FSIS REVIEW OF STATE MEAT AND POULTRY 

INSPECTION PROGRAMS 

FISCAL YEAR 2023 SUMMARY REPORT 

Federal-State Audit Staff 

Office of Investigation, Enforcement and Audit 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

April 2024 

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

This report summarizes the results of 29 annual Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI) program 

reviews conducted by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (FSIS) in the fiscal year of 2023. The purpose of conducting these annual reviews is to 

ensure that all States with MPI programs are compliant with the "at least equal to" standard and 

administrative requirements of the State-Federal Cooperative Agreements signed with FSIS. 

FSIS is responsible for inspection services under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), as 

amended (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), as amended (21 

U.S.C. 451 et seq.), and the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1901 et 

seq.). It manages State-Federal cooperative agreements according to Section 301 of the FMIA 

(21 U.S.C. 661) and Section 5 of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 454). 

Under the FMIA (Section 301(c), 21 U.S.C. 661(c)) and the PPIA (Section 5(c), 21 U.S.C. 

454(c)), the USDA Secretary authorizes FSIS to conduct reviews of the State MPI programs 

annually to verify compliance with the "at least equal to" standard and the terms of the 

cooperative agreements. FSIS conducts an annual review of each State MPI program in 

accordance with FSIS Directive 5720.3, Methodology for Performing Scheduled and Targeted 

Reviews of State Meat and Poultry Programs. The results of the annual program review help 

FSIS determine whether to renew the cooperative agreement with the State. If FSIS determines 

that a State is incapable of meeting the terms of the cooperative agreement, it must assume full 

responsibility for inspection within that State. 

In FY 2023, FSIS signed cooperative agreements with 29 States1

 authorizing them to operate 

MPI programs. FSIS dispersed more than 67 million dollars to the States to administer costeffective MPI programs, regulating 1,450 small or very small State-inspected establishments, 

2,133 custom exempt operators, and a multitude of intrastate commerce2 firms and businesses. 

Distribution and sales of products produced under the State MPI programs are limited to 

intrastate commerce. 

Based on the program reviews conducted in FY 2023, FSIS determined all 29 State MPI 

programs provided adequate documentation supporting the implementation of MPI programs “at 

least equal to” the Federal requirements and in compliance with the signed cooperative 

agreements. FSIS determined that 9 of the 11 State MPI programs3

 subjected to onsite 

verification audits operated regulatory programs in accordance with the submitted selfassessment documentation. FSIS issued to Arkansas and Oregon’s newly developed MPI 

programs “at least equal to” with provisions determinations because the State-inspected 

establishments hardly operated during the onsite audits. Minimal slaughter and processing 

1 Currently, FSIS has signed State MPI cooperative agreements with Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, 

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

2 Intrastate commerce refers to the economic transactions and business activities that occur entirely within a single State’s 

borders. 

3 FSIS conducted onsite verification audits in the following States: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Montana, 

Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. 

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
 

 

operations conducted at State-inspected establishments precluded the State MPI programs from 

demonstrating their abilities to fully implement the written program procedures and policies as 

presented in the submitted self-assessments. Before making definitive determinations, FSIS will 

conduct targeted onsite audits of both State MPI programs in FY 2024. 

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... i 

I. Background................................................................................................................................ 3 

II. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ..................................................................................... 4 

Table 1 – FSIS Review Team Assignments by Components................................................. 7 

Table 2 – Guideline for Selecting a State-inspected Establishment Set to Audit................ 9 

Table 3 – Risk Determinants Table......................................................................................... 9 

III. Annual Determination ......................................................................................................... 13 

IV. Program Review Results...................................................................................................... 14 

Table 4 – FY 2023 Determinations for State MPI Program Subjected to a SelfAssessment Audit Only........................................................................................................... 15 

Table 5 – FY 2023 Determinations for State MPI Programs Subjected to a SelfAssessment Review and an Onsite Verification Audit......................................................... 16 

V. Next Steps................................................................................................................................ 16 

Appendices................................................................................................................................... 17 

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

APPENDICES 

A. ALABAMA 

B. ARIZONA 

C. ARKANSAS 

D. DELAWARE 

E. GEORGIA 

F. ILLINOIS 

G. INDIANA 

H. IOWA 

I. KANSAS 

J. LOUISIANA 

K. MAINE 

L. MINNESOTA 

M. MISSISSIPPI 

N. MISSOURI 

O. MONTANA 

P. NORTH CAROLINA 

Q. NORTH DAKOTA 

R. OHIO 

S. OKLAHOMA 

T. OREGON 

U. SOUTH CAROLINA 

V. SOUTH DAKOTA 

W. TEXAS 

X. UTAH 

Y. VERMONT 

Z. VIRGINIA 

AA.WEST VIRGINIA 

BB. WISCONSIN 

CC. WYOMING 

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. Background 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is a public health regulatory agency of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). Its main responsibility is to ensure that meat, poultry, and 

egg products, whether domestic or imported, are safe, properly labeled, and wholesome. The 

mission of FSIS is to protect public health by preventing illness from meat, poultry, and egg 

products. To carry out its functions, FSIS is authorized by the Federal Meat Inspection Act 

(FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), which allow FSIS to act as the 

Secretary of Agriculture. These acts mandate FSIS to protect the public by ensuring that meat 

and poultry products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. 

In 1967, the Talmadge-Aiken Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into 

cooperative agreements with States or representative State agencies. These agreements assist the 

Secretary of Agriculture in enforcing relevant Federal laws and regulations to the extent and in 

the manner appropriate to the public interest (7 U.S.C. 450). 

Since 1967, States with State MPI programs have become key FSIS partners and integral parts of 

the nation’s food safety system. The cooperative agreements between FSIS and State agencies 

set forth the terms of the formal working relationships. Cooperation with State agencies under 

the FMIA and PPIA may include furnishing to the appropriate State agency advisory assistance 

in planning and developing an adequate State program under the State law. It may also include 

technical and laboratory assistance and training (including necessary curricular and instructional 

materials and equipment), and financial and other aid for administration of such a program. The 

FMIA (21 U.S.C. 661) and the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 454) authorize FSIS to cooperate with State 

agencies in developing and administering State MPI programs. The FMIA and the PPIA limit the 

inspection and regulatory authorities of each cooperative State MPI program to meat and poultry 

products that are produced, transported, stored, and sold within the State (21 U.S.C. 661(a)(1) 

and 454(a)(1)). The cooperative State MPI program is required to operate in a manner and with 

authorities “at least equal to” the provisions set out in the FMIA (21 U.S.C. 661(a)(1) and the 

PPIA (454(a)(1)). 

As stated in the signed cooperative agreement, a State MPI program is required to operate in a 

manner and with authorities “at least equal to,” but not necessarily identical to, the provisions set 

out in the FMIA and the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 661 (a)(1) & 454 (a)(1)). The “at least equal to” 

standard requires a State MPI Program to operate under laws, administrative rules, and 

governing regulations that are at least as effective as those imposed for the Federal inspection 

program. Additionally, the State MPI program is required to ensure that livestock are treated 

humanely by imposing humane handling requirements that are “at least equal to” the 

requirements FSIS has established under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) (7 

U.S.C. 1901–1906). 

The Acts provide for FSIS to contribute up to 50 percent funding to a cooperative State MPI 

program for these services annually if the State program is effectively enforcing requirements 

that are “at least equal to” the Federal program (21 U.S.C. 661(a)(3) and 454(a)(3)). This Federal 

funding cannot exceed 50 percent of the estimated total cost to operate the cooperative State MPI 

program. Such cooperation and payment are also contingent upon the administration of the State 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MPI program in full compliance with the signed cooperative agreement between the State or 

State agency and FSIS. If a State is unable or unwilling to continue to operate a cooperative State 

inspection program in an “at least equal to” manner, FSIS designates1 the State as not having an 

“at least equal to” program by publishing this designation in the Federal Register. After the 

expiration of 3030 days of such publication, the State establishments are subject to Federal 

inspection (21 U.S.C. 661(c)(1) and 454(c)(1)). 

In FY 2023, FSIS signed cooperative agreements with 29 States2 authorizing them to operate 

MPI programs. FSIS dispersed more than 67 million dollars to the States to administer costeffective MPI programs, regulating 1,450 small or very small State-inspected establishments, 

2,133 custom exempt operators, and a multitude of intrastate commerce3 firms and businesses. 

Distribution and sales of products produced under the State MPI programs are limited to 

intrastate commerce. 

Under the FMIA (Section 301(c), 21 U.S.C. 661(c)) and the PPIA (Section 5(c), 21 U.S.C. 

454(c)), the Secretary of Agriculture authorizes FSIS to conduct program reviews of the State 

MPI programs at least annually to verify compliance with the “at least equal to” standard and the 

terms of the cooperative agreements. FSIS conducts an annual program review of each State MPI 

program in accordance with the FSIS Directive 5720.3, Methodology for Performing Scheduled 

and Targeted Reviews of State Meat and Poultry Programs. FSIS analyzes the results of each 

annual program review to determine whether to renew the cooperative agreement with the 

applicable State or State agency. For this reason, the annual program review cycle coincides with 

the Federal fiscal year. 

II. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

FSIS conducted program reviews of all 29 State MPI programs in accordance with FSIS 

Directive 5720.3, Methodology for Performing Scheduled and Targeted Reviews of State Meat 

and Poultry Inspection Programs. The review methodology required the FSIS review teams to 

plan and conduct program reviews to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to support all 

findings and conclusions based on the review objectives. 

The objectives of each program review are to verify the following: 

• State imposes laws, regulations, and governing regulations with authorities “at least equal 

to” those provided by the FMIA (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq. and PPIA (21 U.S.C. 451, et 

seq.); 

1 Designate means all establishments within the State where livestock or poultry amenable to Federal inspection are 

slaughtered, or their carcasses or parts are prepared or processed for use as human food under the State’s inspection 

program, must be transferred to the Federal meat and poultry inspection program overseen by FSIS. 2 Currently, FSIS has signed State MPI cooperative agreements with Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, 

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

3 Intrastate commerce refers to the economic transactions and business activities that occur entirely within a single State's 

borders. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• State administers a State MPI program capable of ensuring meat and poultry products 

produced, distributed, and sold within the State are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and 

properly labeled; 

• State MPI program carries out its regulatory oversight activities effectively and 

efficiently; and 

• State MPI program complies with all terms of the signed cooperative agreement between 

FSIS and the State. 

Each program review focused on administrative and regulatory activities performed by a State 

MPI program relating to the following nine “at least equal to” components: 

1. Statutory Authority and Food Safety Regulations – This component evaluates whether 

the State MPI program operates under laws and regulations that provide legal authorities 

“at least equal to” those imposed by FSIS for the ante-mortem and post-mortem 

inspection, reinspection, sanitation, record keeping, and enforcement provisions of the 

FMIA,PPIA,, and the HMSA. 

2. Inspection – This component evaluates whether State MPI program personnel perform 

inspection activities to verify whether establishments comply with applicable regulations 

and take appropriate enforcement actions when establishments are not in compliance with 

provisions that are “at least equal to” those of FSIS. 

3. Sampling Programs – This component evaluates whether State MPI program personnel 

sample meat or poultry products to verify whether they are free of adulterants (e.g., 

Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157:H7 in raw, non-intact, beef products, and raw ground 

beef components; Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) serotypes in beef manufacturing 

trimmings; Listeria monocytogenes (L. monocytogenes) and Salmonella in ready-to-eat 

(RTE) products; or drug residues at violative levels), comply with Salmonella and 

Campylobacter performance standards in raw classes of meat and poultry, comply with 

other consumer protection standards, and are properly labeled (e.g., with nutrition 

information). 

4. Staffing, Training, and Supervision – This component evaluates whether the State MPI 

program provides competent inspection coverage in each establishment on days the 

establishment produces product that, if found to be safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and 

properly labeled, is to bear the State mark of inspection. 

5. Humane Handling – This component evaluates whether State MPI program personnel 

perform regulatory verification procedures to assess whether establishment personnel 

humanely handle all livestock and take appropriate regulatory actions in response to 

noncompliance. State MPI program personnel are also to perform regulatory verification 

procedures to assess whether poultry carcasses showing evidence of having died from 

causes other than slaughter are considered adulterated and condemned. In addition, 

personnel are to assess whether poultry is slaughtered in accordance with good 

commercial practices in a manner that results in thorough bleeding of the poultry carcass 

and ensures that breathing has stopped before scalding so that the birds do not drown. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Compliance – This component evaluates whether State MPI program personnel perform 

surveillance activities concerning meat or poultry products in intrastate commerce and 

take appropriate enforcement actions if adulterated or misbranded products enter 

intrastate commerce. 

7. Laboratory Quality Assurance Program and Methods – This component evaluates 

whether State MPI programs maintain laboratory methods and laboratory quality 

assurance programs that address food pathogen and food chemistry analytes. 

8. Civil Rights – This component evaluates whether the State MPI program adheres to 

Federal civil rights laws and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s civil rights regulations. 

9. Financial Accountability4 – This component evaluates whether the State MPI program 

conforms with2 CFR Part 400 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, 

and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards and follows FSIS Directive 3300.1, Fiscal 

Guidelines for Cooperative Inspection Programs. 

In FY 2023, FSIS assembled multi-disciplinary review teams to perform the program reviews for 

the 29 State MPI programs. The review teams were comprised of subject matter experts from the 

Civil Rights Staff (CRS), Federal-State audit Staff (FSAS), Financial Review and Systems 

Branch (FRSB), and Laboratory Quality Assurance, Response, and Coordination Staff 

(LQARCS). Review team members were assigned to conduct review activities only for 

components relevant to their expertise. The review team analyzed the results of nine component 

reviews before making an overall determination regarding the “at least equal to” status of the 

State MPI program. 

The FSIS program review methodology consists of two parts: (1) an annual review of a State 

MPI program’s self-assessment submission (self-assessment review) and (2) a triennial onsite 

verification audit (onsite audit). FSIS used its analyses of the self-assessment review results as 

the basis of the annual determination for a State MPI program. When the onsite audit is 

conducted, FSIS makes its annual determination for a State MPI program based on the results of 

the self-assessment review and onsite audit. 

FSIS maintains a cyclical 3-year review schedule to ensure each State MPI program is subjected 

to a self-assessment review annually and an onsite audit at least every 3 years. The cyclical 3-

year review schedule is dynamic. Thus, FSIS may conduct unscheduled targeted onsite reviews 

of a State MPI program at any time the evidence or conditions identified during the program 

review suggest the existence of operational findings that may result in unacceptable risk to public 

health. 

4 Considering the current economic conditions, some State governments are experiencing financial challenges, which may result in 

overall budget cuts or the enactment of laws that could jeopardize the administration of their meat and poultry inspection programs. 

To ensure the safety of State-inspected meat and poultry products, FSIS has initiated more vigilant monitoring to track and analyze 

circumstances and conditions that adversely affect the State MPI program’s financial resources. When FSIS identifies concerns with 

a State MPI program’s financial sresource, the Agency will further examine each situation to determine the impact on the State MPI 

program’s inspection activities, product sampling programs, staffing, and compliance activities.. The Agency will also determine if 

the State MPI program smaintains its “at least equal to” status. 

6 
 

 

 

Part 1 – Self-Assessment Review 

The FSIS audit teams conducted self-assessment reviews for all 29 State MPI programs. FSIS 

required each State MPI program to submit all self-assessment documents to the State Review 

and Communication Tool (SRCT) or directly to the requesting FSIS staff by November 1 (see 

Table 1). 

Table 1 – FSIS Review Team Assignments by Components 

Component Self-assessment Documents 

Submission Method 

Reviewing Staff/FSIS Program Area 

Components 1-6 Electronically via SRCT FSAS/The Office of Enforcement, 

Investigation and Audit (OIEA) 

Component 7 Electronically via general staff 

email box 

LQARCS/The Office of Public 

Health and Science 

Component 8 Electronically via general staff 

email box 

CRS 

Component 9 Electronically via general staff 

email box 

FRSB/The Office of Chief Financial 

Officer (OCFO) 

FSAS Components 1-6 Self-assessment Review 

The FSAS auditors reviewed and analyzed each State MPI program’s Components 1–6 survey 

responses and supporting documentation that were uploaded in the SRCT. The submitted 

documents included State laws, administrative rules and regulations relevant to the State MPI 

program; descriptions of the State MPI program’s administrative and operational systems and 

related policies; and evidence of regulatory activities performed in the last 12 months. During the 

self-assessment reviews, FSAS auditors interviewed State MPI program officials to gain a better 

understanding of survey responses or submitted self-assessment documents. FSAS issued an 

interim report to State MPI programs subjected to only self-assessment reviews; an onsite audit 

notification letter to State MPI programs also subjected to the onsite audit process. FSAS carbon 

copied CRS, LQARCS, and FRSB on all interim reports and onsite audit notification letters 

issued. 

LQARCS Component 7 Self-assessment Review 

LQARCS reviewed and verified that each State MPI program used product sampling and 

laboratory methods with capabilities and safeguards “at least equal to” FSIS’ product sampling 

and laboratory methods. Each State MPI program must meet the criteria to achieve and maintain 

“at least equal to” laboratory methods in the following three areas: (1) Program Sampling and 

Reporting, (2) Laboratory Quality Assurance Programs, and (3) Laboratory Testing Methods. 

Each State MPI program submitted to LQARCS for evaluation completed FSIS Form 5720-15, 

Laboratory Method Notification Form, and FSIS Form 5720-14, State Meat and Poultry 

Inspection (MPI) Program Laboratory Quality Management System Checklist. The submitted 

CComponent 7 forms included information regarding minimum quality assurance practices, a list 

of analytical methods and procedures, names of all analysts trained on each method, and a list of 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the laboratory proficiency testing programs. In addition, LQARCS interviewed laboratory 

personnel and requested corrective action responses along with objective evidence for any 

findings identified during the self-assessment reviews. LQARCS issued a closeout letter to the 

State agency, and carbon copied it to FSAS upon completion of the self-assessment review. 

CRS Component 8 Self-assessment Review 

CRS reviewed and evaluated each State MPI program’s completed FSIS Form 1520-1, Civil 

Rights Compliance of State Inspection Programs, to verify the State’s overall compliance with 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. When 

applicable, CRS requested the State MPI program to resolve any inconsistencies identified 

during the self-assessment reviews. CRS issued a closeout letter to the State agency, and carbon 

copied it to FSAS upon completing the self-assessment review. 

FRSB Component 9 Self-assessment Review 

FRSB reviewed each State MPI program’s completed forms to assess compliance with the terms 

of the signed cooperative agreements and the financial and administrative requirements of FSIS 

Directive 3300.1, Fiscal Guidelines for Cooperative Inspection Programs. As a part of its review 

process, FRSB monitored and evaluated each State MPI program’s financial reporting 

throughout the Federal fiscal year to verify compliance with the following certification 

requirements of review Component 9: 

• Submission of an annual budget to OCFO and all data requested. 

• Submission of an annual indirect cost proposal to FRSB (due within 66 months after the 

close of the State fiscal year). 

• Submission and reconciliation of Federal Financial Reports (SF-425) by FRSB for four 

quarters. The quarterly reports are due within 3030 days after the close of each quarter. 

• Timely resolution of all corrective actions on financial findings pursuant to the 

onsite fiscal review. 

OCFO provided annual assurance statements to FSAS indicating that the State agencies were 

current in the financial reporting activities required throughout FY 2023. 

Part 2 – Onsite Audit 

In FY 2023, FSIS conducted 11 triennial verification onsite audits. During the onsite audits, the 

FSIS review teams examined and analyzed State MPI program functions at State offices, Stateinspected establishments, contract laboratories, custom exempt operators, retail firms, and other 

in-commerce businesses. The FSIS audit teams interviewed State officials, reviewed program 

records, and observed program activities to verify all review objectives were met and that the 

State MPI programs’ administrative and operational systems were implemented as documented 

in their self-assessment submissions. 

FSAS Onsite Audit 

FSAS sent written notifications to the State MPI programs to inform them about the scheduled 

dates for the upcoming onsite audits, before conducting Component 1–6 reviews. In preparation 

for the onsite audits, the FSAS auditors thoroughly reviewed determination summaries, 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

documented the results of the self-assessment reviews, and included notes regarding any 

potential program nonconformities to be examined during the onsite audits. To begin each onsite 

audit, FSAS held an entrance meeting with State MPI program officials to discuss the audit 

objectives, scope, and methodology. 

FSIS analyzed the SRCT responses regarding the State MPI program’s regulatory and 

administrative activities conducted within review Components 1-6 during the preceding 12 

months. The preparation process included the analysis of data collected by FSIS over three years 

and information obtained directly from State MPI programs through the SRCT. 

For each onsite audit of a State MPI program, FSIS selected a representative set of Stateinspected establishments to be audited using a two-step risk-based systematic approach. The goal 

was to audit a sufficient number of State-inspected establishments during each onsite audit to 

provide a known, acceptable level of confidence that incidents of nonconformity and 

noncompliance would be identified. First, FSAS determined appropriate sample sizes 

(establishment sets) from total populations of State-inspected establishments to audit each 

scheduled State MPI program onsite audit using Table 2 – Guideline for Selecting a Stateinspected Establishment Set to Audit. 

Table 2 – Guideline for Selecting a State-inspected Establishment Set to Audit 

Total Population of State-inspected Establishments Establishment Sets 

1-30 7 

31-50 10 

51-100 13 

101+ 15 

Next, FSAS populated the establishment sets by ranking and selecting establishments in order of 

risk, from highest to lowest priority risk, using Table 3 – Risk Determinants. Each selected 

establishment met at least one risk determinant listed in the table. The intent is to select 

establishments in order of risk until the establishment set is complete. FSIS included one lowpriority risk establishment to verify the results of MPI program’s regulatory activities reflect the 

actual condition observed at the establishment. It allows FSAS to assess the effectiveness of the 

risk-based approach. 

Table 3 – Risk Determinants Table 

Priority Risk 

Category Description of Risk Determinants 

Human Illness, Class I or Class II public health recall, or public health alert linked to 

Establishment in past 12 months 

High Priority Risks 

Establishments with positive sample results (RTE pathogens or STEC)in the past 12 

months 

Establishments with one or more sets exceeding Salmonella Performance Standards 

(Category 3) in Past 12 months 

Establishments with Tier 1 Public Health Regulation (PHR) NC Rate in the past 12 

months 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Medium Priority Risks 

Human Illness, Class I or Class II public health recall, or public health alert linked to 

Establishment in past 13 – 36 months 

Establishments with positive sample results (RTE pathogens or STEC) in the past 13 – 

36 months 

Establishments with one or more sets exceeding Salmonella Performance Standards 

(Category 3) in Past 13 – 36 months 

Establishments linked to administrative enforcements (e.g., suspensions, withholding 

the marks, notices of intended enforcements imposed during the preceding 12 months 

Establishments that sustained structural damage in production areas due to a natural 

disaster during the preceding 12 months 

Miscellaneous meat and poultry inspection (MPI) program-based issues (e.g., isolated 

establishments, new establishments, establishments within the assignments of new 

program inspectors or circuit supervisors, etc.) since last FSIS audit 

Establishments producing large volumes of products under the following HACCP 

categories*: Slaughter, Raw/Non-Intact, Raw Intact, Fully Cooked/Not Shelf Stable 

Post-lethality Exposed, Not Heat Treated/Shelf Stable, Heat Treated/Not Fully 

Cooked/Not Shelf Stable, Secondary Inhibitors, Heat Treated/Shelf Stable, Full 

Cooked/Not Shelf Stable Not Post-lethality Exposed, and Thermally Processed. 

*The HACCP categories are ranked by inherited risk (highest to lowest) per FSIS 

Directive 5000.6, Performance of the Hazard Analysis Verification Task. 

Establishments with documented public health regulations (PHR) based on 

noncompliances documented during last FSIS onsite audit. 

Establishments with Tier 2 PHR NC Rates in the past 12 months 

Low Priority Risks Risk footprint ranking of the remaining establishments 

During the onsite audits, FSAS reviewed each selected State-inspected establishment included in 

the establishment set to assess a State MPI program’s ability to conduct regulatory inspections 

and food safety verifications in the context of the “at least equal to” standard. At each Stateinspected establishment review, the FSAS auditors: 

• Observed the State MPI program’s enforcement of applicable State requirements on 

HACCP, Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures, Sanitation Performance Standards, 

non-food safety consumer protection, control of specified risk material, humane handling, 

and custom and retail exempt requirements; 

• Observed State MPI program inspectors as they perform ante-mortem and post-mortem 

inspection procedures; 

• Examined any enforcement letters, food safety assessment results, and noncompliance 

records (NR) from the previous 12 months to determine any trends of noncompliance and 

assess whether NRs are fully and accurately completed and closed in a timely manner; 

• Documented noncompliance observed at the establishment that the State MPI program 

failed to identify or for which the State MPI program failed to take appropriate 

regulatory action; 

• Observed the extent to which establishment management and State MPI program 

officials interacted to prevent regulatory noncompliances that threaten food safety; 

• Discussed the review findings with State MPI Program officials; and 

• Ensured, before leaving an establishment, that State MPI program officials have taken 

appropriate actions with respect to all noncompliances observed during the 

establishment review. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The FSAS auditors, with the help of OIEA, Compliance and Investigations Division (CID), 

conducted 'ride along' reviews to ensure the effective implementation of each State MPI 

program's compliance program. These reviews included state compliance officers conducting 

a variety of compliance activities such as custom exempt operator reviews, in-commerce 

surveillance activities, investigations, product controls, etc. The FSIS audit teams also 

reviewed product sampling, staffing, training, compliance, internal control activities, and 

related documents at State offices. These activities were conducted to verify that observed 

operations and policies implemented by State MPI programs reflect those described in the 

submitted self-assessment documents and were carried out effectively. 

After the completion of the Component 1-6 reviews, FSAS identified findings by comparing 

the results of onsite verification findings against the program standard policies, procedures, 

and supporting evidence submitted in the current year's self-assessment. FSAS held an exit 

meeting with State MPI program officials to present the results of the Component 1-6 review 

and communicated an expectation for the State MPI program to submit a written corrective 

action plan (CAP) for resolving all review findings. The CAP must include the underlying 

causes of any findings, propose corrective actions for resolving each finding, and an 

implementation timeline for all proposed corrective actions. 

FSAS concluded the Components 1-6 onsite audits by issuing an interim report detailing audit 

observations, vulnerabilities, and findings to the respective State MPI program, if applicable. 

Copies of the interim reports were shared with CRS, FRSB, and LQARCS. FSAS classified 

findings into two categories: noncompliance and nonconformity. Noncompliance is a failure 

to meet a regulatory requirement outlined in 9 CFR, which all State MPI programs have 

adopted as the governing set of regulations for meat and poultry operations under their 

jurisdiction. Nonconformity is a failure of the State MPI program or any State official to 

comply with an administrative or operational standard, policy, or procedure submitted in the 

current year's self-assessment document. In addition to findings, FSAS may identify program 

vulnerabilities during the onsite audit. A vulnerability is an observed weakness involving a 

program or management practice that may jeopardize the State MPI program's ability to carry 

out its public health and regulatory objectives if it is not corrected. Vulnerabilities do not rise 

to the level of noncompliance or nonconformity because, currently, FSIS does not require the 

State MPI program to have a set policy or standard for the observed practice. 

LQARCS Onsite Audit 

LQARCS microbiologists and chemists performed scheduled onsite audits of each contract 

laboratory that performs testing for the 11 State MPI programs. The purpose of the onsite audits 

was to verify that each laboratory applied laboratory methods with capabilities and safeguards in 

accordance with the submitted Component 7 self-assessment documents. 

During each laboratory audit, LQARCS verified compliance with the required laboratory quality 

assurance activities, employed trained analysts to perform the submitted analytical methods as 

written, and maintained the capability to perform applicable analyses. LQARCS reviewed the 

records of laboratories supporting the food safety and regulatory activities of State MPI 

programs to ensure that the full implementation of all methods and the laboratory’s quality 

system comply with applicable FSIS ““at least equal to”” standards. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

LQARCS microbiologists and chemists held exit meetings with each laboratory to discuss all 

identified nonconformances regarding quality assurance and method requirements during the 

audit to ensure that the laboratory contacts had a clear understanding of the identified 

nonconformances. Within 30 days of completing an onsite laboratory audit, LQARCS distributed 

an audit report to the contract laboratory. 

When applicable, each laboratory was given 30 days to provide corrective action responses 

(CARs) and objective evidence to support the described actions taken to resolve any 

nonconformance identified in the audit report. LQARCS reviewed the submitted CARs and 

verified nonconformances were resolved. After reviewing and accepting the submitted CAR, 

LQARCS distributed an audit closure letter to the laboratory. LQARCS provided a Component 

7determination regarding each laboratory audited to FSAS before the end of FY 2023. 

In instances when an identified nonconformance remained unresolved by a laboratory, LQARCS 

worked with the laboratory to establish a timeline for resolving them. LQARCS issued a closure 

letter upon the laboratory’s successful resolution of the nonconformance and relayed the 

information to FSAS. 

CRS Onsite Audit 

CRS reviewed 11 State MPI programs’ management controls for preventing discrimination in the 

delivery of program services to determine whether they are “at least equal to” FSIS’ management 

controls, which are designed to prevent discrimination in the delivery of program services. The 

reviews were conducted to determine compliance with applicable Civil Rights statutes, USDA 

regulations, and FSIS policies and, where necessary, to provide recommendations for program 

improvement. CRS held an entrance meeting with each reviewed State MPI program to discuss 

the compliance review purpose and procedures. Each onsite review’s scope focused on the 

State’s compliance in eight components: (1) Civil Rights Assurances; (2) State Infrastructure and 

Program Accountability; (3) Public Notification; (4) Complaints of Discrimination; (5) Civil 

Rights Training; (6) Civil Rights Compliance, (7) Program Accessibility to Individuals with 

Limited English Proficiency; and (8) Compliance with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. 

The CRS reviewer thoroughly assessed the State MPI program’s submitted FSIS Form 1520-1, 

Civil Rights Compliance of State Inspection Programs, in preparation for each onsite review. 

The CRS reviewer conducted compliance reviews of Civil Rights notifications and posters and a 

facility assessment of the State office building’s accessibility for persons with disabilities. In 

addition, the CRS reviewer interviewed establishment owners or firm operators to determine 

whether the State MPI program provided inspection services in a nondiscriminatory manner. 

After completing each onsite review, the CRS reviewer discussed all findings and, when 

necessary, provided recommendations for program improvement. Within 120 days of the onsite 

audit, the CRS reviewer provided an audit results report to the State MPI program and FSAS, 

documenting any applicable findings and recommendations. CRS confirmed implementation of 

recommendations by requiring the State MPI program to report the implementation status of 

recommendations in the next annual self-assessment submission of FSIS 1520-1 Form, Civil 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rights Compliance of State Inspection Programs. Upon receipt of the self-assessment, CRS 

issued a letter of determination based on the information provided in the self-assessment. 

FRSB Onsite Audit 

FRSB held an entrance meeting with each State MPI program audited to explain the purpose, 

scope, and procedures. The audit scope focused on financial records and reports for the previous 

three Federal fiscal years encompassed the State MPI program’s Federal-State Cooperative 

Agreement and other applicable cooperative agreements5

. 

Each financial audit and analysis was conducted in accordance with the U.S. Government 

Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States of America, FSIS 

Directive 3300.1, Fiscal Guidelines for CIPs; FSIS Directive 5720.3, Methodology for 

Performing Scheduled and Targeted Reviews of State Meat and Poultry Inspection Programs; 

“At Least Equal To” Guidelines for State Meat and Poultry Cooperative Inspection Programs; 

and 2 CFR Part 400 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit 

Requirements for Federal Awards. 

During each audit, the FRSB auditor reviewed the internal control structure of the State agency 

managing the State MPI program; prepared a detailed reconciliation of the proposal costs to the 

accounting records; reviewed management’s classifications of exclusions, unallowable costs, 

indirect and direct costs; conducted limited transaction testing to determine the reasonableness, 

allowability and allocability of exclusions, indirect and direct costs; and reviewed equipment or 

building usage costs. 

After completing each onsite audit, FRSB held an exit meeting to discuss audit results. The 

FRSB reviewer provided to the State agency and State MPI program a report detailing audit 

results, which may have included audit findings and recommendations. When applicable, the 

FRSB reviewer worked with the State agency to develop a corrective plan to resolve audit 

findings. Once the findings were resolved, the FRSB issued a closeout letter to the State agency 

and carbon copied it to FSAS. 

III. Annual Determination 

FSIS provides a determination for each component based on the respective State MPI program 

reviews conducted by FSAS, LQARCS, CRS and FRSB. Following each self-assessment review 

and onsite audit, if applicable, FSIS compares the results of the nine component reviews to the 

“at least equal to” standard for the relevant component to determine whether the State MPI 

program met the component’s standard. FSIS collectively evaluates the nine component 

determinations to make one of the following three overall determinations: 

(1) “At Least Equal To” means that the State MPI program imposes applicable State laws, 

regulations, and policies necessary to operate an inspection program in a manner that is 

“at least equal to” Federal requirements for all review components. 

5 FSIS and State agencies may cooperate under the following additional cooperative agreements: the Talmadge/Aiken 

Overtime or Cross Utilization Award Programs and the Federal-State Cooperative Inspection Programs. FSIS conducts separate 

reviews of these programs to verify compliance with the terms of the cooperative agreements. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

(2) “At Least Equal To with Provisions” means that the State MPI program has not fully 

implemented effective measures proposed to resolve findings identified in one or more 

review components by the end of the review year. The State MPI program needs 

additional time to demonstrate effective resolution of review findings and full compliance 

with the “at least equal to” Federal requirements. 

(3) Not “At Least Equal To” means that the State MPI program does not impose State laws, 

regulations, or policies necessary to operate an inspection program in a manner that is “at 

least equal to” Federal requirements for all review components. 

FSIS will notify State MPI program officials in writing if the State's MPI program is issued an 

“at least equal to” determination. Before making a determination, FSIS may request additional 

information from State officials to give the State MPI program sufficient opportunity to support 

its “at least equal to” claims or to demonstrate corrective actions taken in response of review 

findings. If FSIS determines that a State MPI program is unable or unwilling to maintain an 

inspection program that is “at least equal to” the Federal inspection program, the USDA 

Secretary will promptly notify the Governor of the State and allow the State an opportunity to 

discuss the Agency’s findings and recommendation to designate the State. If a State MPI 

program becomes subject to the designation process, the FSIS Office of Policy and Program 

Development’s Issuance Staff will prepare a Federal Register notice informing the public that the 

State has been designated, as required by the FMIA (Section 301(c), 21 U.S.C. 661(c) and PPIA 

(Section 5(c), 21 U.S.C. 454(c)), and that the designated State’s meat or poultry product 

establishments will be subject to Federal inspection 30 days after publication of the notice. 

IV. Program Review Results 

FSAS compiled component determination reports and supporting documents from CRS, FRSB, 

and LQARCS for all 29 State MPI programs. After compiling the component reports, FSAS 

created corresponding annual comprehensive determination reports for publication on the FSIS 

website and distributed to applicable State MPI programs. The individual program reviews 

conducted for each State MPI program are detailed in the attached annual comprehensive 

determination report. 

In FY 2023, FSIS received self-assessments from the 29 State MPI programs. Based on reviews 

of the submitted self-assessments, FSIS determined that all States had developed and maintained 

necessary laws, administrative rules, regulations, program policies, and related operational 

procedures and records to administer programs "at least equal to" the Federal program. The selfassessment determinations for each State MPI program are summarized in Table 4. 

After conducting self-assessment reviews, FSIS audited and determined that nine State MPI 

programs - Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Montana, Ohio, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming -

were "at least equal to" the Federal program as described in their self-assessment submissions. 

FSIS also conducted initial onsite verification audits of the Arkansas and Oregon MPI programs. 

FSIS issued to Arkansas and Oregon’s newly developed MPI programs “at least equal to” with 

provisions determinations because the State-inspected establishments hardly operated during the 

onsite audits. Minimal slaughter and processing operations conducted at State-inspected 

establishments precluded the State MPI programs from demonstrating their abilities to fully 

14 
 

 

 

 

implement the written program procedures and policies as presented in the submitted selfassessments. Before making definitive determinations, FSIS will conduct targeted onsite audits 

of both State MPI programs in FY 2024. 

The determinations for all onsite verification audits conducted this year are listed in Table 5. For 

further details, refer to the attached individual State reports. 

Table 4 – FY 2023 Determinations for State MPI Program Subjected to a Self-Assessment 

Audit Only 

State “At Least Equal To”6 “At Least Equal To” 

with Provisions7 

Not “At Least Equal 

To”8 

Delaware 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Oklahoma 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Texas 

Virginia 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

6 “At Least Equal To” – The State MPI program imposes applicable State laws, regulations, and policies necessary to operate an 

inspection program in a manner that is “at least equal to” Federal requirements for all review components. 

7 “At Least Equal To” with Provisions – The State MPI program has not fully implemented effective measures proposed to 

resolve findings identified in one or more review component by the end of the review year. The State MPI program needs 

additional time to demonstrate effective resolution of review findings and full compliance with the “at least equal to” Federal 

requirements. 

8 Not “At Least Equal To” –. The State MPI program does not impose State laws, regulations, or policies necessary to operate an 

inspection program in a manner that is “at least equal to” Federal requirements for all review components. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5 – FY 2023 Determinations for State MPI Programs Subjected to a Self-Assessment 

Review and an Onsite Verification Audit 

State “At Least Equal To”12 “At Least Equal To” 

with Provisions13 

Not “At Least Equal 

To”14 

Alabama 

Arkansas 

Arizona 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Montana 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Utah 

Vermont 

Wyoming 

V. Next Steps 

By April 2024, FSIS will publish this annual summary report on the FSIS website and attach 29 

individual State MPI program reports detailing the results and final determinations of the 

program audits. 

In FY 2024, FSIS will conduct 29 self-assessment program reviews, 9 scheduled onsite 

verification and 2 targeted onsite audits in accordance with FSIS Directive 5720.3, Methodology 

for Performing Scheduled and Targeted Reviews of State Meat and Poultry Inspection Programs. 

FSIS and the State MPI programs will continue to monitor media and other information sources 

for new or revised State laws, financial expenditures, and program governance practices that may 

detrimentally impact the abilities of the 29 States to administer meat and poultry inspection 

programs that continue to meet “at least equal to” standards. 

12 “At Least Equal To” – The State MPI program imposes applicable State laws, regulations, and policies necessary to operate an 

inspection program in a manner that is “at least equal to” Federal requirements for all review components. 13 “At Least Equal To” with Provisions – The State MPI program has not fully implemented effective measures proposed to 

resolve findings identified in one or more review component by the end of the review year. The State MPI program needs 

additional time to demonstrate effective resolution of review findings and full compliance with the “at least equal to” Federal 

requirements. 

14 Not “At Least Equal To” – The State MPI program does not impose State laws, regulations, or policies necessary to operate an 

inspection program in a manner that is “at least equal to” Federal requirements for all review components. 

16 
Appendices 

ANNUAL INDIVIDUAL STATE MPI PROGRAM REPORTS 

[PLACEHOLDER] 

17