Australia's Meat Safety Enhancement Program (MSEP)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

[Docket No. 99-026N]

Australia's Meat Safety Enhancement Program (MSEP)

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of equivalence decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing

its decision that the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service's

(AQIS) Meat Safety Enhancement Program (MSEP) for slaughter inspection

in establishments that slaughter meat for export to the United States:

(1) Meets all requirements of U.S. law for the import of product to the

United States; (2) provides the same level of public health protection

as U.S. domestic slaughter inspection; and, (3) is therefore

equivalent. The Agency will review its equivalence decision when AQIS

completes the MSEP field trials and prepares a report for FSIS review.

In the interim, Australian establishments that participate in the MSEP

field trials may ship product to the United States.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the MSEP document are available from the FSIS

Docket Clerk, Room 102 Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-3700. A copy may also be obtained from the Australian

Quarantine and Inspection Service homepage at http://www.dpie.gov.au/

aqis/homepage.

A transcript of the public meeting is available for review by the

public in the FSIS Docket Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Manis, Director,

International Policy Division; Office of Policy, Program Development,

and Evaluation; (202) 720-6400; or by electronic mail to

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

FSIS published a notice in the Federal Register on January 15, 1999

(64 FR 2621) announcing the availability of a document prepared by AQIS

that sets forth AQIS's plan to conduct field trials of the MSEP--a new

slaughter inspection system. Australia sought the concurrence of the

United States in order to continue meat exports to this country from

plants that participate in a pilot test of MSEP. FSIS requested

comments on the document that the public could submit in writing or at

a public meeting.

Public Comments

FSIS held a public meeting on February 3, 1999, to discuss the MSEP

program and hear public comments. At this meeting, AQIS presented its

program and responded to concerns raised by attendees.

Most of the written comments expressed opposition to MSEP

equivalence.

Those in favor pointed out that the MSEP proposal resolves issues

raised in November 1997 when FSIS informed AQIS that Project 2 (an

earlier version of MSEP) was not equivalent because it did not provide

an adequate form or intensity of Federal oversight. Favorable comments

also cited the AQIS commitment to station a Government inspector on

each slaughter line at a point between carcass trimming and final rinse

for 100% verification that zero-fecal and other defect requirements

have been met.

Those opposed to MSEP equivalence raised various issues that are

discussed in the following sections. Responses provided by AQIS are

included in this discussion.

1. Several comments expressed concerns about an increase in cases

of Salmonellosis reported in Australia during 1996 and 1997. These

cases were said to reflect problems in the Australian domestic meat

inspection system, which is similar to MSEP. AQIS responds to this

issue as follows:

A Communicable Infectious Diseases report of the Australian

Department of Health and Aged Care on Salmonella cases in Victoria

showed that the main recent outbreaks were attributable to Italian-

style ice cream, peanut butter, mayonnaise and processed meat

products. There was no data indicating an association of cases with

raw meat coming from abattoirs. Conclusions from the report indicate

that `gross errors in food handling and mishandling by consumers'

were the principal contributing factors.

It was indicated that the `high success rate in tracking the

sources of outbreaks, and the associated publicity, probably led to

more testing and more reporting of outbreaks which may previously

have gone unreported.'

A recent baseline study conducted on Australian export beef

(1996) demonstrated that the incidence of Salmonella on carcases was

0.4%. Approximately 17 years ago a similar survey demonstrated that

the incidence was 2.0%. The results of the 1996 baseline survey

suggests that there has been a five-fold improvement in the

reduction of Salmonella on Australian beef. The general prevalence

of Salmonellosis world wide has increased, as it has in Australia,

but it can be attributed to better testing and reporting in general,

and in the case of Australia, to items such as peanuts, coleslaw,

eggs, etc. Testing so far for Salmonella in the context of Pathogen

Reduction/HACCP implementation in the Australian export meat plants

has revealed a 0.05% positive isolation rate from beef carcases.

FSIS notes that comments about domestic foodborne illness rates in

Australia do not relate directly to MSEP equivalence or the equivalence

of Australian plants certified for export to the United States. AQIS

has implemented the same or equivalent Pathogen Reduction/Hazard

Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) final rule microbial testing

programs in all U.S.-certified Australian plants. Additionally, AQIS

has collected baseline Salmonella data and other microbial data which

indicate that the one plant presently proposed for MSEP pilot testing

produces very clean product under traditional inspection. These data

will be applied as performance standards during subsequent field trials

while the trial plant operates under MSEP. AQIS will hold this plant

responsible for attaining the same or better microbiological results

under MSEP than it achieved under traditional inspection. As other

Australian export plants qualify for MSEP, AQIS and FSIS will review

their baseline to ensure that appropriate microbial performance

standards are applied.

2. Some commenters expressed concerns about what activities

constitute Government inspection under MSEP. AQIS responds as follows:

Government inspection under MSEP comprises all of the following

activities and responsibilities outlined in the appropriate

Australian Federal Government legislation (The Export Control Act

and associated Export Meat Orders). These activities and

responsibilities include: Facilities and site standards of

construction, hygiene etc, fit and proper person clearance of

company principals, operational process control, ante and post

mortem verification and oversight, disposition and control, full

time government veterinary officer oversight, 100% verification for

zero fecal contamination by a government meat inspector stationed at

the end of the slaughter line, microbiological verification (ESAM

program), macroscopic verification (Meat Hygiene Assessment),

government approved HACCP/QA system and, government certification.

FSIS notes that the AQIS proposal details qualification

requirements for establishments that apply for MSEP participation and

delineates activities

[[Page 30300]]

that AQIS will perform to ensure product wholesomeness and safety. The

AQIS mark of inspection will be applied in MSEP plants to product that

is handled, processed and stored in a manner that fully complies with

AQIS Export Meat Orders and import requirements of the United States.

AQIS will provide additional MSEP inspection controls as follows: (1)

The AQIS meat inspector will be stationed on the line in cattle

slaughter plants at a point before final wash; (2) final trimming will

be under the supervision of the AQIS meat inspector; (3) the AQIS

inspector will perform a verification for zero-fecal and other carcass

defects on each carcass before final wash; (4) carcass defect data will

be collected at this point on the line under the Meat Hygiene

Assessment (MHA) program; and (5) the in-plant veterinarian will

perform ante-mortem sampling, some verification activities, and

oversight functions on the entire slaughter line.

Thus, AQIS inspection under MSEP will combine direct oversight of

company employee functions combined with carcass-by-carcass

verification that plant HACCP/Quality Assurance (QA) systems provide

safe and wholesome product.

3. Several commenters questioned why AQIS has not provided baseline

data for other plants that will participate in MSEP field trials. AQIS

responds as follows:

In 1996/97 five plants were selected for inclusion in the

proposed Project 2 pilot trial. Over the course of the collaborative

development and evolution of the Project 2 model to the MSEP model,

the number of eligible plants has been reduced now to one. This

plant is a beef processing plant at Rockdale, NSW. One of the

original selected plants dropped out due to the untimely death of

the plant's QA manager. Two others wished to retain their EU listing

so therefore do not qualify for inclusion in MSEP at this point of

time. The other plant does not presently meet the AQIS pre-requisite

requirements.

AQIS intends to bring this and other plants into the trial, once

all pre-requisite conditions have been met, including collection of

baseline data and prior consultation with FSIS.

Initial `before' data as outlined in the original Project 2 plan

has been collected from these plants. But because only one of the

plants progressed to the MSEP stage--benchmark or performance

standard MSEP data is not available from any other Australian plant.

4. Some commenters suggest that MSEP cannot be found equivalent

because AQIS presented no data proving it provides results equal to or

better than traditional inspection. AQIS responds as follows:

MSEP has not yet been implemented. One plant has been selected

for initial inclusion in MSEP. Performance standard data has been

collected from this plant. This has included both macroscopic and

microbiological data for product along with an objective measure of

process conformance and individual government meat inspection

effectiveness.

FSIS notes that AQIS cannot implement MSEP until FSIS agrees to

accept meat from trial establishments. One purpose of MSEP field trials

is to establish whether company employees achieve the same or better

results under AQIS oversight and verification as were achieved by

Government inspectors under traditional inspection. Nonetheless, FSIS

concludes that MSEP is equivalent because it meets all requirements of

U.S. law for the import of product to the United States and provides

the same level of public health protection as U.S. domestic slaughter

inspection.

5. Several commenters cited the 1998 European Union (EU) audit of

Australia's export meat inspection system as evidence that AQIS

controls are not fully effective. AQIS responds as follows:

The EU review of Australian meat export meat establishments,

which took place in March and April 1998, raised some concerns in

the minds of the EU reviewers. These concerns did not relate to food

safety or sanitation but highlighted operational and

interpretational differences between European requirements and the

Australian system, which have been operating for many years with EU

concurrence.

Following high level consultations between senior Australian and

EU officials in Brussels in October 1998, the EU has accepted

assurances provided by Australia. The conclusions of the October

1998 meeting were viewed positively by both the EU and Australian

officials.

FSIS notes that in the February 3 public meeting, AQIS fielded

similar comments and explained that Australia and the EU had reached an

agreement that preserved Australia's export listing. AQIS made it clear

that it did not concur with some EU findings and had presented a

vigorous defense of its program that resulted in an agreement of

equivalence. In order to allay any lingering EU concerns, AQIS invited

the EU to conduct a follow-up audit in 1999 for verification that all

aspects of the equivalence agreement have been implemented. In May

1999, FSIS will also visit Australia to conduct a full audit of the

Australian export meat inspection system. The Agency will make the

results of that audit public.

6. Several commenters, including the Community and Public Sector

Union (CPSU) that represents Australian Government meat inspectors,

allege that AQIS has misrepresented union support for MSEP. They

contend that CPSU has made its opposition to MSEP clear. AQIS responds

as follows:

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the national peak

body representing Australian workers, has formally endorsed the

introduction of Quality Assurance systems into the Australian meat

industry, along with systems to further enhance the safety of

Australian meat. It further endorses the technical and structural

reform processes currently under way in Australia.

The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) representing meat

inspectors was originally invited to participate in a Steering

Committee oversighting the MSEP, but withdrew because of the

potential impact upon government meat inspector numbers.

FSIS notes that the MSEP proposal does not contain a claim that

CPSU or its union inspectors are MSEP supporters. Under the section

titled Australia's ``Commitment to Food Safety,'' AQIS states in

paragraphs 2 and 3:

To further enhance this commitment the Prime Minister of

Australia established a comprehensive Food Regulation Review in

1997. This review is examining ways to enhance the effectiveness and

efficiency of food regulatory arrangements. Further to this review,

the Australian Food Council has established a National Safe Food

System in association with the Australia New Zealand Food Authority

(ANZFA) to develop a coordinated, practical and effective food

hygiene system centred on the Food Hygiene Standard and

complementary AQIS regulations.

The union movement in Australia is firmly behind these

initiatives. The Australian food industry has formalised an

agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)--the

Australian peak union body, on ways to introduce HACCP to Australian

food enterprises.

The statement about union support in paragraph 3 relates to

Australian government initiatives enumerated in paragraph 2. In

Attachment A to the MSEP proposal, AQIS provides a joint statement

between the Australian Food Council and the Australian Council of Trade

Unions pledging support for food safety reforms. MSEP is not a

component of those reforms.

7. Some concern was expressed about the role of the AQIS inspector

who will be doing 100% carcass-by-carcass verification inspection at a

point in the slaughter line between carcass trimming and final rinse.

One concern was how this inspector could perform that function as well

as oversee company employees, especially in multi-line plants. AQIS

responds as follows:

Government MSEP verification inspection in multi-line plants

under MSEP will involve

[[Page 30301]]

carcase by carcase inspection by a government meat inspector; one

AQIS inspector per slaughter line. Australia does not have any

single species, multi-line plants but has 27 plants listed for the

US which process different species. For example, a slaughter plant

operating under MSEP and processing cattle and sheep for the US

market would have one inspector stationed at the end of the beef

slaughter line and another inspector stationed at the end of the

lamb/mutton slaughter line, each inspector carrying out verification

inspection of every carcase.

FSIS notes that the amended AQIS proposal indicates that the

verification inspector will operate at a fixed point on the slaughter

line, while the AQIS veterinarian will conduct oversight of company

employees.

8. An additional comment was submitted by the Government

Accountability Project (GAP) on March 31, 1999. This comment listed ten

allegations GAP has received from what it termed ``Australian

whistleblowers.'' Although this letter was received after the comment

period closed, FSIS considered it in the spirit of transparency that

underlies each equivalence decision that the Agency makes. The

allegations are summarized as follows:

(1) Lots sampled were not representative of the day's

production.

(2) Sample sizes were not consistent.

(3) Corrective action on failures discovered in the morning

sample was delayed until collection of afternoon data and averaging

of both results, which meant that violations discovered at the

beginning of production continued unabated.

(4) Sample collection times were not consistent, and were

manipulated to avoid exposure of defects. In particular, the timing

was tailored as a handicap for afternoon ``improvements'' that would

neutralize particular morning failures prior to averaging the day's

final results.

(5) AQIS was not expanding the scope of sampling after discovery

of excessive violations, because industry promises to conduct

carcass specific corrective action changed results from ``fail'' to

``pass.''

(6) Due to a shortage of government personnel, controls through

``Check the Checker'' AQIS sampling did not begin until mid day to

verify the accuracy of industry data. This essentially left the

industry on an honor system for morning results.

(7) For data which AQIS personnel could check in a timely

manner, government inspectors and vets found over twice as many

defects as reflected in industry records.

(8) Data underlying the MHA report was not statistically

significant, because collection was not genuinely random and there

were only two collections daily--inadequate due to inconsistencies

in number of samples per lot and number of lots per day that were

monitored.

(9) MSEP will mean the functional elimination of government

process monitoring.

(10) The commitment to a final fecal inspection outpost is only

an interim measure that AQIS already has announced may be withdrawn

if approved by ``overseas authorities.''

FSIS interprets allegations one through eight as pertaining to AQIS

baseline data collections that were conducted in the one Australian

establishment presently participating in MSEP field trials. Mr. Brian

Macdonald, Director, Meat Inspection Division, responded for AQIS to

these eight allegations as follows:

From the construction of Questions 1-8 it would appear that the

GAP's information relates to the implementation of the Meat Hygiene

Assessment (MHA) program at the Rockdale Plant in a general sense.

This has led to a questioning of the validity of the six-month data

set presented at the public meeting on February 3.

While some of the wording suggests the information received

relates to activity on a specific day the following comments assume

their concerns relate to on-going performances.

Question 1. The MHA system requires lots to be determined by the

carcase identification system, that is, a lot is a group of animals

with the same tailtag (a property of origin alphanumeric identifier

tag). A lot may represent the entire production for a shift, or any

part thereof. It is recommended that wherever possible the selection

of samples be randomised. The Veterinary Officers in Charge (VOIC)

at the plant have indicated that the correct procedure is followed

at Rockdale. The official AQIS policy for MHA operation across the

export meat inspection program is random selection of carcases where

possible.

Question 2. MHA sampling rates are appropriate and have been

determined from the statistically validated Australian Standards

1199-1988, Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by

Attributes. The sampling rate is based on the number of animals in a

lot and it has been confirmed with the AQIS VOICs that the sampling

rate is consistent with the MHA document.

Question 3. Under MHA the sampling frequency and corrective

action are clearly stated. Rockdale sources the majority of animals

from an adjacent feedlot. For MHA purposes an entire day's

production may be treated as a single lot. Thus animals slaughtered

early in the day and late in the day may form a single lot for

monitoring purposes. There is therefore, nothing of a sinister

nature in the information that may have been passed to GAP.

This is not to say that appropriate corrective action was not

taken immediately upon finding there had been a violation. Defects

on product are required to be removed at the time they are

identified by trimming. Also, assessment of procedures may require a

delay in implementation of a definitive corrective action to assess

if the issue is related to human error or procedural error. AQIS

staff on the establishment concerned have been and will continue to

exercise their regulatory responsibilities in this regard.

Question 4. As you can appreciate it is very difficult to

respond to this allegation without further supporting evidence.

Sampling times are supposed to vary as it is desirable that they do

so to remove predictability from the system--employees would quickly

learn when they are being monitored or are scheduled to be

monitored, which would negate the value of the monitoring.

Monitoring is primarily a company responsibility and is thus one

of a number of tasks that company employees carry out during their

day. It is recommended in the MHA that ``the selection of samples be

as random as possible'' therefore if sample selection times were

consistent AQIS would be concerned that manipulation was at risk of

taking place. In addition, independent monitoring is carried out by

AQIS and any significant deviation in results between company and

AQIS monitoring is followed up by AQIS as the regulatory authority.

The AQIS VOICs have indicated there is no evidence of manipulation.

The point of afternoon improvements used to neutralise morning

failures is also opposite to all practical findings on the issue of

production line manufacturing efficiencies. Most process workers

will perform well in the morning when they are fresh and will

deteriorate over time due to mental and physical fatigue. There are

many studies that substantiate that defects are more likely to occur

toward the end of a shift than in the beginning of the shift, unless

the operators are dealing with new procedures.

Question 5. Under the MHA there is a defined protocol for the

changing of sampling intensity depending on the number of

consecutive unacceptable or marginal defects identified by the

company at monitoring, and AQIS on-plant staff have the

responsibility to ensure the company complies with the MHA sampling

parameters.

The VOICs have confirmed that where consecutive unacceptable or

marginal defects are identified the intensity of monitoring as

required in the MHA documentation is being implemented.

However, where a company has an MSQA in place and is monitoring

a CCP on the processing floor, a violation of the CCP will not be

subject to the MHA requirements. Such a violation will be subject to

the specific corrective actions identified in the HACCP plan, and

must be immediate since a CCP relates specifically to food safety

issues. AQIS on-plant staff again are responsible for ensuring the

company complies with its HACCP plan.

Question 6. The MHA system requires AQIS to perform check the

checker monitoring on a twice weekly basis. It is not correct to

conclude that at all other times industry is left to its own

devices. Full-time AQIS inspection presence is provided at every US-

listed abattoir, otherwise the establishment simply does not operate

for the day.

Randomised AQIS monitoring may well mean that a check was not

conducted in the morning. The aim of the AQIS process is to ensure

that the company is not likely to know when check the checker

process will occur during a shift or during the week. However there

is an equal likelihood that any

[[Page 30302]]

part of a production shift will be subjected to an AQIS verification

check consistent with well established quality management

principles.

Question 7. It is possible that government officials may have

found twice the number of defects as recorded by industry. Such

isolated instances might occur, for example where the company was

training new personnel. The important point to recognise is that

such differences are not systemically or persistently tolerated.

Where differences are found in MHA recording results, AQIS requires

the company to institute an appropriate corrective plan to bring the

monitoring into conformity with standards. This is the purpose of

having the AQIS verification checks.

The AQIS VOICs have confirmed that where their monitoring finds

differential recording of defects action is being taken by bringing

the matter to the attention of management and implementing a

documented corrective action plan.

AQIS plant records and other reviews and checks indicate that

not only is the MHA system working satisfactorily at Rockdale but

that the cleanliness and health of the product is consistently of a

very high order.

Question 8. These comments have been addressed already and are

summarised as follows:

Samples are required to be selected at random wherever

possible

A lot is determined by animals carrying the same

tailtag

Sampling rates will be determined by the size of the

lot and are based on the Australian Standard 1199-1988

Lots monitored may represent the entire production of

the shift or part thereof.

Specifically for the Rockdale plant, FSIS's experience of

imported product does not bear out the allegations made in GAP's

letter alleging ``exposure to food poisoning threats.'' The U.S.

rejection data for the establishment from which the empirical data

was presented at the public meeting confirms the programs AQIS has

implemented are working and sustained. In the last 12 months

Rockdale Beef has presented more than 1.5 million pounds of product

to US port-of-entry inspection with no rejections for contamination

or pathology.

The response outlined above is specific to the Rockdale plant.

If GAP has specific allegations relating to the inappropriate

operation of MHA at other Australian plants, AQIS would welcome

receiving that advice so that the necessary action can be taken.

Allegations nine and ten presented by GAP concern AQIS' intentions

for government oversight of establishments that participate in the MSEP

pilot program. AQIS responded as follows:

Question 9. GAP has cited a meeting summary prepared by the meat

inspectors union of discussions to explain progress with the MSEP

proposal. The context of these discussions was negotiations for a

new labour agreement involving an increase in meat inspector

remuneration. The discussion on MSEP was an adjunct to this main

purpose. Nevertheless it is not an unreasonable reflection of what

was conveyed to the union. But, it in no way contradicts my

statements and undertakings given at the public hearing on 3

February.

Australia has sought an equivalency decision from the United

States on the basis of retaining an inspector at the end of the

slaughter line who will undertake carcase by carcase inspection of

all product. This was made clear at the public hearing and remains

the proposal for which Australia is seeking equivalence. No other

arrangement is contemplated for US listed plants.

GAP suggests that this is breaking a prior commitment for a

government slaughter floor inspector to monitor process controls and

respond to breaking problems. This was not part of the proposal

presented at the public hearing on 3 February. In my [Mr.

Macdonald's] presentation I indicated AQIS's slaughter floor

presence would be in two parts. First, the AQIS VOIC would undertake

oversight and verification activities at a range of designated

points in the production process. In the material presented, these

points were identified and the verification frequencies quantified.

Secondly, an AQIS meat inspector would undertake carcase by carcase

inspection of all production after the final trim and before the

final wash. Qualified company employees would perform sorting

activities within the confines of this arrangement. This was all

made very clear in my presentation and will be implemented precisely

at trial plants.

Question 10. The reference in the AQIS/union meeting record to

the removal of the final AQIS inspection point needs to be put in

context. At that point in the meeting, the discussions were

comparing AQIS's presence in MSEP trials at non-US listed plants and

US listed plants. AQIS was asked if at some time in the future MSEP

could be modified to reflect the current arrangements in non-US

listed plants where there is no final carcase by carcase AQIS

inspection. This outcome was recognised as a possibility. You might

note that AQIS officials modified the union prepared draft to

clearly indicate that this was not something which Australia would

do unilaterally and would be subject to further approval from US

authorities.

However, the comment is irrelevant. The commitment to carcase by

carcase inspection is a fundamental feature of Australia's request

for an equivalency determination from the United States. It will

remain part of the Australian system for US listed plants.

FSIS notes that AQIS clearly presented the details of their MSEP

proposal in the February 3 public meeting and has in no way modified

them since that meeting. AQIS responded to the other issues raised in

the GAP letter, as follows:

The GAP also raised two other issues. The first concerned

reduction in the number of inspection staff in the Australian meat

inspection program. It was suggested that this was being driven by

the Australian Government's policy of full cost recovery for meat

inspection services.

Inspectors have only been removed where there has been no impact

on mandatory import country requirements and on food safety, which

remains the fundamental imperative of the Australian meat inspection

program. Due to historical reasons the AQIS meat inspection program

was grossly over staffed, work practices delivered extremely poor

productivity and there was institutionalised manipulation of working

arrangements to maximise payments such as travel allowance, overtime

and penalty payments. It is these elements that have been

eliminated. All elements related to public health requirements have

been continued and, indeed, reinforced where necessary. It is

interesting to note that the reduction in inspector numbers has

coincided with an improvement in the Australian performance at US

port of entry testing. You may recall that I provided this data in

my presentation at the public hearing on 3 February.

AQIS does not regard the additional costs imposed on industry by

MSEP as a negative factor. MSEP requires a significant commitment by

industry to quality systems and good manufacturing practice.

Australian industry knows that such commitments are necessary to

maintain markets in a world concerned with food safety and quality

products. They are prepared to pay the price.

The extra costs are not a reason why only one plant is ready to

proceed on the trial at this point in time. As I explained at the

public hearing, one plant, which is not US listed, did not continue

with the development of the necessary systems due to the untimely

death of a young woman who was implementing MSEP at that plant. The

establishment was a small family business and the young woman was an

intimate family relative. Her death had far reaching implications

for that company in the circumstances.

Two other plants could join the trial immediately but are also

listed for the European Union where Australia has yet to achieve an

equivalency determination for MSEP. Both plants remain highly

committed to all of the quality systems developed for MSEP which are

in place and operating except for company sorting.

The final plant delayed implementation of MSEP in the light of

the delays occurring in securing an equivalency decision from the

United States. Company management has informed me they will now join

the trial when an equivalency decision is announced.

Finally, GAP raised the findings of a review by the European

Commission of Australian export meat plants in March 1998. Australia

does not accept many of the findings of the European Commission

review, which did not look at food safety issues. Rather it examined

Australia's conformance with European Union legislation and where

this did not occur in detail drew conclusions about confidence in

the Australian system. In our view there is a very large gap between

the strict letter of European Union law and food safety outcomes.

The former does not guarantee the latter.

At the public hearing on 3 February I invited US consumers to

calibrate the judgements of the European Commission reviewer against

the food safety outcomes being secured by Australia at US port-of-

entry testing. I would ask you to continue to do so in any further

consideration of the Australian request for equivalency.

[[Page 30303]]

In conclusion, there has been no manipulation of the data

presented at the public hearing in Washington on 3 February.

Implementation of the trial will proceed precisely as explained at

that public hearing should the United States grant equivalence to

our proposal.

In subsequent communications, AQIS further clarified MHA random

sampling as the ``recommended'' procedure but acknowledged that

``random'' often means ``unpredictable'' rather than statistically

random. It emphasized that MHA sampling is conducted by quality control

personnel, and that production personnel have no prior knowledge or

influence over when or how sampling occurs.

AQIS also clarified two additional issues. One is the U.S.

reinspection record of the Rockdale establishment. It stated that

during the period from April 1998 to March 1999, Rockdale exported 91

lots to the United States. Eighteen of these lots were identified for

further reinspection while seventy-three were checked only for

container integrity and labeling. As noted earlier in this notice, AQIS

reports that Rockdale had no product rejected for contamination or

pathology for the last 12 months.

The second additional issue concerns Australian exports to the

European Union. AQIS reported that no interruptions of trade have

occurred as a result of its disagreement with the EU over the March

1998 audit results. For example, AQIS reported that from January 1999

through April 1999, Australian establishments have shipped to EU

countries 4,220 tonnes of beef, 7,608 tonnes of sheep and lamb, 1,177

tonnes of horse meat, and 51 tonnes of goat meat.

FSIS notes that AQIS has consistently provided immediate,

comprehensive and credible responses to all questions that FSIS has

raised about MSEP and to issues raised in public comments.

Finding of Equivalence

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Sanitary and

Phytosanitary measures (commonly referred to as the ``SPS Agreement'')

obliges the United States to respond to requests by other contracting

parties to establish the equivalence of specified meat and poultry

processing measures with those of the United States.

The Australian Government formally requested that the United States

make an equivalence determination regarding its Meat Safety Enhancement

Program to pilot-test a revised slaughter inspection system. FSIS has

reviewed the MSEP with particular emphasis on two criteria:

(1) Does the MSEP meet all USDA requirements for the import of meat

and meat products to the United States?

(2) Does the MSEP afford American consumers the same level of

public health protection provided by USDA domestic slaughter

inspection?

In summary, FSIS finds that the MSEP meets these criteria because

MSEP will provide direct Federal oversight of Australian export

establishment slaughter operations and verification that all U.S.

safety and wholesomeness requirements have been met. FSIS further finds

that AQIS has satisfactorily addressed the comments and concerns raised

in the February 3, 1999 public meeting, the written comments presented

in response to the Federal Register notice of January 15, 1999, and all

subsequent comments.

Consequently, FSIS has determined that the AQIS MSEP program (1)

meets all USDA requirements for import of meat and meat products to the

United States, (2) will afford American consumers the same level of

public health protection provided by USDA domestic slaughter

inspection, and (3) is therefore equivalent. Accordingly, AQIS-

certified establishments that participate in the MSEP field trials may

ship meat and meat products to the United States.

AQIS has advised FSIS that it will soon begin MSEP implementation

testing in one beef slaughter establishment and will initiate baseline

data collections in others as they qualify. AQIS has pledged to share

its baseline data with FSIS before the second and any subsequent

establishment begins implementation testing. FSIS will provide periodic

MSEP progress summaries through the Constituent Alert.

FSIS will review this equivalence determination when AQIS completes

its MSEP field trials and prepares a report for FSIS review. FSIS will

announce the results of that review in the Federal Register. FSIS will

monitor MSEP field trials in the interim through discussions with AQIS

personnel, review of establishment baseline and implementation data,

periodic on-site audits, and continuous port of entry reinspection of

products shipped to the United States. A copy of the FSIS monitoring

plan may be obtained from Mr. Mark Manis at the address shown in FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of this notice.

Done at Washington, DC, on June 1, 1999.

Thomas Billy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 99-14253 Filed 6-4-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P