The major issue presented in this case is whether, in construing the various sections of Ohio statutory law pertaining to the public health in regard to places where food is manufactured and places where food and food products are sold and handled within Ohio, it was the legislative scheme, or intent, that all such regulatory control be vested in the Department of Agriculture' or, conversely, whether it was intended that sоme regulation thereof may be exercised by boards of city health districts.
A secondary query presented is: assuming city health districts have been granted some degree of regulatory authority over places where food is sold, handled or manufactured, whether Regulation 83-02 adopted by the New Carlisle Department of Health for local application is in an irreconcilable conflict with the general regulations adopted by the Department of Agriculture and, if so, whether the local regulation or the general regulations prevail.
As to the first issue, we hold that all the applicable state statutes being read in pari materia may reasonably be interpreted to grant city health districts some co-existing right of regulation of the places where food is manufactured, sold or handled, and the inspection of foods therein.
There are a number of Revised Code chapters and Administrative Code sections dealing with various aspects of the protection and preservation of the public health as it would relate to food and foodstuffs. The General Assembly has, in the main, delegated the power to regulate the production, processing, handling and sale of food and food products to three agencies of the statе, i.e., the Department of Agriculture and its Director; the Department of Health, its Director, and the Public Health Council; and local boards of health, as in the present case. Our task of interpreting the precise regulatory authority over foodstuffs has been complicated in that some of these legislatively granted powers would appear to have been placed within the jurisdiction of more than onе of these agencies. This would suggest that the exercise of such powers may create a dualism of control, and result in overlapping and conflicting regulation.
We have previously set forth three of the sections of law granting the
Other sections of law provide the Director of Agriculture additional authority to regulate foodstuffs in Ohio. Among these are sections providing for the regulation and/or inspection by the Director of commercial dealers engaging in the business of handling, weighing, sampling and testing of milk and cream, and bulk tank operators of milk and cream
The Director of Agriculture has also been granted specific powers within the Pure Food and Drug Aсt, R.C. Chapter 3715, insofar as such chapter deals with food. Such regulatory powers include the labeling of canned fruits and vegetables
Pursuant to R.C. Chapter 3715, the Director of Agriculture is empowered to promulgate regulations fixing and establishing for foodstuffs a reasonable definition and standard of identity, a reasonable standard of quality, and the fill оf containers utilized when, in his judgment, such action will promote fair dealing in the interest of consumers. R.C. 3715.58.
The Ohio Department of Health has also been granted certain regulatory powers over foodstuffs and the processing of foodstuffs. The Department of Health consists of the Director of Health and the Public Health Council. R.C. 3701.02. Among the duties of the Public Health Council is the promulgation of regulations making up the sanitary code to be generally applicable throughout the state. R.C. 3701.34.
The Public Health Council has also been granted some co-existing authority with the Director of Agriculture to adopt regulations for the prohibition of adulterated foods, within the Pure Food and Drug Act. R.C. 3715.69. This grant of power, however, excepts the authority granted the Director of Agriculture to provide reasonable standards of food identity, standards of quality, and for the fill of food containers. R.C. 3715.58.
Another specific area in which the Department of Health and the Public Health Council have been granted authority to adopt regulations and standards regarding foodstuffs is “food service oрerations,” pursuant to R.C. 3732.02. This section is as follows:
“The public health council subject to sections 119.01 to 119.13, inclusive, of the Revised Code, shall make regulations of general application throughout the state governing food service operations and providing uniform sanitation standards, approval of plans, equipment, including refrigerated bulk milk dispensers, and supplies by the department or city or general heаlth districts; except that such regulations and standards shall be limited to that portion of the premises utilized for the food service operation.”
The Ohio Attorney General has opined that R.C. 3715.69 does not provide the Public Health Council with authority to prescribe sanitation standards for food establishments. The Attorney General stated that under R.C. 925.01, 913.41 and 913.42, only the Director of Agriculture has the authority to prescribe sanitary regulаtions for food processing and food manufacturing establishments other than those regulated under R.C. 3707.371 to 3707.376 (concerning milk handlers) and R.C. Chapter 3732 (concerning food service operations). The Attorney General based his opinion on the language contained in R.C. 3732.02, which provides that the Public Health Council “shall make regulations of general application throughout the state governing food service operations and providing uniform sanitation standards * * *; except that such regulations and standards shall be limited to that portion of the premises utilized for the food service operation.” See 1975 Ohio Atty. Gen. Ops. No. 75-056.
The Department of Agriculture stresses in its brief in this court that the same ruling should be applied here to these facts. This Attorney General opinion may well have correctly set forth the law as it would relate to the Public Health Council and its authority to make regulations applicable to food processing establishments. However, we are not called upon here to determine that issue, but are reviewing the statutory authority specifically granted to city health districts to promulgate such regulations pertaining to food processing establishments and to make the necessary related inspections.
Each city, as is New Carlisle, is designated by statute as a “city health district,” whereas townships and villages in each county are combined and known as “general health districts.” R.C. 3709.01. Health districts, and the boards formed thereunder, are state agencies. Bd. of Health of St. Bernard v. St. Bernard (1969),
New Carlisle takes a position
The protection and preservation of public heаlth is one of the prime governmental concerns and functions of the state as a sovereignty. See Wooster v. Arbenz (1927),
As seen by the statutes set forth above, the General Assembly has provided that certain health matters related to foodstuffs be regulated by the Department of Agriculture, or the Department of Health, and that the en-for cement of the latter department’s regulations in this regard may be through local departments of health acting as state agencies. The General Assembly has also specifically provided that some sanitary regulatory powers over foodstuffs may be exercised by city health districts independent of the Department of Health or the Department of Agriculture.
Quite correctly, the parties here have not presented or argued this matter upon the basis of a municipality’s home rule powers as granted under Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution.
This court, in Eastlake v. Ohio Bd. of Bldg. Stds. (1981),
“A municipal ordinance imposing more restrictive standards of construction for industrialized units than thоse mandated by R.C. Chapters 3781 and*35 3791 is in conflict with the general laws and is ipso facto invalid, thereby giving the Ohio Board of Building Standards, pursuant to R.C. 3781.10(E)(6), just cause for revoking the certification of the municipality as local enforcement authority for the Ohio Building Code.”
This court then went on to state that “[t]he conclusion we reach is consistent with application of the home rule powers of municipalities expressed in Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution * * Id. at 368, 20 O.O. 3d at 330,
We are not confronted here with a question dealing with a potential conflict between a municipal sanitary regulation enacted pursuant to home rule constitutional authority and a state statute. Instead, we are dealing with two governmental entities, i.e., the Department of Agriculture and a city health district, both performing their regulatory functions pursuant to statutory enactments. Therefore, the questions here must be answered by an interpretation of all the pertinent statutory enactments and regulations passed thereunder.
A number of basic rules must be followed by a reviewing court in construing the regulations and statutes at issue. First, all statutes which relate to the same general subject matter must be read in pari materia. See Maxfield v. Brooks (1924),
In the judicial interpretation of potentially conflicting laws, certain statutory rules of construction must be
“In enacting a statute, it is presumed that:
“(C) A just and reasonable result is intended;
“(D) A result feasible of execution is intended.”
Another statutory rule of construction which must be considered if, and when, statutes being reviewed by a court are found to be in irreconcilable conflict, is R.C. 1.51, which states:
“If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, they shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both. If the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later adoption and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.”
It is also important to note when construing Administrative Code provisions that R.C. 1.59(F) provides that a “rule” is defined to include “regulations.” Therefore, the statutory rule of construction, R.C. 1.51, applies to the regulations in this case, i.e., Ohio Adm. Code Chapter 901:3-29, adopted pursuant to law by the Ohio Department of Agriculture, and to Regulation 83-02, adopted pursuant to law by the New Carlisle Department of Health.
In reviewing all the sections of law applicable to the issues presented here in pari materia, we conclude that the General Assembly granted to city health districts a degree of authority in regulating places where food is manufactured, handled, or sold. City health districts are, by R.C. 3709.20, given the authority to “make such orders and regulations as are necessary for [their] own government, for the public health, the prevention or restriction of disease, and the prevention, abatement, or supprеssion of nuisances.” Also, in order to facilitate such rule-making powers, the General Assembly empowered city health districts by way of R.C. 3709.22 to inspect places “where food is manufactured, handled, stored, sold, or offered for sale * * *.” In neither of these sections is there a specific limitation that such authority be exercised in such manner as not to be in conflict with the regulatory powers of the Department of Agriculture concerning the sanitation of places handling or selling foodstuffs.
However, all powers of governmental agencies are legislatively granted, and such agencies have only such regulatory authority as is granted, and the acts of such agency may not exceed such authority or be in direct conflict with the exercise of specific powers granted to state departments for statewide regulatory control.
In considering all the statutes granting to the Director of Agriculture rather broad regulatory authority over foodstuffs and the places where they are manufactured, handled and sold, we conclude that it was the intention of the General Assembly to grant exclusivity to the Director in matters of establishing standards of purity and quality of foodstuffs, and their classification, labeling and packaging, which regulations are tо be applied throughout the state. We also conclude that it was the intent of the General Assembly to grant local health districts the necessary regulatory control over foodstuffs and the places where they are sold in order to provide for the public health, the prevention of disease and the abatement of nuisance. Furthermore, we conclude that any such regulations adopted by the lоcal health districts must be limited to these con
Both the Department of Agriculture’s regulations contained within Ohio Adm. Code 901:3-29-01 through 901:3-29-08, and Regulation 83-02 of the New Carlisle Board of Health have been adopted for the purpose of providing proper sanitary conditions for the places handling or selling foodstuffs. We shall not scrutinize and set forth a comparative analysis of the sections in each of these regulations in order to determine those that are in irreconcilable conflict. It only need be stated that even though there be some differences in the treatment of the same subject, it appears that, generally, the regulations may be read harmoniously and are not irreconcilably in conflict. Compliance with most sections of one regulation would be compliance with the other.
It is debatable that there are some sections in the New Carlisle Department of Health Regulation 83-02 which provide for some sanitary requirements that differ, to a point of inconsistency, with the Department of Agriculture regulations. An example of these is Ohio Adm. Code 901:3-29-01, which simply states that the places in question be “properly lighted,” while the local regulation requires that they be “illuminated to a minimum of forty foot candles.” Section 6.3, Regulation 83-02. Similarly, Ohio Adm. Code 901:3-29-06 simply requires that lavatories and washrooms “shall be supplied with soap, water, and individual towels * * *,” while the local regulation specifies that “[a]ll handwashing facilities shall include a minimum of warm (110° F.) running water, dispensed soap, and approved drying facilities,” Section 6.5, Regulation 83-02. Also, relative to utensils used to рrepare food, Ohio Adm. Code 901:3-29-02(D) simply states that these items be “thoroughly cleaned daily,” whereas Section 6.8 of Regulation 83-02 specifies that such utensils “shall be thoroughly cleaned and subjected to an approved bactericidal process” on a daily basis.
If the above comparisons, or others within these regulations, result in a determination that a conflict exists, the standards of construction found in R.C. 1.51 pеrtain. Applying those standards, the special, or local, provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is a later adoption and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.
The general regulations, Ohio Adm. Code 901:3-29-01 et seq., were initially promulgated by the Director, as AG-35-02.1, effective December 23, 1966, and renumbered in 1977, as currently designated. Regulation 83-02 of the New Carlisle local health district was adopted on August 15, 1983. Clearly, the local regulation is the later adoption, but even if not the later, there is no basis either in the statutes or within the Department of Agriculture’s regulations that the general provisions prevail over the local.
This court, construing R.C. 3709.20, 3709.22, 913.41 and 913.42 in pari materia, considering the legislative intent of the Ohio General Assembly, and applying the statutory rules of construction provided in R.C. 1.51, holds that the Ohio Department of Agriculture dоes not have exclusive authority to regulate the sanitary conditions of food establishments. Moreover, local boards of health may also statutorily exercise some sanitary regulatory authority over food establishments.
In conclusion, if it had been the desire of the General Assembly to
Accordingly, based upon all the foregoing discussion, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
R.C. 917.04; 917.11; 917.19.
R.C. 3717.52.
R.C. 911.02.
R.C. 913.23.
R.C. 915.02 and 915.15.
R.C. 913.17.
R.C. 918.21 to 918.31.
R.C. 918.02.
R.C. 3715.14; 3715.15; 3715.16.
R.C. 3715.07.
R.C. 3715.23.
R.C. 3715.52.
Certain specific statutory authority has been granted the Public Health Council, such as control over private water systems, R.C. 3701.344; classification and rеgistration of hospitals, R.C. 3701.07; standards for hospital facilities, R.C. 3701.40; and contagious or infectious disease reports, R.C. 3701.24.
In State, ex rel. Mowrer, v. Underwood (1940),
Another case which dealt with a local building department which had been certified by the State Board of Building Standards, and had adopted a different code procedure for appeals than that provided by the State Building Code, is In re Cincinnati Certified Bldg. Dept. (1983),
“This cаse does not present a constitutional home-rule problem. The city of Cincinnati still may operate a building department and enforce the Cincinnati Building Code, using its own appellate process, so long as its substantive provisions do not conflict with the State Building Code. See Eastlake v. Bd. of Bldg. Stds. (1981),66 Ohio St. 2d 363 [20 O.O. 3d 327],
“At this time, there is no issue before the court of the effect of dual enforcement of substantially identical provisions in the state code and Cincinnati code with inconsistent results.” Id. at 180, 10 OBR at 251,461 N.E. 2d at 13 .