and salvaged, reworked,
and returned products or products
destined for disposal;
• Improper holding practices for food
products awaiting shipment or
inspection, including unattended
product, delayed holding of product,
shipping of product while in
quarantine, and poor rotation and
throughput; and
• Lack of traceability for food
products during transportation and
storage.
Through its literature review and
expert opinion elicitation study, ERG
identified the following seven
preventive controls with the broadest
applicability across all food sectors and
modes of transport:
• Employee awareness and training;
• Management review of records;
• Good communication between
shipper, transporter, and receiver;
• Appropriate loading procedures for
transportation units;
• Appropriate unloading procedures
for transportation units;
• Appropriate documentation
accompanying each load (e.g., tanker
wash record, seal numbers, temperature
readings, time in-transit, and time on
docks); and
• Appropriate packaging/packing of
food products and transportation units
(e.g., good quality pallets, correct use of
packing materials).
II. Issues and Requests for Data and
Information
As already noted, the data and
information received in response to the
1996 joint ANPRM are dated and are of
limited usefulness. The more recent
data and information in the ERG report
enhances our understanding of current
baseline practices in the food
transportation industry, problem areas
that pose microbiological, chemical,
and/or physical safety hazards to food
during transportation and storage, and
preventive controls that have the
potential to address the problem areas.
The purpose of this document is to
obtain data and information that would
be more current and of greater relevance
than the data and information we
received in response to the 1996 joint
ANPRM and to augment the more
current information in the ERG report.
Specifically, we request public
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comments containing data and
information on the issues and questions
listed in sections II.A through II.G of
this document.
A. Issue 1: Firms Subject to the 2005
SFTA
We are seeking data and information
about firms that are subject to the 2005
SFTA and the food for humans or
animals that such firms transport. Firms
subject to the 2005 SFTA include
shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or
rail vehicle, receivers, and any other
person engaged in the transportation of
food. These data and information will
enhance our understanding of the
characteristics of the firms that are
providing food transportation services.
Question 1a. What types of vehicles or
methods are used to transport food by
motor vehicle or rail vehicle (e.g., bulk
tank trucks, cargo tanks, and freight
containers)?
Question 1b. How much food, and
what percentage of food, is carried by
each type of vehicle on an annual basis?
Question 1c. What are the amounts
and percentages of foods that are
transported completely enclosed by
packaging, not completely enclosed by
packaging (e.g., grain, some fresh
produce items), or in bulk tanks (e.g.,
juices, oils)?
Question 1d. What proportion of
vehicles is exclusively dedicated to
transporting foods? What proportion of
vehicles transport both food and
nonfood products?
B. Issues 2 through 6: Current Practices
Used By Firms Subject to the 2005 SFTA
We are seeking data or information on
the specific sanitary transportation
practices that must be prescribed under
regulations we establish under section
416(c)(1) of the act.
1. Issue 2: Sanitation Practices
Question 2a. What industry standards
exist for the cleaning of food
transportation vehicles?
Question 2b. How are appropriate
protocols established for cleaning
vehicles (including bulk vehicles and
nonbulk vehicles)?
Question 2c. How is the adequacy of
cleaning vehicles (including bulk
vehicles and nonbulk vehicles)
assessed?
2. Issue 3: Packaging, Isolation, and
Other Protective Measures
Question 3a. What procedures and
practices are in place to prevent
contamination of foods not completely
enclosed by packaging during transport?
Question 3b. How are the physical
integrity and physical security of a food
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
transport vehicle ensured during its
run?
Question 3c. What operations
associated with food transport (e.g.,
intermodal transfer and pumping food
from transport tanks into receiving
vessels at the destination) pose the
greatest potential for contaminating
food?
Question 3d. What procedures and
practices are in place to ensure
temperature control for TCS foods?
5. Issue 6. Records Currently Kept By
Firms Subject to the 2005 SFTA
Question 4a. What types of food
products are typically transported
simultaneously? What types of food
products are typically transported
sequentially?
Question 4b. Are there any industry
standards or State or local restrictions
on the simultaneous or sequential
transport of different categories of food?
Question 6a. What types of records
are currently kept by persons arranging
to transport food? What additional
records would be useful or necessary to
achieve the goals of the 2005 SFTA?
How long should persons arranging to
transport food keep applicable records?
Question 6b. What types of
information are currently kept by
shippers and by carriers by motor
vehicle or rail vehicle? What additional
records would be useful or necessary to
achieve the goals of the 2005 SFTA?
How long should shippers and carriers
by motor vehicle or rail vehicle keep
applicable records?
Question 6c. What types of records
are currently kept by receivers of food?
What additional records would be
useful or necessary to achieve the goals
of the 2005 SFTA? How long should
persons who receive food keep
applicable records?
4. Issue 5: Information Sharing Among
Parties Involved in the Transportation of
Food
C. Issue 7. Simultaneous or Subsequent
Shipment of Nonfood Products in
Vehicles Used to Transport Food
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
3. Issue 4: Limitations on the Use of
Vehicles
Through the 2005 SFTA, Congress
provided express authority to specify
the types of information that must be
disclosed to carriers by persons
arranging to transport food and to
manufacturers or other persons that
arrange for the transport of food or
furnish a vehicle for the transportation
of food. In our exercise of this authority,
it is critical that we understand what
sort of information exchange is feasible,
practical, and/or desirable.
Question 5a. What types of
information are currently disclosed to
carriers by persons arranging to
transport food? In what form is this
information disclosed? What additional
information would be useful or
necessary to achieve the goals of the
2005 SFTA?
Question 5b. What types of
information are currently disclosed to
manufacturers or other persons that
arrange for the transport of food by a
carrier? In what form is this information
disclosed? What additional information
would be useful or necessary to achieve
the goals of the 2005 SFTA?
Question 5c. What types of
information are currently disclosed to
manufacturers or other persons that
furnish a tank vehicle or bulk vehicle
for the transportation of food? In what
form is this information disclosed?
What additional information would be
useful or necessary to achieve the goals
of the 2005 SFTA?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Apr 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
Question 7a. Are food products
transported simultaneously or
sequentially with nonfood products? If
the answer to this question is yes, what
nonfood products are commonly
transported in vehicles that also
transport food?
Question 7b. What nonfood products
may, if shipped in a bulk vehicle, pose
a risk of contamination to food that is
subsequently transported in the same
vehicle?
Question 7c. What nonfood products
may, if shipped in a motor vehicle or
rail vehicle (other than a tank vehicle or
bulk vehicle), pose a risk of
contamination to food that is
simultaneously or subsequently
transported in the same vehicle?
Question 7d. Are there any industry
standards or State or local restrictions
on the simultaneous or sequential
transport of food and nonfood products?
D. Issue 8. Acceptable Reasons for
Waiver of Requirements
Question 8. What reasons might exist
for a waiver of any or all foreseeable
requirements under section 416 with
respect to any class of persons, vehicles,
food, or nonfood products? For any such
reason for waiver, identify and provide
data and information that would
support a possible determination that
the waiver (A) will not result in the
transportation of food under conditions
that would be unsafe for human or
animal health; and (B) will not be
contrary to the public interest.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22721
E. Issue 9. Federal Preemption of State
and Local Food Transportation
Requirements
Section 416(e) of the act, as amended
by the 2005 SFTA, states that a
requirement of a State or political
subdivision of a State that concerns the
transportation of food is preempted if it
conflicts with or presents an obstacle to
implementing the requirements of this
section or a regulation prescribed under
this section. FDA is seeking comments
on existing requirements of a State or
political subdivision of a State regarding
the sanitary transportation of food. FDA
intends to solicit further comments
regarding this provision in the proposed
rule.
Question 9. What States or political
subdivisions of a State have
requirements for the sanitary
transportation of food and what are
these requirements?
F. Issue 10. Risk for Foodborne Illness
Associated With Transportation of Food
We have limited data and information
about outbreaks of foodborne illness
associated with transportation of food;
see sections I.A and I.F of this document
for a description of the data and
information currently available to us.
There are, however, a number of known
areas where food is at risk for
adulteration and reported instances of
unsafe food transport (Refs. 10, 28, and
29). We are seeking data and
information to enable us to focus our
regulatory efforts in areas that present
the greatest risk to public health.
Question 10a. What data or
information are available on
investigations that have shown a
suspected or documented link between
an outbreak of foodborne illness and the
transport process?
Question 10b. What data or
information are available in instances
where food was suspected or
documented of being contaminated
during transport, even if the food was
not implicated in an outbreak of
foodborne illness?
Question 10c. What data or
information are available from State or
local authorities regarding compliance
with or enforcement of State or local
food transportation requirements?
Question 10d. What are the problem
areas where food may be at greatest risk
for physical, chemical, or biological
contamination during transport?
G. Issue 11. Benefits and Costs
We are seeking data and information
to enable us to estimate the benefits and
costs of regulations implementing the
2005 SFTA and to estimate of the effects
of regulatory options on small entities.
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
22722
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Question 11a. What is the size of
carrier firms (e.g., based on annual
revenue or on number of vehicles)?
Question 11b. What is the number of
small entities that could be affected by
regulations implementing the 2005
SFTA?
Question 11c. What steps could be
taken to lessen the burden on small
entities while still protecting the public
health?
III. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) electronic or written
comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic
comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that
individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
IV. References
We have placed the following
references on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES).
You may see them between 9 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday through Friday. (FDA
has verified the Web site addresses, but
FDA is not responsible for any
subsequent changes to the Web sites
after this document publishes in the
Federal Register.)
1. FDA, 2005, CPG Sec. 565.100 FDA
Jurisdiction Over Meat and Poultry Products.
Available at https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/
ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicy
GuidanceManual/ucm074588.htm. Accessed
and printed on February 18, 2010.
2. FSIS, 2005, FSIS Safety and Security
Guidelines for the Transportation and
Distribution of Meat, Poultry, and Egg
Products. Accessed and printed on March 31,
2010.
3. Food Safety Working Group, 2009, Key
Findings, Available at https://www.foodsafety
workinggroup.gov/ContentKeyFindings/
HomeKeyFindings.htm. Accessed and
printed on January 22, 2010.
4. FDA, 1982, FDA Notice of Judgment No.
31, FDA Consumer, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 33–
34.
5. FDA, 1975, Memorandum dated June 9,
1975, from Bureau of Veterinary Medicine to
General Counsel regarding 026–137G, Doc
096–447H, Corn Gluten Meal, Veterinary.
6. Schneider, K., 1989, ‘‘Tainted Milk and
Meat Raise Vigilance,’’ New York Times, May
11, 1989, Available at https://
www.nytimes.com/1989/05/11/us/taintedmilk-and-meat-raise-vigilance.html,
Accessed and printed on July 24, 2009.
7. FDA, 1989, Memorandum dated
November 15, 1989, from Case Guidance
Branch, Division of Compliance, Center for
Veterinary Medicine to New Orleans District
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Apr 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
Office Regarding Barium Carbonate
Contamination, EIR 5/8–25/89, 89–559–371/
382, Feeds and Ingredients.
8. U.S. Government Accounting Office,
1990, Report to Congressional Requesters,
Truck Transport: Little is Known About
Hauling Garbage and Food in the Same
Vehicles, GAO/RCED–90–161, Available at
https://archive.gao.gov/d23t8/141739.pdf,
Accessed and printed on June 3, 2009.
9. Hennessy T.W., Hedberg, C.W., Slutsker,
L. et al., 1996, ‘‘A National Outbreak of
Salmonella Enteriditis Infections From Ice
Cream,’’ New England Journal of Medicine,
Vol. 334, No. 20, pp. 1281–1286.
10. Motor Carrier Division, Michigan State
Police, 2007, Commercial Motor Vehicle
Enforcement Quarterly, Available at https://
www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/
CMV_Quarterly_January_2007_205099_7.pdf,
Accessed and printed on May 28, 2009.
11. FDA, 2009, Recall of Products
Containing Peanut Butter; Salmonella
Typhimurium, Printed February 4, 2009.
12. FDA, 2009, Safety, FDA’s Investigation,
(Peanut Products Recall), Printed June 4,
2009.
13. Peanut Corporation of America, 2009,
Press release, January 18, 2009, Available at
https://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/
ArchiveRecalls/2009/ucm128828.htm,
Accessed and printed on June 2, 2009.
14. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Office of Inspector General, 1998, Audit
Report, Review of Departmental Actions
Concerning the Sanitary Food Transportation
Act of 1990, Research and Special Programs
Administration, TR–1998–100, Available at
https://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/
data/pdfdocs/tr1998100.pdf, Accessed and
printed on June 3, 2009.
15. FDA, 2009, Food Code, Chapter 1,
Purpose and Definitions, Available at https://
www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFood
Protection/FoodCode/FoodCode2009/
ucm186464.htm, Accessed and printed on
November 24, 2009.
16. FDA, 2003, Guidance on Bulk
Transport of Juice Concentrates and Certain
Shelf Stable Juices, Available at https://
www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceCompliance
RegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/
default.htm, Accessed and printed on June 4,
2009.
17. FDA, 2007, Dairy Farms, Bulk Milk
Transporters, Bulk Milk Transfer Stations
and Fluid Milk Processors: Food Security
Preventive Measures Guidance, Available at
https://www.fda.gov/Food/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/
GuidanceDocuments/default.htm, Accessed
and printed on June 4, 2009.
18. FDA, 2007, Food Producers, Processors,
and Transporters: Food Security Preventive
Measures Guidance, Available at https://
www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceCompliance
RegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/
default.htm, Accessed and printed on June 4,
2009.
19. FDA, 1998, FDA Guidance for Industry
#68, Small Entities Compliance Guide for
Protein Blenders, Feed Manufacturers, and
Distributors, Available at https://
www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/
GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/
GuidanceforIndustry/UCM052382.pdf,
Accessed and printed on August 4, 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20. FDA, 1998, Guide to Minimize
Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh
Fruits and Vegetables, Available at https://
www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceCompliance
RegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/
default.htm, Accessed and printed on June 4,
2009.
21. The White House, Office of the Press
Secretary, 1997, President Clinton
Announces Initiative to Ensure the Safety of
Imported and Domestic Fruits and
Vegetables, Available at https://
clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/New/html/
19971002–8886.html, Accessed and printed
on November 30, 2009.
22. FDA, 2003, Guidance for Industry:
Juice HACCP; Small Entity Compliance
Guide, Available at https://www.fda.gov/
Food/GuidanceCompliance
RegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/
default.htm, Accessed and printed on
September 23, 2009.
23. FDA, 2004, Guidance for Industry #122,
Manufacture and Labeling of Raw Meat
Foods for Companion and Captive
Noncompanion Carnivores and Omnivores,
Available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/
AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceCompliance
Enforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/
ucm052662.pdf, Accessed and printed on
August 4, 2009.
24. FDA, 2004, What You Need to Know
About Establishment and Maintenance of
Records, Available at https://www.fda.gov/
Food/GuidanceCompliance
RegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/
default.htm, Accessed and printed on
September 23, 2009.
25. FDA, 2006, A Notice from FDA to
Growers, Food Manufacturers, Food
Warehouse Managers, and Transporters of
Food Products on Decontamination of
Transport Vehicles, Available at https://
www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceCompliance
RegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/
default.htm, Accessed and printed on
November 30, 2009.
26. Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance,
Appendix B—Milk Sampling, Hauling and
Transportation, Available at https://
www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/ProductSpecificInformation/MilkSafety/
NationalConferenceonInterstateMilk
ShipmentsNCIMSModelDocuments/
PasteurizedMilkOrdinance2007/
ucm064241.htm, Accessed and printed on
July 13, 2009.
27. FDA, 2008, Guidance for Industry:
Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety
Hazards of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables,
Available at https://www.fda.gov/Food/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/
GuidanceDocuments/default.htm, Accessed
and printed on January 20, 2010.
28. Wojtala, G., 2007, Interstate Food
Transportation Assessment Project. Presented
at the June 16 through 20, 2007, Conference
of the Association of Food and Drug Officials,
Available at https://www.michigan.gov/
documents/mda/truckproj_224450_7.pdf,
Accessed and printed on May 28, 2009.
29. Eastern Research Group, Inc., 2009,
Characteristics of Current Food
Transportation and Holding Practices for
Food Commodities, GSA MOBIS SIN 874–1,
Contract No. GS–10F–0125P, Order No.
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
III. How do I submit comments?
IV. How do I request to participate as a
cooperating agency?
HHSF223200730236G, ERG Task No.
0193.16.001.001.
Dated: April 26, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010–10078 Filed 4–29–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Parts 780, 784, 816, and 817
RIN 1029–AC63
Stream Protection Rule; Environmental
Impact Statement
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent
to prepare an environmental impact
statement.
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), intend to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) to analyze the effects of
potential rule revisions under the
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the
Act) to improve protection of streams
from the adverse impacts of surface coal
mining operations. We are requesting
comments for the purpose of
determining the scope of the EIS.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we
must receive your electronic or written
comments on June 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods,
although we request that you use
electronic mail if possible:
• Electronic mail: Send your
comments to sra-eis@osmre.gov.
• Mail, hand-delivery, or courier:
Send your comments to Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, Administrative Record,
Room 252–SIB, 1951 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Craynon, Chief, Division of Regulatory
Support, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951
Constitution Ave., NW., MS 202–SIB,
Washington, DC 20240; Telephone 202–
208–2866.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Why are we planning to revise our rules?
II. What is the proposed federal action?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Apr 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
22723
62664–62668. In addition, consistent
with the MOU, we invited the public to
identify other rules that we should
revise. We also announced our intent to
I. Why are we planning to revise our
prepare a supplement to the EIS
rules?
developed in connection with the 2008
On December 12, 2008 (73 FR 75814–
rule.
75885), we published a final rule
We received approximately 32,750
modifying the circumstances under
comments during the 30-day comment
which mining activities may be
period that closed December 30, 2009.
conducted in or near perennial or
After evaluating those and other
intermittent streams. That rule, which
this document refers to as the 2008 rule, comments, we determined that
development of a comprehensive stream
took effect January 12, 2009. A total of
protection rule (one that is much
nine organizations challenged the
broader in scope than the 2008 rule)
validity of the rule in two complaints
filed on December 22, 2008, and January would be the most appropriate and
effective method of achieving the goals
16, 2009 (amended complaint filed
February 17, 2009): Coal River Mountain set forth in the MOU and the ANPRM.
We believe that this holistic approach
Watch, et al. v. Salazar, No. 08–2212
will better protect streams and related
(D.D.C.) (‘‘Coal River’’) and National
environmental values. The broader
Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Salazar,
scope of the stream protection rule
No. 09–115 (D.D.C.) (‘‘NPCA’’). Under
means that we will need to prepare a
the terms of a settlement agreement
signed by the parties on March 19, 2010, new environmental impact statement
rather than the supplement to the 2008
we agreed to use best efforts to sign a
proposed rule by February 28, 2011, and EIS that we originally intended to
prepare.
a final rule by June 29, 2012. We also
agreed to consult with the Fish and
II. What is the proposed federal action?
Wildlife Service pursuant to the
The proposed Federal action consists
Endangered Species Act, as appropriate,
of revisions to various provisions of our
prior to signing the final action. On
rules to improve protection of streams
April 2, 2010, the court granted the
from the impacts of surface coal mining
parties’ motion to hold the judicial
operations nationwide. We do not
proceedings in abeyance.
believe that it would be fair,
However, we had already embarked
appropriate, or scientifically valid to
on that course following the change of
apply the new protections only in
Administrations on January 20, 2009.
central Appalachia, as some
On June 11, 2009, the Secretary of the
commenters on the ANPRM advocated.
Department of the Interior, the
Streams are ecologically significant
Administrator of the U.S.
regardless of the region in which they
Environmental Protection Agency
are located. Principal elements of the
(EPA), and the Acting Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
proposed action include—
entered into a memorandum of
• Adding more extensive and more
understanding 1 (MOU) implementing
specific permit application
an interagency action plan designed to
requirements concerning baseline data
significantly reduce the harmful
on hydrology, geology, and aquatic
environmental consequences of surface
biology; the determination of the
coal mining operations in six
probable hydrologic consequences of
Appalachian states, while ensuring that mining; and the hydrologic reclamation
future mining remains consistent with
plan; as well as more specific
Federal law. Among other things, the
requirements for the cumulative
MOU committed us to consider
hydrologic impact assessment.
revisions to key provisions of our rules,
• Defining the term ‘‘material damage
including the 2008 rule and
to the hydrologic balance outside the
approximate original contour
permit area.’’ This term is critically
requirements, to better protect the
important because, under section
environment and public health from the 510(b)(3) of SMCRA, the regulatory
impacts of Appalachian surface coal
authority may not approve a permit
mining.
application unless the proposed
Consequently, on November 30, 2009, operation has been designed to prevent
we published an advance notice of
material damage to the hydrologic
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
balance outside the permit area. This
soliciting comments on ten potential
term includes streams downstream of
rulemaking alternatives. See 74 FR
the mining operation.
• Revising the regulations governing
1 The MOU can be viewed online at https://
mining activities in or near streams,
www.osmre.gov/resources/ref/mou/
ASCM061109.pdf.
including mining through streams.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 83 (Friday, April 30, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22713-22723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10078]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0013]
RIN 0910-AG52
Implementation of Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 2005
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to request data and information
on the food transportation industry and its practices. FDA also is
[[Page 22714]]
requesting data and information on the contamination of transported
foods and any associated outbreaks. FDA is taking this action as part
of its implementation of the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 2005
(2005 SFTA), which requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to issue regulations setting forth sanitary transportation
practices to be followed by shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or rail
vehicle, receivers, and others engaged in food transport. This action
is also part of a larger agency effort to focus on prevention of food
safety problems throughout the food chain. The regulations would
address the risks to human or animal health associated with the
transportation of food.
DATES: Submit electronic or written comments by August 30, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2010-
N-0013, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
FAX: 301-827-6870.
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For additional information on submitting
comments, see the ``Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Regarding the provisions with respect to human food: Michael
Kashtock, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD
20740-3835, 301-436-2022.
Regarding the provisions with respect to food for animals: Shannon
Jordre, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-235), Food and Drug
Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-9229.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
FDA is issuing this ANPRM as part of its implementation of the 2005
SFTA, which requires the Secretary of HHS to issue regulations setting
forth sanitary transportation practices to be followed by shippers,
carriers by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receivers, and others
engaged in food transport. Food is defined by section 201(f) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 321(f)) as
``articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, chewing
gum, and articles used for components of any such article.'' FDA notes
that ``food'' includes live animals intended for food use and food such
as meat and poultry during transport outside of official U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) establishments.\1\ \2\ This ANPRM is
also part of a larger agency effort to focus on prevention of food
safety problems throughout the food chain; preventing harm to consumers
is the primary principle described in the Key Findings of the
President's Food Safety Working Group (Ref. 3). The regulations would
address the risks to human or animal health associated with the
transportation of food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ With regard to the latter, FDA notes that, to prevent
duplication of effort, its compliance policy is to inform the USDA's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) when an apparent violation
is encountered involving a meat or poultry product that has left a
USDA inspected establishment (Ref. 1). FDA will not normally
initiate action involving such products unless USDA does not wish to
do so. As FDA moves forward to implement the SFTA, FDA intends to
consult with FSIS to harmonize new regulations with current
regulations as practicable.
\2\ USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has issued
guidelines entitled ``FSIS Safety and Security Guidelines for the
Transportation and Distribution of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products''
(Ref. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Risk for Foodborne Illness Associated With Transportation of Food
Over the past few decades, there have been persistent concerns
about the potential that food might become contaminated during
transportation; however, only a limited number of such events have been
documented. In this section, we discuss the events we are aware of, in
chronologic order. The first two events described in the following
paragraphs involved contamination of food for animals; the remainder
concerned food for humans.
In 1974, an incident involving contamination of a component of food
for animals in a rail car occurred. This case, which FDA investigated
after receiving reports of several sickened dogs, involved corn gluten
used in dog food. The corn gluten was determined to have been
transported in a rail car that had been previously used to transport
lead monoxide. Samples taken of the dog food in which the corn gluten
was used revealed that it was contaminated with lead monoxide at levels
ranging up to 28,000 parts per million. A Class I recall was issued for
the dog food and other food for animals manufactured at the same plant
within the same time period. Additionally, FDA successfully prosecuted
the carrier involved in this incident. See United States v. Penn
Central Transportation Co. (S.D. Ill 1978) (Refs. 4 and 5).
In 1989, soybean hulls used as a component in animal feed were
contaminated by barium carbonate, a chemical used in rat poison and
paint, when they were transported in a rail car that had previously
been used to transport the chemical (Refs. 6 and 7). The soybean hulls
were incorporated into bulk dairy cow feeds distributed to farms in
Louisiana and Texas. The contamination resulted in the deaths of dairy
cows in herds from both Louisiana and Texas, and high levels of barium
carbonate were detected in milk from two of the affected herds by the
State of Louisiana. The manufacturer of the animal feed voluntarily
recalled implicated feeds.
During the late 1980s, there were a number of press reports that
some trucks that hauled garbage from the New York/New Jersey area to
Midwestern landfills were used subsequently to carry meat, poultry, and
produce (Ref. 8). An investigation by the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO, now called the Government Accountability Office) found
only limited, anecdotal information about food being transported in
trucks that previously carried garbage, the types of trucks doing so,
and the foodstuffs carried (Ref. 8). However, in its report (the 1990
GAO report), GAO concluded that long-distance transport of garbage was
clearly on the increase. GAO also concluded that long-distance
transport of garbage primarily originated in certain northeastern
communities that generate more garbage than they can dispose of
locally. In these communities, the quantity of consumer goods,
including food, arriving by truck exceeded the quantity of goods
leaving, and garbage had become a paying trucking
[[Page 22715]]
commodity on what might otherwise be an empty return trip (Ref. 8). GAO
concluded that the extent to which the same trucks might subsequently
carry food could not be determined at the time of the report because
federal regulations did not require that type of recordkeeping.
In 1994, a large multi-state outbreak of salmonellosis was
associated with an ice cream mix that became contaminated during
transport in tanker trucks that had previously hauled raw liquid eggs
(Ref. 9). Public health officials who analyzed data and information
associated with 150 confirmed cases of salmonellosis in the State of
Minnesota concluded that the outbreak may have affected more than
29,000 persons in Minnesota and more than 224,000 persons nationwide
(Ref. 9).
In July 1999, an outbreak of Salmonella Muenchen occurred in 15
States and 2 Canadian provinces with more than 300 cases reported (66
FR 6138 at 6172, January 19, 2001). The product was fresh orange juice,
a portion of which was imported. Several serotypes of Salmonella were
isolated from tanker truckloads of juice tested at the United States/
Mexican border. In such circumstances, there is a potential that
Salmonella from one contaminated shipment could contaminate future
shipments.
In 2007, the Motor Carrier Division of the Michigan State Police
reported 22 cases of illegal and unsafe food transport on Michigan
highways during 2006 (Ref. 10). The report listed findings such as:
Raw poultry hanging from the roof inside the cargo area of
a truck, with juices dripping onto open boxes of produce below, and
with juices from the raw poultry dripping out onto the pavement from
under the rear cargo box doors. The food was being transported in an
unrefrigerated truck with an internal temperature greater than 70[deg]
F;
Truck(s) with no refrigeration unit;
Truck(s) with the refrigeration unit turned off or not
working; and
Truck(s) with a working refrigeration unit that was not
set at the correct temperature.
As with the 1999 transport of contaminated orange juice in tanker
truckloads, recent outbreaks of foodborne disease demonstrate the
possibility of contaminated foods being widely transported, which could
lead to cross-contamination between shipments. For example, in 2009,
peanut butter and peanut paste were confirmed as the source of a large
multi-state outbreak caused by Salmonella Typhimurium (74 FR 10598,
March 11, 2009). These peanut-derived products were manufactured by two
facilities owned by a single firm and distributed through various
channels (Refs. 11 and 12). The firm recalled a large number of its
products, including products distributed in 1,700-pound tanker
containers, because the products had the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella (Ref. 13).
B. Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 1990 and Associated Actions by
the U.S. Department of Transportation
After receiving the 1990 GAO report, Congress enacted the Sanitary
Food Transportation Act of 1990 (1990 SFTA) (49 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.
(2000), amended by Public Law 109-59 (2005)). The 1990 SFTA directed
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to prescribe regulations
regarding the transportation of food and food additives (including food
and food additives intended for consumption by animals) in motor
vehicles and rail vehicles that are used to transport nonfood products
that would make the food or food additives unsafe to humans or
animals.\3\ In essence, the 1990 SFTA directed DOT to establish
regulations to prevent food or food additives transported in tank
trucks, rail tank cars, or cargo tanks (tank vehicles) from being
contaminated by nonfood products that are simultaneously or previously
transported in those tank vehicles. Section 5704(b) of the 1990 SFTA
specifically directed DOT to publish a list of acceptable nonfood
products that DOT (in consultation with the Secretaries of the USDA,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency) determined would
not make food or food additives unsafe to humans or animals because of
transportation of the nonfood products in a tank vehicle used to
transport food or food additives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The 1990 SFTA also directed DOT to prescribe regulations
regarding the transportation of cosmetics, devices, or drugs in
motor vehicles and rail vehicles that are used to transport nonfood
products that would make the cosmetics, devices, or drugs unsafe to
humans. We do not discuss those provisions in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 21, 1993, DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (the 1993 NPRM) (58 FR
29698) that would restrict a cargo tank, tank car, or portable tank to
carrying either food products or nonfood products. Under the 1993 NPRM,
a cargo tank, tank car, or portable tank that carried food products
would have been prohibited from carrying nonfood products. In the 1993
NPRM, RSPA stated that it had not identified any nonfood products that
were acceptable to be carried in a tank vehicle that carries food
products and, therefore, was not issuing a list of acceptable nonfood
products within the meaning of section 5704(b) of the 1990 SFTA. For
motor and rail vehicles other than tank vehicles, RSPA also proposed to
forbid the transportation of food products in the same vehicle as
poisons, infectious substances, hazardous wastes, or solid wastes
(i.e., ``unacceptable nonfood products''). However, such vehicles would
be allowed to carry unacceptable nonfood products before or after they
carried food products, provided the vehicles were free of any
contaminating residues.
Subsequent to the publication of the 1993 NPRM, in a report issued
on March 27, 1998, DOT's Office of the Inspector General (DOT/OIG)
found that (1) DOT did not have the expertise to implement the 1990
SFTA, (2) performing food inspections could be incompatible with
significant aspects of DOT's safety inspection operations, and (3) FDA
had the requisite expertise, capability, and a directly related primary
mission for regulating food safety (Ref. 14). DOT/OIG concluded that
HHS/FDA should have primary responsibility for food transportation
safety (Ref. 14).
Comments to the 1993 NPRM generally opposed its proposed provisions
and recommended that DOT defer to FDA and USDA on food safety issues
(69 FR 76423, December 21, 2004). In light of both these comments and
the 1998 report of DOT/OIG, RSPA issued a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (69 FR 76423, December 21, 2004) (the 2004 SNPRM).
Under the 2004 SNPRM, RSPA's regulations would reference requirements
and recommendations, established by USDA or FDA, applying to persons
who transport (or offer for transportation) food or food products by
motor vehicle or rail car.
RSPA did not issue a final rule based on the 2004 SNPRM. Following
the enactment of the 2005 SFTA (see discussion in section I.D of this
document), which amended the 1990 SFTA and directed HHS (and, by
delegation, FDA) to issue regulations prescribing sanitary
transportation practices to ensure the safe transportation of food,
DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (formerly
RSPA) withdrew both the 1993 NPRM and the 2004 SNPRM (70 FR 76228,
December 23, 2005).
[[Page 22716]]
C. The 1996 Joint ANPRM
In 1996, FDA and FSIS jointly issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (61 FR 59372, November 22, 1996) (the 1996 joint ANPRM). FDA
and FSIS issued the 1996 joint ANPRM in part to address FDA's safety
concerns regarding the transportation of food raised by a 1994 outbreak
of salmonellosis involving ice cream mix that became contaminated
during transport in tanker trucks that had previously hauled raw liquid
eggs (Ref. 9). In the 1996 joint ANPRM, FDA and FSIS requested comments
and information about approaches FDA and FSIS might take, under
existing legal authorities, to foster food safety improvements that may
be needed in the transportation and storage of potentially hazardous
foods.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As discussed in the 1996 joint ANPRM (61 FR 59372),
potentially hazardous foods, including meat, poultry, eggs and egg
products, fish, seafood, and dairy products, are those that are
capable of supporting the rapid multiplication of microorganisms
that cause foodborne illness. Currently, we generally use the term
``Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) Food'' rather than
``potentially hazardous food'' and define a TCS food as a food that
requires time/temperature control for safety to limit pathogenic
microorganism growth or toxin formation (Ref. 14). Examples of TCS
foods include the foods identified as potentially hazardous foods in
the 1996 joint ANPRM, and plant foods such as raw seed sprouts and
cut melons (Ref. 14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA took no subsequent action on the 1996 joint ANPRM. Data and
information received in response to the 1996 joint ANPRM are now more
than 10 years old.
D. The 2005 SFTA
In 2005, Congress passed the 2005 SFTA, Public Law 109-59, 119
Stat. 1911, which:
Requires the Secretary of HHS to issue regulations setting
forth sanitary transportation practices to be followed by shippers,
carriers by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receivers, and others
engaged in food transport; and
Requires the Secretary of DOT, in consultation with the
Secretaries of HHS and USDA, to establish procedures for transportation
safety inspections for the purpose of identifying suspected incidents
of contamination or adulteration of a food.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The procedures DOT would establish are outside the scope of
this document. We intend to assist DOT as appropriate in developing
DOT's procedures for these inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Our Responsibilities Under Section 416 of the Act
The statutory authority in section 416 of the act extends to
broader aspects of the sanitary transportation of food than the
statutory authority in the 1990 SFTA, which was primarily directed
toward preventing the contamination of food products by previously
hauled nonfood products. The authority in section 416 of the act places
a statutory obligation upon HHS (and, by delegation, to FDA) to issue
regulations establishing requirements for the food transportation
industry to use sanitary transportation practices to ensure that food
is not transported under conditions that may render food adulterated.
We describe key provisions of section 416 of the act in the following
bulleted paragraphs.
Section 416(b) (21 U.S.C. 350e(b)) requires us to
establish regulations requiring shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or
rail vehicle, receivers, and other persons engaged in the
transportation\6\ of food to use sanitary transportation practices
prescribed by us to ensure that food is not transported under
conditions that may render the food adulterated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Transportation'' is defined by section 416(a)) of the act
(21 U.S.C. 350e(a)) as ``any movement in commerce by a motor vehicle
or rail vehicle.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 416(c) (21 U.S.C. 350e(c)) addresses the content
of the regulations to be established under section 416(b).
[cir] Section 416(c)(1) (21 U.S.C. 350e(c)(1)) requires these
regulations to prescribe such practices as we determine to be
appropriate relating to: (A) sanitation; (B) packaging, isolation, and
other protective measures; (C) limitations on the use of vehicles; (D)
information to be disclosed (to a carrier by a person arranging for the
transportation of food, and to a manufacturer or other person that
arranges for the transportation of food by a carrier; or furnishes a
tank vehicle or bulk vehicle\7\ for the transportation of food); and
(E) recordkeeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Bulk vehicle`` is defined by section 416(a) of the act as
``a tank truck, hopper truck, rail tank car, hopper car, cargo tank,
portable tank, freight container, or hopper bin, and any other
vehicle in which food is shipped in bulk, with the food coming into
direct contact with the vehicle.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Section 416(c)(2) (21 U.S.C. 350e(c)(2)) requires these
regulations to include: (A) a list of nonfood products that we
determine may, if shipped in a bulk vehicle, render adulterated food
that is subsequently transported in the same vehicle; and (B) a list of
nonfood products that we determine may, if shipped in a motor vehicle
or rail vehicle (other than a tank vehicle or bulk vehicle), render
adulterated food that is simultaneously or subsequently transported in
the same vehicle.
Section 416(d) (21 U.S.C. 350e(d)) provides that we may
waive any requirement under section 416, with respect to any class of
persons, vehicles, food, or nonfood products, if we determine that the
waiver (A) will not result in the transportation of food under
conditions that would be unsafe for human or animal health; and (B)
will not be contrary to the public interest. We must publish in the
Federal Register any waiver and the reasons for the waiver.
Section 416(e) (21 U.S.C. 350e(e)) provides that State or
local requirements concerning transportation of food are preempted if:
(A) complying with both the State or local requirement and section 416,
or a regulation prescribed under section 416, is not possible; or (B)
the State or local requirement as applied or enforced is an obstacle to
accomplishing and carrying out section 416 or a regulation prescribed
under section 416.
2. Amendments to Sections 301, 402, and 703 of the Act
The 2005 SFTA also amended the act to add or revise provisions as
follows:
Sections 402(i) and 301(hh) (21 U.S.C. 342(i) and
331(hh)): Section 402(i) provides that a food shall be deemed
adulterated if it is transported or offered for transport by a shipper,
carrier by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receiver, or any other person
engaged in the transportation of food under conditions that are not in
compliance with regulations issued under section 416 of the act. Under
section 301(hh), the failure (or the causing thereof) by a shipper,
carrier by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receiver, or any other person
engaged in the transportation of food to comply with the sanitary
transportation practices prescribed by us under section 416 is a
prohibited act subject to the sanctions and penalties provided in
Chapter III of the act.
Sections 703(b) and 301(e) (21 U.S.C. 373(b) and 331(e)):
Section 703(b) requires any person subject to section 416 to permit a
designated officer or employee who requests required records (i.e.,
records required to be kept in accordance with section 416(c)(1)(E)) to
have access to all such records at reasonable times and to copy all
such records. Under section 301(e), the refusal to permit access to or
copying of any record as required by section 416, or the failure to
establish or maintain any record required under section 416, or the
refusal to permit access to or verification or copying of any such
required record is a prohibited act subject to the sanctions and
penalties provided in Chapter III of the act.
[[Page 22717]]
E. Our Current Regulations and Guidance Documents Addressing
Transportation of Food
We have addressed the transportation of food in several regulations
(in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR)) and guidance
documents that are limited in scope. We describe the most relevant
regulations and guidance documents in table 1 of this document. The
regulations DOT proposed in the 2004 SNPRM would have included a
recommendation that each person who offers for transportation or
transports food or food products by motor vehicle or rail car use
guidance documents and materials issued by FDA and USDA, and
specifically identified three of FDA's guidance documents that were
then in effect: FDA Guidance on Bulk Transport of Juice Concentrates
and Certain Shelf Stable Juices; FDA Guidance on Food Security
Preventive Measures for Dairy Farms, Bulk Milk Transporters, Bulk Milk
Transfer Stations, and Fluid Milk Processors; and FDA Guidance on Food
Security Preventive Measures for Food Producers, Processors, and
Transporters (i.e., the guidances in Refs. 16, 17, and 18).
Table 1.--FDA Regulations and Guidances Addressing the Transportation of Food
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year &
Reference* Title Type Description Circumstances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1976 (Sec. Current Good Regulation Requires adequate Implemented requirements
225.65; 41 FR Manufacturing Practice cleanout procedures for in section 501(a)(2)(B)
52612 at for Medicated Feeds; all equipment used in of the act (21 U.S.C.
52618, Equipment Cleanout the manufacture or 351(a)(2)(B))
November 30, Procedures distribution of
1976) medicated feeds that are
essential to avoiding
unsafe contamination of
feeds with drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986; (Sec. Current Good Regulation Requires that storage and Issued as part of a
110.93 51 FR Manufacturing Practice transportation of broad revision to our
22458, June In Manufacturing, finished food be under current good
19, 1986) Packing, Or Holding conditions that will manufacturing practice
Human Food; Warehousing protect food against (CGMP) regulations for
and Distribution physical, chemical, and food
microbial contamination
as well as against
deterioration of the
food and the container
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 (Sec. Listing of Specific Regulation Requires distributors of To provide animal feed
Sec. Substances Prohibited mammalian and protections by
589.2000(c) From Use in Animal Food nonmammalian materials prohibiting the feeding
through (e); or Feed; Requirements for animal food to of mammalian protein to
62 FR 30936, for renderers; provide for measures to ruminant animals
June 5, 1997), Requirements for protein avoid commingling or
updated in blenders, feed cross-contamination of
2008 (Sec. manufacturers, and the materials
Sec. distributors; and
589.2000(c) Requirements for persons
through (e); that intend to separate
73 FR 22720, mammalian and
April 25, nonmammalian materials
2008)
[Related Small
Entity
Compliance
Guide (SECG)
published in
1998 (Ref.
19)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998; (Ref. 20) Guide to Minimize Guidance Includes recommendations Issued as part of the
Microbial Food Safety regarding microbial food 1997 Presidential
Hazards for Fresh Fruits safety hazards and good ``Initiative to Ensure
and Vegetables\**\ agricultural and the Safety of Imported
management practices and Domestic Fruits and
common to the growing, Vegetables'' (Ref. 21)
packing, and
transporting of most
fresh fruits and
vegetables
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001; (Sec. Hazard Analysis And Regulation Requires that juice Added to the final rule
120.24(c)); 66 Critical Control Point processors complete a 5- to address comments
FR 6138 at (HACCP) Systems; Process log pathogen reduction expressing concern
6172, January Controls treatment and final about the potential for
19, 2001) product packaging within recontamination or
[Related SECG a single processing regrowth of surviving
published in facility operating under pathogens if individual
2003 (Ref. CGMPs\***\ (``single treatments designed to
22)] facility requirement'') achieve a 5-log
reduction are separated
by time or space
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22718]]
2003; (Ref. 16) Guidance on Bulk Guidance Provides industry with Issued in response to a
Transport of Juice recommendations for citizen petition
Concentrates and Certain appropriate control requesting an exemption
Shelf Stable Juices measures to use in the from the requirement in
bulk transport of Sec. 120.24(c) when
covered juice products certain products
to ensure that the manufactured in one
products do not become facility are sent to
contaminated or re- another facility for
contaminated with final packaging
microbial pathogens
during bulk transport,
and stated FDA's intent
to consider the exercise
of enforcement
discretion with respect
to the single facility
requirement in Sec.
120.24(c) provided that
certain conditions are
met.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 (updated Dairy Farms, Bulk Milk Guidance Identifies the kinds of Issued in light of the
2007); (Ref. Transporters, Bulk Milk preventive measures potential for tampering
17) Transfer Stations and operators of bulk milk or other malicious,
Fluid Milk Processors: transportation criminal, or terrorist
Food Security Preventive operations may take to actions
Measures Guidance minimize the risk that
fluid milk under their
control will be subject
to tampering or other
malicious, criminal, or
terrorist actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 (updated Food Producers, Guidance Identifies the kinds of Issued in light of the
2007) (Ref. Processors, and preventive measures potential for tampering
18) Transporters: Food operators of human or or other malicious,
Security Preventive animal food criminal, or terrorist
Measures Guidance establishments actions
(including firms that
distribute or transport
food or food
ingredients) may take to
minimize the risk that
food under their control
will be subject to
tampering or other
malicious, criminal, or
terrorist actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 (Ref. 19) Guidance for Industry Guidance Provides guidance on Issued to address health
122: transport of foods that risks when raw meat
Manufacture and Labeling contain raw meat, or foods are used,
of Raw Meat Foods for other raw animal particularly by pet
Companion and Captive tissues, for consumption owners
Noncompanion Carnivores by dogs, cats, other
and Omnivores companion or pet
animals, and captive
noncompanion animal
carnivores and omnivores
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 (Sec. Establishment, Regulation Requires persons who Implementation of
1.352 and Sec. Maintenance, and transport food for section 306 of the 2002
Sec. 1.360 Availability of Records: humans and animals to Bioterrorism Act, which
through 1.363; What information must establish and maintain directs the HHS
69 FR 71562, transporters establish records identifying the Secretary to issue
December 9, and maintain?; What are immediate previous regulations requiring
2004) the record retention source of all food persons who
[Related SECG requirements?; What are received, and the manufacture, process,
published in the record availability immediate subsequent pack, transport,
2004 (Ref. requirements?; What recipient of all food distribute, receive,
24)] records are excluded released, as well as hold, or import food
from this subpart?; What certain other for humans and animals
are the consequences of information related to to establish and
failing to establish or the transported food; maintain records
maintain records or make Sets forth the record identifying the
them available to FDA? retention and record immediate previous
availability source of all food
requirements for received, and the
transporters immediate subsequent
recipient of all food
released
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 (revised Notice from FDA to Guidance Provides information and Developed following
2006) (Ref. Growers, Food references that can be Hurricanes Katrina and
25) Manufacturers, Food used for the Rita in August and
Warehouse Managers, and decontamination of food September 2005
Transporters of Food transport vehicles that
Products on have been flooded or
Decontamination of otherwise impacted by
Transport Vehicles hurricanes, before being
placed back in service
to transport or store
food
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22719]]
2007 (Ref. 26) Grade A Pasteurized Milk Model standard Sets forth training To facilitate the
Ordinance, Appendix B, for voluntary requirements, evaluation shipment and acceptance
Milk Sampling, Hauling adoption by criteria, and standards of milk and milk
and Transportation State and to be met by bulk milk products of high
local haulers and milk sanitary quality in
authorities transporters interstate and
intrastate commerce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 (Ref. 27) Guidance for Industry: Guidance Recommends practices for Part of recommendations
Guide to Minimize transporting fresh-cut to enhance the safety
Microbial Food Safety produce under conditions of fresh-cut produce by
Hazards of Fresh-Cut that will protect the minimizing microbial
Fruits and Vegetables food against physical, food safety hazards
chemical, and
microbiological
contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 (Sec. Cattle Materials Regulation Requires the use of To provide an additional
589.2001(c); Prohibited in Animal dedicated equipment for layer of animal feed
73 FR 22720; Food or Feed to Prevent handling and protections by removing
April 25, the Transmission of transporting cattle that material at
2008) Bovine Spongiform materials prohibited in highest risk for
Encephalopathy animal feed transmitting BSE
through animal feed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 (21 CFR Production, Storage, And Regulation Establishes requirements Part of a rule requiring
118.1(b) and Transportation Of Shell for refrigeration of measures to prevent
118.4(e); 74 Eggs shell eggs during Salmonella Enteritidis
FR 33030, July transportation in shell eggs during
9, 2009) production, storage,
and transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ All section numbers cited in Table 1 refer to sections in 21 CFR.
\**\ We have requested comments and scientific data to enable us to improve this guidance (73 FR 51306,
September 2, 2008).
\***\ If a treated juice is transported to another facility for final packaging or blending and packaging
operations, the entire 5-log reduction must be repeated (66 FR 6138 at 6172, January 19, 2001).
F. Current Industry Practices and Areas Where Food Is At Greatest Risk
For Contamination
1. Interstate Food Transportation Assessment Project
In 2007, the Michigan Department of Agriculture released
information obtained from its Interstate Food Transportation Assessment
Project, conducted with the States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio (Ref. 28). The purpose of the project was to determine the current
state of food safety and food defense in the context of in-transit food
in interstate commerce. The project identified several areas of concern
in food transport that increase the likelihood of food contamination,
such as improper refrigeration, transport of raw meat and poultry
simultaneously or sequentially in trucks also used to carry fruit and
vegetables, food products lacking label or source information, improper
packaging, infestation with insects, insanitary storage (e.g., roof
leaks and moldy walls, animal blood and food on bed floors), lack of
security seals or locks, low driver awareness of safe food
temperatures, and inadequate food safety training of drivers (Refs. 28
and 29). Most of the specific instances where food transportation
problems were found involved smaller box trucks and transporters of
ethnic food; there were ``little or no areas of concern'' identified
with larger (semi-tractor trailer) trucks inspected during the survey
(Ref. 28).
2. Report by Eastern Research Group, Inc.
The data and information we received in response to the 1996 joint
ANPRM are now dated. To obtain more current data and information, we
recently contracted with Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) to
undertake a study designed to characterize current baseline practices
in the sectors involved in food transportation and to identify current
areas where food is at risk for adulteration (Ref. 29). In 2009, ERG
issued a report (the ERG report) with its findings (Ref. 29). The ERG
report describes the results of a comprehensive literature review
pertaining to food handling practices in the food transportation
industry. The ERG report also presents the findings from an expert
opinion elicitation study, which ERG conducted to identify the main
problems that pose microbiological, chemical, and/or physical safety
hazards to food during transportation and storage, and to determine the
preventive controls needed to address each of the problems identified.
The ERG report largely discusses its findings from the perspective of
food intended for consumption by humans (e.g., raw seafood, meat,
poultry, produce, eggs, and refrigerated foods that are ready-to-eat)
but also reports some findings related to animal feed.
In its report, ERG provides an overview of the domestic food supply
chain (Ref. 29). A manufacturing facility may be served by a tier of
suppliers. These manufacturing facilities then serve distribution
facilities, which eventually serve retailer outlets, including
restaurant retail facilities that serve the end consumer. Some food
manufacturers use third-party logistics providers to outsource
transportation procurement, while others organize the transport of
their goods internally. (A third-party logistics provider is a firm
that provides outsourced or ``third party'' logistics services to
companies for part or sometimes all of their supply chain management
function.) In this complex system, risk associated with an undetected
problem increases the further one moves back in the supply chain,
because a problem that is introduced further back in the supply chain
system can spread out to many distributors and retailers who serve
consumers.
Through its literature review, ERG identified:
Existing food transportation guidelines prepared by
Federal agencies, foreign countries, international organizations, and
trade associations;
Three types of potential contamination that could arise
during
[[Page 22720]]
transportation and storage (i.e., physical, chemical, and biological
contamination) and risk factors during transportation and holding; and
Best practices for food transportation and holding (i.e.,
temperature control, increased security and tracking, proper loading/
unloading practices, monitoring and ensuring the sanitation and
condition of transportation vehicles, good communication, employee
awareness and training, and pest control programs).
Through its literature review and expert opinion elicitation study,
ERG identified the following 15 problem areas where food may be at risk
for physical, chemical, or biological contamination during transport
and storage:
Improper refrigeration or temperature control of food
products (temperature abuse). This may be intentional (abuse or
violation of practices by drivers, i.e., turning off refrigeration
units) or unintentional (due, for example, to improper holding
practices or shortages of appropriate shipping containers or vessels).
Improper management of transportation units or storage
facilities to preclude cross-contamination, including improper
sanitation, backhauling hazardous materials, not maintaining tanker
wash records, improper disposal of wastewater, and aluminum phosphide
fumigation methods in railcar transit;
Improper packing of transportation units or storage
facilities, including incorrect use of packing materials and poor
pallet quality;
Improper loading practices, conditions, or equipment,
including improper sanitation of loading equipment, not using dedicated
units where appropriate, inappropriate loading patterns, and
transporting mixed loads that increase the risk for cross-
contamination;
Improper unloading practices, conditions, or equipment,
including improper sanitation of equipment and leaving raw materials on
loading docks after hours;
Lack of security for transportation units or storage
facilities, including lack of or improper use of security seals and
lack of security checks or records of transporters;
Poor pest control in transportation units or storage
facilities;
Lack of driver/employee training and/or supervisor/
manager/owner knowledge of food safety and/or security;
Poor transportation unit design and construction;
Inadequate preventive maintenance for transportation units
or storage facilities, resulting in roof leaks, gaps in doors, and
dripping condensation or ice accumulations;
Poor employee hygiene;
Inadequate policies for the safe and/or secure transport
or storage of foods;
Improper handling and tracking of rejected loads and
salvaged, reworked, and returned products or products destined for
disposal;
Improper holding practices for food products awaiting
shipment or inspection, including unattended product, delayed holding
of product, shipping of product while in quarantine, and poor rotation
and throughput; and
Lack of traceability for food products during
transportation and storage.
Through its literature review and expert opinion elicitation study,
ERG identified the following seven preventive controls with the
broadest applicability across all food sectors and modes of transport:
Employee awareness and training;
Management review of records;
Good communication between shipper, transporter, and
receiver;
Appropriate loading procedures for transportation units;
Appropriate unloading procedures for transportation units;
Appropriate documentation accompanying each load (e.g.,
tanker wash record, seal numbers, temperature readings, time in-
transit, and time on docks); and
Appropriate packaging/packing of food products and
transportation units (e.g., good quality pallets, correct use of
packing materials).
II. Issues and Requests for Data and Information
As already noted, the data and information received in response to
the 1996 joint ANPRM are dated and are of limited usefulness. The more
recent data and information in the ERG report enhances our
understanding of current baseline practices in the food transportation
industry, problem areas that pose microbiological, chemical, and/or
physical safety hazards to food during transportation and storage, and
preventive controls that have the potential to address the problem
areas.
The purpose of this document is to obtain data and information that
would be more current and of greater relevance than the data and
information we received in response to the 1996 joint ANPRM and to
augment the more current information in the ERG report. Specifically,
we request public comments containing data and information on the
issues and questions listed in sections II.A through II.G of this
document.
A. Issue 1: Firms Subject to the 2005 SFTA
We are seeking data and information about firms that are subject to
the 2005 SFTA and the food for humans or animals that such firms
transport. Firms subject to the 2005 SFTA include shippers, carriers by
motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receivers, and any other person engaged
in the transportation of food. These data and information will enhance
our understanding of the characteristics of the firms that are
providing food transportation services.
Question 1a. What types of vehicles or methods are used to
transport food by motor vehicle or rail vehicle (e.g., bulk tank
trucks, cargo tanks, and freight containers)?
Question 1b. How much food, and what percentage of food, is carried
by each type of vehicle on an annual basis?
Question 1c. What are the amounts and percentages of foods that are
transported completely enclosed by packaging, not completely enclosed
by packaging (e.g., grain, some fresh produce items), or in bulk tanks
(e.g., juices, oils)?
Question 1d. What proportion of vehicles is exclusively dedicated
to transporting foods? What proportion of vehicles transport both food
and nonfood products?
B. Issues 2 through 6: Current Practices Used By Firms Subject to the
2005 SFTA
We are seeking data or information on the specific sanitary
transportation practices that must be prescribed under regulations we
establish under section 416(c)(1) of the act.
1. Issue 2: Sanitation Practices
Question 2a. What industry standards exist for the cleaning of food
transportation vehicles?
Question 2b. How are appropriate protocols established for cleaning
vehicles (including bulk vehicles and nonbulk vehicles)?
Question 2c. How is the adequacy of cleaning vehicles (including
bulk vehicles and nonbulk vehicles) assessed?
2. Issue 3: Packaging, Isolation, and Other Protective Measures
Question 3a. What procedures and practices are in place to prevent
contamination of foods not completely enclosed by packaging during
transport?
Question 3b. How are the physical integrity and physical security
of a food
[[Page 22721]]
transport vehicle ensured during its run?
Question 3c. What operations associated with food transport (e.g.,
intermodal transfer and pumping food from transport tanks into
receiving vessels at the destination) pose the greatest potential for
contaminating food?
Question 3d. What procedures and practices are in place to ensure
temperature control for TCS foods?
3. Issue 4: Limitations on the Use of Vehicles
Question 4a. What types of food products are typically transported
simultaneously? What types of food products are typically transported
sequentially?
Question 4b. Are there any industry standards or State or local
restrictions on the simultaneous or sequential transport of different
categories of food?
4. Issue 5: Information Sharing Among Parties Involved in the
Transportation of Food
Through the 2005 SFTA, Congress provided express authority to
specify the types of information that must be disclosed to carriers by
persons arranging to transport food and to manufacturers or other
persons that arrange for the transport of food or furnish a vehicle for
the transportation of food. In our exercise of this authority, it is
critical that we understand what sort of information exchange is
feasible, practical, and/or desirable.
Question 5a. What types of information are currently disclosed to
carriers by persons arranging to transport food? In what form is this
information disclosed? What additional information would be useful or
necessary to achieve the goals of the 2005 SFTA?
Question 5b. What types of information are currently disclosed to
manufacturers or other persons that arrange for the transport of food
by a carrier? In what form is this information disclosed? What
additional information would be useful or necessary to achieve the
goals of the 2005 SFTA?
Question 5c. What types of information are currently disclosed to
manufacturers or other persons that furnish a tank vehicle or bulk
vehicle for the transportation of food? In what form is this
information disclosed? What additional information would be useful or
necessary to achieve the goals of the 2005 SFTA?
5. Issue 6. Records Currently Kept By Firms Subject to the 2005 SFTA
Question 6a. What types of records are currently kept by persons
arranging to transport food? What additional records would be useful or
necessary to achieve the goals of the 2005 SFTA? How long should
persons arranging to transport food keep applicable records?
Question 6b. What types of information are currently kept by
shippers and by carriers by motor vehicle or rail vehicle? What
additional records would be useful or necessary to achieve the goals of
the 2005 SFTA? How long should shippers and carriers by motor vehicle
or rail vehicle keep applicable records?
Question 6c. What types of records are currently kept by receivers
of food? What additional records would be useful or necessary to
achieve the goals of the 2005 SFTA? How long should persons who receive
food keep applicable records?
C. Issue 7. Simultaneous or Subsequent Shipment of Nonfood Products in
Vehicles Used to Transport Food
Question 7a. Are food products transported simultaneously or
sequentially with nonfood products? If the answer to this question is
yes, what nonfood products are commonly transported in vehicles that
also transport food?
Question 7b. What nonfood products may, if shipped in a bulk
vehicle, pose a risk of contamination to food that is subsequently
transported in the same vehicle?
Question 7c. What nonfood products may, if shipped in a motor
vehicle or rail vehicle (other than a tank vehicle or bulk vehicle),
pose a risk of contamination to food that is simultaneously or
subsequently transported in the same vehicle?
Question 7d. Are there any industry standards or State or local
restrictions on the simultaneous or sequential transport of food and
nonfood products?
D. Issue 8. Acceptable Reasons for Waiver of Requirements
Question 8. What reasons might exist for a waiver of any or all
foreseeable requirements under section 416 with respect to any class of
persons, vehicles, food, or nonfood products? For any such reason for
waiver, identify and provide data and information that would support a
possible determination that the waiver (A) will not result in the
transportation of food under conditions that would be unsafe for human
or animal health; and (B) will not be contrary to the public interest.
E. Issue 9. Federal Preemption of State and Local Food Transportation
Requirements
Section 416(e) of the act, as amended by the 2005 SFTA, states that
a requirement of a State or political subdivision of a State that
concerns the transportation of food is preempted if it conflicts with
or presents an obstacle to implementing the requirements of this
section or a regulation prescribed under this section. FDA is seeking
comments on existing requirements of a State or political subdivision
of a State regarding the sanitary transportation of food. FDA intends
to solicit further comments regarding this provision in the proposed
rule.
Question 9. What States or political subdivisions of a State have
requirements for the sanitary transportation of food and what are these
requirements?
F. Issue 10. Risk for Foodborne Illness Associated With Transportation
of Food
We have limited data and information about outbreaks of foodborne
illness associated with transportation of food; see sections I.A and
I.F of this document for a description of the data and information
currently available to us. There are, however, a number of known areas
where food is at risk for adulteration and reported instances of unsafe
food transport (Refs. 10, 28, and 29). We are seeking data and
information to enable us to focus our regulatory efforts in areas that
present the greatest risk to public health.
Question 10a. What data or information are available on
investigations that have shown a suspected or documented link between
an outbreak of foodborne illness and the transport process?
Question 10b. What data or information are available in instances
where food was suspected or documented of being contaminated during
transport, even if the food was not implicated in an outbreak of
foodborne illness?
Question 10c. What data or information are available from State or
local authorities regarding compliance with or enforcement of State or
local food transportation requirements?
Question 10d. What are the problem areas where food may be at
greatest risk for physical, chemical, or biological contamination
during transport?
G. Issue 11. Benefits and Costs
We are seeking data and information to enable us to estimate the
benefits and costs of regulations implementing the 2005 SFTA and to
estimate of the effects of regulatory options on small entities.
[[Page 22722]]
Question 11a. What is the size of carrier firms (e.g., based on
annual revenue or on number of vehicles)?
Question 11b. What is the number of small entities that could be
affected by regulations implementing the 2005 SFTA?
Question 11c. What steps could be taken to lessen the burden on
small entities while still protecting the public health?
III. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
IV. References
We have placed the following references on display in the Division
of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). You may see them between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. (FDA has verified the Web site
addresses, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the
Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)
1. FDA, 2005, CPG Sec. 565.100 FDA Jurisdiction Over Meat and
Poultry Products. Available at https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074588.htm.
Accessed and printed on February 18, 2010.
2. FSIS, 2005, FSIS Safety and Security Guidelines for the
Transportation and Distribution of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products.
Accessed and printed on March 31, 2010.
3. Food Safety Working Group, 2009, Key Findings, Available at
https://www.foodsafetyworkinggroup.gov/ContentKeyFindings/HomeKeyFindings.htm. Accessed and printed on January 22, 2010.
4. FDA, 1982, FDA Notice of Jud