[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30952-30956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12156]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Notices

[[Page 30952]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

[Docket No. 00-014N]


Announcement of and Request for Comment Regarding Industry 
Petition on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) 
Inspection

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; opportunity to comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is requesting 
comment on a petition that asks FSIS to amend sections of the Hazard 
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulations ``to increase 
the effectiveness'' of the HACCP system and to make the regulations 
more consistent with the HACCP principles published in 1997 by the 
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Food 
(NACMCF). The petition is set out in this Federal Register notice. The 
petition was submitted by a group of trade associations. It contains no 
data or examples to support the requests it makes. In addition to 
comments from the public, FSIS will solicit comment from the members of 
the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) 
at its May 16-17, 2000, meeting.

DATES: Comments are due July 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments in triplicate to USDA, FSIS Docket Room, 
Docket No. 00-014N, Room 102 Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20250-3700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Derfler, Deputy Administrator, 
Office of Policy, Program Development and Evaluation, Food Safety and 
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (202) 720-2709.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 25, 1996, FSIS published a final rule in the Federal 
Register, entitled ``Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical 
Control Point Systems'' (61 FR 38806), requiring that federally 
inspected meat and poultry establishments implement HACCP systems to 
address hazards that are reasonably likely to occur in their 
operations. This rule requires that all federally inspected meat and 
poultry plants develop and implement written sanitation standard 
operating procedures (sanitation SOPs); mandates that meat and poultry 
slaughter plants conduct microbial testing for generic E. coli to 
verify the adequacy of their process controls; requires that all meat 
and poultry plants develop and implement a system of preventive 
controls known as HACCP to improve the safety of their products; and 
sets pathogen reduction performance standards for Salmonella that 
slaughter plants and plants producing raw ground products must meet.
    When FSIS issued this final rule, it was aware that the rule would 
bring about major changes in the way plants operate and in how FSIS 
conducts its inspections. To account for this impact, the 
implementation of the rule was phased in over a three-year period that 
concluded January 25, 2000. Also, to assist the industry in preparing 
for the implementation of HACCP, FSIS provided extensive technical 
assistance and guidance and held numerous public meetings to receive 
input from all stakeholders.

Petition

    FSIS received a petition dated December 30, 1999, signed by the 
following organizations: The American Meat Institute, American 
Association of Meat Processors, National Chicken Council, National Food 
Processors Association, National Meat Association, National Turkey 
Federation, and the North American Meat Processors. The petition 
requests that FSIS amend sections of the HACCP regulations in order, 
according to the petition, to increase the effectiveness of the HACCP 
system and to make the regulations more consistent with the HACCP 
principles published in 1997, by the National Advisory Committee on 
Microbiological Criteria for Food (NACMCF).
    The petitioners contend that FSIS has too narrowly interpreted its 
rulemaking and ignores the ``* * * commonsense approach needed to make 
HACCP successful.'' In particular, they point out that there are other 
components of a HACCP system that the Agency should recognize, such as 
good manufacturing practice (GMP) programs (referred to as prerequisite 
programs), and that FSIS does not permit prerequisite programs to 
address food safety concerns. In 61 FR 38805, FSIS stated that it 
expected the HACCP plan to be a stand-alone document addressing food 
safety.
    The petitioners also suggest that FSIS change some of the 
definitions contained in the HACCP regulations. Specifically, they 
suggest the following definition changes:
    1. Delete the term and definition for ``food safety hazard'' and 
replace it with the term ``hazard.'' A ``hazard'' would be defined as 
``a biological, chemical or physical agent that is reasonably likely to 
cause illness or injury in the absence of its control.''
    2. Change the definition of ``hazard analysis'' to ``the process of 
collecting and evaluating information on hazards associated with the 
food under consideration to decide which are significant and must be 
addressed in the HACCP plan.''
    3. Define ``severity'' as ``the seriousness of the effect(s) of a 
hazard.''
    4. Define ``shipped'' as ``a product has been shipped if it has 
been sold to a third party and is not under the direct or effective 
control of the inspected establishment. Products have not been shipped 
in circumstances such as when the product is still owned by the 
inspected establishment, whether stored at the inspected establishment 
or at another storage location, as well as when the product is moving 
from one facility to another that is owned by the same person or 
company.'' The petitioners also suggest that throughout the regulations 
the word ``shipped'' should replace the phrase ``enters commerce.''
    5. Lastly, the petitioners request that FSIS amend 9 CFR 417.6(e) 
to provide that a HACCP system may be found to be inadequate only when 
adulterated product has been shipped. Currently, the regulations state 
that the system may be found inadequate when adulterated product is 
produced or shipped.
    As part of the Agency's continued efforts to involve all 
stakeholders in

[[Page 30953]]

issues related to the HACCP regulation and its implementation, FSIS is 
publishing the petition in this Federal Register notice. FSIS is also 
publishing this petition as part of its on-going efforts to keep 
stakeholders updated and informed about the Agency's activities. The 
Agency is working on a separate rulemaking related to the petition 
process, to more clearly define the requirements to be contained in a 
petition for changing the FSIS regulations.

Questions

    FSIS is seeking public comment on the following questions about the 
petition:
    1. The industry petition relies mainly on the NACMCF document and 
does not provide any data or examples to support its request. Is there 
any information that would support taking any of the actions requested 
in the petition?
    2. Would amending 9 CFR 417.2(a) in the manner suggested in the 
petition result in regulations that provide the level of public health 
protection required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act?
    3. Should FSIS consider regulatory modifications that would 
acknowledge the prerequisite programs concept of NACMCF?
    4. Do FDA regulations, such as the GMP regulations, offer an 
approach that FSIS should consider? How would such an approach fit 
within the HACCP concept? How would FSIS implement such an approach?
    5. What will be the effects of making FSIS and FDA HACCP regulatory 
requirements dissimilar?
    6. Should the changes suggested in the industry petition be 
considered in light of the views expressed on HACCP by Codex and by 
other countries?

The Text of the Petition

Petition for Rulemaking Amendments to Pathogen Reduction; Hazard 
Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP); Final Rule
    The member companies of the trade associations (the associations) 
identified below support the adoption of Hazard Analysis Critical 
Control Point (HACCP) as the best system available for enhancing the 
safety of meat and poultry products. Through this petition, the 
associations seek amendments that will contribute to the evolution and 
effectiveness of HACCP. Although some adjustments can be made to the 
inspection system administratively, certain amendments to the Pathogen 
Reduction; Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Systems final rule 
(the Rule) published by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS or 
the agency) on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 38806) will be required to 
accomplish these objectives.
    Although HACCP implementation to date has been largely successful, 
disputes over ``technical'' non-conformances with certain elements of 
the Rule have arisen that have adversely affected the overall success 
of HACCP, without contributing to protection of consumers.\1\ In that 
regard, amending the rule would reduce the occurrence of these 
unproductive instances and help focus future activities of the industry 
and the agency on issues that are vital to consumer protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although HACCP implementation will not be completed 
throughout the meat and poultry industry until next January, nearly 
80 percent of meat and poultry production already occurs under HACCP 
systems. This experience suggests strongly, that the time is now to 
discuss ways to improve an HACCP-based inspection system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    HACCP is a preventive system of hazard control, the inherent value 
of which is widely acknowledged. In that regard, the HACCP system has 
provided a framework for establishing more effective food safety 
measures. Nearly 15 years ago, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 
recognized the importance of incorporating HACCP into the meat and 
poultry inspection system and encouraged FSIS to move quickly to apply 
the HACCP system. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Meat and Poultry Inspection--The Scientific Basis of the 
Nation's Program, National Academy Press, 1985 (pp. 134-135).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The seven principles of HACCP, as revised by the National Advisory 
Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) in 1997, 
provide the basis for contemporary interpretations of the HACCP system. 
Those principles are:
    1. Conduct a hazard analysis.
    2. Determine the critical control points.
    3. Establish critical limits.
    4. Establish monitoring procedures.
    5. Establish corrective actions.
    6. Establish verification procedures.
    7. Establish recordkeeping and documentation procedures. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NACMCF streamlined the principles in a report adopted 
August 14, 1997. That report reversed principles six and seven from 
the original order established by NACMCF to the order presented 
above. See Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Principles and 
Application Guidelines (hereinafter the Guidelines), J. of Food 
Protection, Vol. 61, No. 6, at 762-775, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the application of these principles, simple production 
processes can be accommodated. Similarly, highly sophisticated 
procedures, even those that may pose some degree of risk can also be 
accommodated, assuming that the appropriate critical control points are 
identified and measurement criteria are established.
    These principles purportedly provide the basis for the agency's 
Rule. The Rule as written, however, deviates from the intended 
application of these principles in several important ways. It is 
because the Rule as implemented by the agency does not adhere in its 
entirety to the principles of HACCP that this petition is submitted.
    The Rule and industry's adoption of HACCP have fundamentally 
changed many aspects of food safety practices and inspection. HACCP 
requires acceptance by industry that it is responsible for ensuring the 
safety of products it produces. That concept, and the challenges it 
presents, has been accepted by industry.
    The Rule also has required adjustments within the agency's 
inspection program. Companies' HACCP control activities occur in 
establishments under some form of continuous inspection and a wide 
range of enforcement sanctions remains available to FSIS. Indeed, the 
Rule has, in effect, expanded that capability through provisions 
permitting withholding actions in the event an establishment's HACCP 
plan is deemed to be inadequate. Under HACCP, however, inspection 
emphasis was to have shifted away from the application of subjective 
criteria and toward monitoring of specific, quantitative benchmarks.
    HACCP should result in a food inspection system with a much higher 
level of private and public cooperation. Ideally, under HACCP 
government and industry would find themselves working together to 
monitory food safety compliance, with the goal of providing the safest 
possible meat and poultry supply.
Discussion

The Rule Is Written and Interpreted Too Narrowly

    An important component of HACCP is the requirement that a written 
HACCP plan be developed for all products in accordance with HACCP 
principles. That plan should identify the hazards associated with the 
product, identify the critical control points in the process, establish 
quantitative monitoring procedures to assure compliance and corrective 
actions, and provide effective documentation of compliance. A HACCP 
plan is, however, only one part of a plant's overall food safety 
system. Other integral components of that system include Sanitation 
Standard

[[Page 30954]]

Operating Procedures (SSOPs), and various good manufacturing practices 
and other prerequisite programs (hereinafter collectively prerequisite 
programs) that are needed to form the foundation for the HACCP 
system.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Prerequisite programs have been identified as the foundation 
upon which a HACCP plan is built. See ``The Role of Prerequisite 
Programs in Managing a HACCP System,'' Dairy, Food and Environmental 
Sanitation, Vol. 18, No. 7 at 418-423, July 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unfortunately, the agency has elected only to recognize the 
sanitation part of these other components of establishments' food 
safety systems. For example, a beef plant typically controls 
temperature according to prerequisite programs to preserve product 
quality. Although this is a necessary program for meeting quality 
criteria, FSIS has apparently taken the posisiton that establishments 
must also incorporate product temperature controls into their HACCP 
plans. This position has resulted essentially in government mandated 
critical control points (CCPS)--contrary to the agencys often repeated 
statement that companies develop and operate their own HACCP plans and 
are responsible for the same. The role of prerequisite programs is a 
central question that needs to be addressed through a dialogue with the 
agency to determine the appropriate role for prerequisite programs as a 
component of a plant's operating system.
    This mandate arises out of the agency's refusal to acknowledge 
prerequisite programs and other important food safety systems as very 
important, integral components of an establishment's food safety 
system. The agency specifically points to the ``in the absence of those 
controls'' language it incorporated into section 417.2(a)(1) of the 
Rule. The agency's interpretation of the Rule's language is unduly 
narrow and ignores the commonsense approach needed to make HACCP 
successful.
    Notwithstanding the problems encountered to date, the Rule can be 
amended to enable the agency to consider the other important aspects of 
an establishment's food safety system, such as prerequisite programs. 
Rather than continue to implement a regulation that the agency 
interprets as forcing FSIS to ignore certain elements of a plant's 
program, the Rule should be amended to permit the agency to consider 
those other components when determining whether an establishment's 
HACCP plan is adequate. As discussed below, prerequisite programs will 
influence the likelihood that a food safety hazard will occur and, 
therefore, should be acknowledged by the Agency.
    Such an amendment will benefit the agency, the regulated industry, 
and most significantly will enhance food safety. In that regard, the 
agency will be better able to determine whether a company's HACCP plan 
is adequate, enabling the agency to apply its limited resources to 
situations in which the integrity of the food inspection system may be 
compromised. Similarly, regulated companies will be better able to 
direct their resources to address circumstances that involve legitimate 
food safety issues, rather than including additional and often 
unnecessary provisions in their HACCP plans in order to accommodate the 
current interpretation of HACCP contained in the rule. Making the 
system operate more efficiently benefits all interested parties, 
including consumers who benefit from lower prices and also benefit from 
the fact that a less complicated, less duplicative system contributes 
to a more effective system from a food safety standpoint.

The Definition and Interpretation of a Food Safety Hazard Should Be 
Amended

    The Rule's definition of ``food safety hazard'' is inconsistent 
with the definition of hazard provided by the NACMCF. Currently, the 
Rule defines a ``food safety hazard'' as any ``biological, chemical, or 
physical property that may cause a food to be unsafe for human 
consumption.'' \5\ The NACMCF, however, developed a tighter, more 
appropriate defintion of ``hazard'' in its 1997 report.\6\ 
Specifically, NACMCF defines a ``hazard'' as a ``biological, chemical, 
or physical agent that is reasonably likely to cause illness or injury 
in the absence of its control.'' \7\ This definition will facilitate 
development of HACCP plans that focus on food safety, while encouraging 
firms to utilize prerequisite programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 9 CFR sec. 417.1.
    \6\ FSIS cross-references hazard and food safety hazard in the 
Rule. See 9 CFR sec. 417.1.
    \7\ See Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Principles 
and Application Guidelines, National Advisory Committee on 
Microbiological Criteria for Foods, at 6 (August 14, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Guidelines include a thorough discussion of that definition 
and, in that regard, provide that the purpose of a hazard analysis ``is 
to develop a list of hazards which are of such significance that they 
are reasonably likely to cause injury or illness if not effectively 
controlled.'' \8\ The Guidelines provide that each identified potential 
hazard should be evaluated, giving consideration to its severity and 
likely occurrence. That consideration should also include the food, its 
method of preparation, transportation, storage, and the persons likely 
to consume the product.\9\ Also included in these considerations would 
be the influence of prerequisite programs on the likely occurrence of 
the hazard under consideration. In short, the Guidelines make clear 
that significance, based on a variety of factors, is an integral part 
of determining whether a potential hazard is, in fact, a hazard that 
should be addressed in a HACCP plan.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 12-13.
    \9\ Id. at 12.
    \10\ Indeed, the Guidelines provide that hazards identified in 
one facility may not be significant in another plant for the same or 
similar product. Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule, however, is not written, nor interpreted, in a manner 
consistent with the NACMCF Guidelines. The Rule provides a much broader 
definition of ``hazard'' because it identifies as a ``hazard'' those 
properties that may cause a food to be unsafe, regardless of whether 
the hazard is ``significant'' in terms of actually presenting a risk to 
human health. This interpretation has led to confusion regarding what 
should be covered in HACCP plans and how to make this determination. 
This problem could be addressed by changing the Rule's definition of 
``hazard.'' The NACMCF definition and interpretation of a ``hazard,'' 
is more precise and consistent with the principles of HACCP because it 
provides useful guidance for identifying those properties that, when 
all factors are considered, present a significant risk of illness or 
injury.
    Prior to the implementation date for HACCP in the very large 
plants, the agency published the first of several notices that, in 
effect, dictate the adoption or establishment of hazards, without 
engaging in the necessary hazard analysis with respect to the 
significance and severity of those hazards. For example, in November 
1997 FSIS published a notice telling establishments that zero tolerance 
for visible fecal material was a food safety standard and that FSIS 
would be determining compliance before the application of 
interventions. FSIS stated in the notice that visible fecal was a 
vehicle for microbial contamination. However, an establishment 
employing microbial interventions would typically set the critical 
control point at the intervention, not prior to it. In a situation such 
as this the visible contamination would need to be minimized but would 
not be the most critical point in the system. This notice, in effect, 
dictated the presence of CCPs in the production process, as well as its 
positioning.

[[Page 30955]]

    Immediately following large plant implementation the agency 
published a notice that effectively abandoned the concepts underlying 
HACCP in favor of a command and control regulatory system. Ultimately, 
the agency issued letters to numerous federally inspected facilities 
effectively dictating CCPs when a hazard analysis conducted by those 
plants, consistent with the NACMCF model for conducting such an 
analysis, indicated that the hazard was not of sufficient significance 
and severity to warrant its control through the HACCP plan. Finally, 
more recently, the agency has again insisted on dictating the presence 
and positioning of CCPs in plants that manufacture raw ground and not 
ground products.
    Implementing the change recommended by this petition would address 
this problem and would benefit the agency, consumers, and the regulated 
industry. As previously discussed, such a change would enable the 
agency to focus its resources in a more efficient and effective manner 
and would enhance food safety by doing so. Accordingly, the Rule should 
be amended to adopt the definition of ``hazard'' as set forth by the 
NACMCF and abide by the NACMCF's intent with regard to conducting a 
hazard analysis.

The Rule Does Not Adequately Address When a Product Is Within an 
Establishment's Control

    The Rule does not provide adequate guidance as to when a product 
has left the producing facility's control. The agency's interpretation 
of the Rule fails to acknowledge that products can be within an 
establishment's control even when the product is outside the physical 
boundaries of an establishment. For example, product on a company-owned 
or contracted truck is still under that company's control, as is 
product still owned by the establishment but held in a cold storage 
warehouse away from the production facility. FSIS has, on several 
occasions, contended that product was no longer within the 
establishment's control once it left the production facility's loading 
dock. Indeed, the agency has taken that position even when the product 
was stored on tractor-trailers still on the physical plant compound.
    The Rule should be amended to define, for purposes of compliance 
with the HACCP regulations, when a product is shipped. In that regard, 
product should be deemed to have been shipped for purposes of HACCP 
compliance when it has been sold to another entity and is no longer in 
the direct or effective control of the producing establishment. For 
example, when product owned by the establishment is stored at a cold 
storage warehouse and is still subject to movement at the direction of 
the establishment it should be deemed to be in the establishment's 
control.

The Provision Regarding Inadequate Plans Should Be Amended

    The Rule provides that a plant's HACCP plan may be deemed to be 
inadequate when ``adulterated product is produced or shipped.'' That 
provision however, is too draconian and should be amended to delete the 
reference to ``produced.''
    The checks built into a HACCP plan are intended to identify not 
only when the production process is working as intended, but also to 
alert an establishment when the process has not met the critical limits 
relevant to the identified CCPs. A HACCP plan operating, as intended, 
will alert a company when a critical limit has not been met for one of 
many reasons that can, over the course of time, be expected to occur. 
In some cases, that will result in the production of ``adulterated'' 
product as that term is defined in the Federal Meat Inspection Act and 
the Poultry Products Inspection Act. What is relevant for purposes of 
compliance with the Rule is whether administration of the HACCP plan 
resulted in the company being able to detect the problem, as well as 
enabling the company to take corrective action.
    A plant's operation should not be in jeopardy when it identifies a 
problem, as its plan is designed to do--even though adulterated product 
has been produced. The Rule, however, puts the agency in the position 
of taking action and deciding that an establishment's HACCP plan is 
inadequate when adulterated product is produced, even if the company 
caught the problem before any product left the plant's control. If the 
system is working a company should not be penalized. At a minimum, no 
plan should be deemed to be inadequate for deviations detected by the 
company in pre-shipment review. Numerous examples of such technical 
non-conformances can be cited and such instances have encumbered the 
agency and industry in resource intensive discussions that do not 
enhance public health protection. By modifying the Rule the squandering 
of valuable inspection resources can be avoided.
Specific Action Requested
    The undersigned organizations request that the FSIS HACCP 
regulations be amended as set forth below.
    Amend section 417.2(a)(1) to read as follows: ``Every official 
establishment shall conduct, or have conducted for it, a hazard 
analysis to develop a list of hazards that are of such severity and 
significance that they are reasonably likely to cause injury or illness 
if not effectively controlled. Hazards that are not reasonably likely 
to cause injury or illness do not require further consideration within 
a HACCP plan. The hazard analysis shall consider the ingredients and 
raw materials, each step in the process, product storage and 
distribution, and final preparation and use by the consumer.''
    Amend section 417.1 to include several necessary definitions to 
ensure consistency with the recommendations of the NACMCF. In that 
regard the following amendments should be promulgated.
    <bullet> Delete the term food safety hazard and provide the 
following definition of hazard: ``A biological, chemical, or physical 
agent that is reasonably likely to cause illness or injury in the 
absence of its control.''
    <bullet> Provide the following definition of hazard analysis: ``The 
process of collecting and evaluating information on hazards associated 
with the food under consideration to decide which are significant and 
must be addressed in the HACCP plan.''
    <bullet> Provide the following definition of severity: ``The 
seriousness of the effect(s) of a hazard.''
    <bullet> Provide the following definition of shipped: ``A product 
has been shipped if it has been sold to a third party and is not under 
the direct or effective control of the inspected establishment. 
Products have not been shipped in circumstances such as when the 
product is still owned by the inspected establishment, whether stored 
at the inspected establishment or at another storage location, as well 
as when the product is moving from one facility to another that is 
owned by the same person or company.''
    Amend section 417.3 to provide when product produced pursuant to a 
HACCP plan has been shipped for purposes of compliance with the rule. 
Specifically, section 417.3(b)(3) should be amended by striking the 
words ``enters commerce'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``is shipped.''
    Amend section 417.6(e) to provide that a HACCP system may be found 
to be inadequate when adulterated product has been shipped. 
Specifically, section 417.6(e) should be amended by striking ``produced 
or.''

[[Page 30956]]

Conclusion
    Amendments to the Rule as suggested by this Petition will advance 
the interests of government, industry, and the consuming public. The 
Food Safety and Inspection Service should proceed without further delay 
toward adoption of these amendments. With regard specifically to 
prerequisite programs, the undersigned organizations intend to engage 
the agency in discussions to develop the appropriate consideration of 
these programs within a comprehensive system for managing food safety, 
quality, and wholesomeness.
Certification
    The undersigned certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and 
belief, the Petition includes all information and views on which the 
Petition relies, and that it includes representative data and 
information known to the Petitioners that are unfavorable to the 
Petitioners.

      Respectfully submitted,

American Meat Institute
American Association of Meat Processors
National Chicken Council
National Food Processors Association
National Meat Association
National Turkey Federation
North American Meat Processors

Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy 
development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure 
that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this 
notice, FSIS will announce it and provide copies of this Federal 
Register publication in the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a 
weekly FSIS Constituent Update, which is communicated via fax to over 
300 organizations and individuals. In addition, the update is available 
on-line through the FSIS web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. 
The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, 
procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public 
meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could affect 
or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The 
constituent fax list consists of industry, trade, and farm groups, 
consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific 
professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be 
included. Through these various channels, FSIS is able to provide 
information to a much broader, more diverse audience. For more 
information and to be added to the constituent fax list, fax your 
request to the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-
5704.

    Done at Washington, DC, on: May 8, 2000.
Thomas J. Billy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-12156 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P