Peter C. Myers

In OIC'A summary, it appears they are calling for a third exception which would call for the company to demonstrate that it has the product in question under control within 48 hours. We do not believe an additional exception would be in the public's best interest, since it implies a company could take up to 48 hours to control their product. In very serious cases, the Agency would not allow that much time to elapse before determining the product is under control.

I am convinced that FSIS' recall provisions are adequate to assure consumer protection and that the personnel involved in conducting the recalls are performing in an exemplary fashion. The Agency has, through repeated efforts, attempted to explain these policies to OIG. It is essential that the Administrator of FSIS make reasoned decisions concerning recalls and public notification within the framework of the existing policy but with the ability to examine each situation on a case by case basis.

Preoperative Sanitation

We believe the OIG auditor misunderstood the depth of our implementation and verification in establishing an adequate system for monitoring preoperative sanitation. I will describe current steps taken to adopt a new system, as was outlined for OIG's auditor by FSIS personnel recently:

a.

b.

C.

A two member training team (Primary Team) from each region has been trained by the Agency;

The Primary Team has trained the Area Supervisors, the Circuit
Supervisors, and the Inspectors-in-Charge (IICs); and

Implementation of the new preoperational approach is taking place,
step-wise, as follows:

(1) One plant with followup by the Primary Team and FSIS trainees;
(2) 20 plants (4 in each region) with followup by the FSIS trainers;
Nationwide with followup by the Agency's Review and Evaluation
Steff.

(3)

Thus, in each of the above steps, successful implementation will be verified until the system is successfully implemented in all plants nationwide.

Based on the above, I find the Agency's plan of action satisfactory to provide adequate control over preoperative sanitation procedures. OIG's inclusion of this is another example of the auditor attempting to overly influence Agency policy in how it meets their recommendations.

Pesticide and Chemical Usage in Plants

We believe the OIG auditor has confused two planned FSIS directives. directive requiring the plant to provide the IIC with a list of all chemicals

A

Peter C. Myers

3

used in the plant, accompanied by labels, has been circulated within the Agency for review and is scheduled for publication later this month. A copy of this proposed directive was given to the OIG auditor recently.

A second directive explaining in greater detail the Agency's policy on pesticides is now undergoing staff review and publication is planned for late The OIG representative was not told that either of these directives would not be published. Hence, the conclusion that we would not take this action is erroneous on the part of OIG.

summer.

2. INDIRECT COST OF THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION (WDATCP), (38092-1-Ch) ISSUED AUGUST 20, 1986

In FSIS' response to the audit report, they agreed that legal expenses should be directly charged and not lumped entirely into the indirect cost pool. Starting with Fiscal Year (FY) 1986 proposal, the WDATCP was put on notice' to develop a method of directly charging its programs for legal services rendered. For years prior to 1986, there was no mechanism in place at the WDATCP to directly charge such common costs, hence its treatment of the legal expenses as joint costs, and therefore indirect. The WDATCP did not maintain time sheet distribution of such services for those years.

The auditors disallowed ALL legal expenses based on the absence of time distribution data and on certain activities and tasks included in the position descriptions of the legal staff. It should be recognized that there are certain legal services that are necessary and reasonable in the administration of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements. On this basis, the Agency informed OIG that it would exclude certain legal services from the FY's 1984 and 1985 indirect cost pools, but would not do so for the other legal staff until they determined the degree of their involvement in the administration of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements. Also, on this basis, the Agency informed OIG that it would exclude certain legal services from the FY's 1984 and 1985 indirect cost pools, but would not. do so for the other legal staff until they determined the degree of their involvement in the administration of Federal assistance.

FSIS has scheduled an onsite fiscal review of Wisconsin's Meat and Poultry Inspection Program during the week of May 11. At that time, they will work with the WDATCP staff to determine that portion of the legal expenses allowable as indirect costs. FSIS will include this information in calculating the adjustments to be carried forward. The Agency can not change the negotiated rates for FY's 1984 and 1985 because they are fixed. The legal expenses and the other disallowed costs in this audit report will therefore result in a reduction of the indirect costs allowable for the period(s) covered by our next agreement through the FY 1984 and 1985 over recoveries carried forward.

Peter C. lyers

PSIS expects to complete indirect cost negotiations with the WDATCP within 90 days after the onsite review. They will provide OIG with a copy of the negotiation agreement, which will include the recomended adjustments, in time to close the audit before the next Semiannual Report to Congress.

It is hoped the above actions will give you a better understanding of the Agency's position in resolving these two audits. Unless you direct otherwise, I do not plan to have FSIS take any further action in response to OIG, as we believe these outstanding recommendations have been resolved.

Resolution of the FSIS Meat and Poultry Inspection Program Audit, #38607-1-At

As we discussed on Friday, May 1, 1987, enclosed are the Agency's planned actions for resolving the subject audit's findings.

If you need additional information, please give me a call.

Enclosure

FSIS 2630-5(12 79.

2

SANITATION

The Agency is planning immediate implementation of the enclosed FSIS Directive 11,040.1, "Preoperational and Operational Sanitation Inspection," to be published shortly. After necessary union consultation on May 19, 1987, inspectors-in-charge (IICs) and the GS-8 inspectors will be trained by the regional training teams on a circuit-by-circuit basis, followed by immediate implementation of the directive. Preliminary work is now underway.

The intent of the directive is to make plants more responsible for detecting their own cleanup weaknesses. Rooms or departments will pass or fail the preop sanitation inspection based on what an inspector finds in a few official sample areas randomly chosen within those rooms or

departments.

When an inspector finds deficiencies outside the official sample areas, the deficient items will be tagged and rejected for use until properly cleaned.

The new directive will require direct, weekly supervision of the GS-8 inspector by the IIC to evaluate inspection procedures, sanitation standards, and plant cleanup thoroughness prior to inspection.

PLANS TO UPDATE SAMPLING PLAN

To address problems that exist in the data bases used for residue sampling, FSIS requires accurate and current establishment numbers along with the species that the establishments are authorized to slaughter. We also require accurate information on the numbers and types of animals that are slaughtered each month. The problems in addressing this follow in a description of the CORE system:

Common On-Line Reference for Establishments (CORE)

The CORE system is designed to provide a centralized repository of meat & poultry plant information. This information includes plant location, owner, type of operation(s), various mailing information, and a breakout of slaughter and processing categories. Examples are species authorized for slaughter, reimbursable inspection categories, processing categories (boning, canning, curing, etc.) and export categories for domestic plants. CORE does not maintain plant production data.

CORE will be implemented in a dual concept. First, all data will reside on the Agency's HP-3000 located in Washington. This data will be updated on a daily basis from entries made by MPIO regional and IP headquarters personnel. This data base will function as the central plant information for all automated systems requiring such data. Second will be a subset of the total data in each of these remote sites. All data entry will be performed at the remote sites. Data cleansing will take place at these sites during the data entry process. New data will be collected for these sites daily.

The CORE system is currently in development by Data Base Management Inc. (DBMI). Delivery of the final design is scheduled for June 30, 1987. CORE should be fully operational by April 1, 1988.