This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

30952

Vol. 65, No. 94

Monday, May 15, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

[Docket No. 00–014N]

Announcement of and Request for

Comment Regarding Industry Petition

on Hazard Analysis and Critical

Control Point (HACCP) Inspection

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; opportunity to

comment.

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and

Inspection Service (FSIS) is requesting

comment on a petition that asks FSIS to

amend sections of the Hazard Analysis

and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

regulations ‘‘to increase the

effectiveness’’ of the HACCP system and

to make the regulations more consistent

with the HACCP principles published in

1997 by the National Advisory

Committee on Microbiological Criteria

for Food (NACMCF). The petition is set

out in this Federal Register notice. The

petition was submitted by a group of

trade associations. It contains no data or

examples to support the requests it

makes. In addition to comments from

the public, FSIS will solicit comment

from the members of the National

Advisory Committee on Meat and

Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) at its May

16–17, 2000, meeting.

DATES: Comments are due July 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments in triplicate

to USDA, FSIS Docket Room, Docket

No. 00–014N, Room 102 Cotton Annex,

300 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC

20250–3700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip Derfler, Deputy Administrator,

Office of Policy, Program Development

and Evaluation, Food Safety and

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture (202) 720–2709.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 25, 1996, FSIS published a

final rule in the Federal Register,

entitled ‘‘Pathogen Reduction; Hazard

Analysis and Critical Control Point

Systems’’ (61 FR 38806), requiring that

federally inspected meat and poultry

establishments implement HACCP

systems to address hazards that are

reasonably likely to occur in their

operations. This rule requires that all

federally inspected meat and poultry

plants develop and implement written

sanitation standard operating

procedures (sanitation SOPs); mandates

that meat and poultry slaughter plants

conduct microbial testing for generic E.

coli to verify the adequacy of their

process controls; requires that all meat

and poultry plants develop and

implement a system of preventive

controls known as HACCP to improve

the safety of their products; and sets

pathogen reduction performance

standards for Salmonella that slaughter

plants and plants producing raw ground

products must meet.

When FSIS issued this final rule, it

was aware that the rule would bring

about major changes in the way plants

operate and in how FSIS conducts its

inspections. To account for this impact,

the implementation of the rule was

phased in over a three-year period that

concluded January 25, 2000. Also, to

assist the industry in preparing for the

implementation of HACCP, FSIS

provided extensive technical assistance

and guidance and held numerous public

meetings to receive input from all

stakeholders.

Petition

FSIS received a petition dated

December 30, 1999, signed by the

following organizations: The American

Meat Institute, American Association of

Meat Processors, National Chicken

Council, National Food Processors

Association, National Meat Association,

National Turkey Federation, and the

North American Meat Processors. The

petition requests that FSIS amend

sections of the HACCP regulations in

order, according to the petition, to

increase the effectiveness of the HACCP

system and to make the regulations

more consistent with the HACCP

principles published in 1997, by the

National Advisory Committee on

Microbiological Criteria for Food

(NACMCF).

The petitioners contend that FSIS has

too narrowly interpreted its rulemaking

and ignores the ‘‘* * * commonsense

approach needed to make HACCP

successful.’’ In particular, they point out

that there are other components of a

HACCP system that the Agency should

recognize, such as good manufacturing

practice (GMP) programs (referred to as

prerequisite programs), and that FSIS

does not permit prerequisite programs

to address food safety concerns. In 61

FR 38805, FSIS stated that it expected

the HACCP plan to be a stand-alone

document addressing food safety.

The petitioners also suggest that FSIS

change some of the definitions

contained in the HACCP regulations.

Specifically, they suggest the following

definition changes:

1. Delete the term and definition for

‘‘food safety hazard’’ and replace it with

the term ‘‘hazard.’’ A ‘‘hazard’’ would

be defined as ‘‘a biological, chemical or

physical agent that is reasonably likely

to cause illness or injury in the absence

of its control.’’

2. Change the definition of ‘‘hazard

analysis’’ to ‘‘the process of collecting

and evaluating information on hazards

associated with the food under

consideration to decide which are

significant and must be addressed in the

HACCP plan.’’

3. Define ‘‘severity’’ as ‘‘the

seriousness of the effect(s) of a hazard.’’

4. Define ‘‘shipped’’ as ‘‘a product has

been shipped if it has been sold to a

third party and is not under the direct

or effective control of the inspected

establishment. Products have not been

shipped in circumstances such as when

the product is still owned by the

inspected establishment, whether stored

at the inspected establishment or at

another storage location, as well as

when the product is moving from one

facility to another that is owned by the

same person or company.’’ The

petitioners also suggest that throughout

the regulations the word ‘‘shipped’’

should replace the phrase ‘‘enters

commerce.’’

5. Lastly, the petitioners request that

FSIS amend 9 CFR 417.6(e) to provide

that a HACCP system may be found to

be inadequate only when adulterated

product has been shipped. Currently,

the regulations state that the system may

be found inadequate when adulterated

product is produced or shipped.

As part of the Agency’s continued

efforts to involve all stakeholders in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Notices 30953

1Although HACCP implementation will not be

completed throughout the meat and poultry

industry until next January, nearly 80 percent of

meat and poultry production already occurs under

HACCP systems. This experience suggests strongly,

that the time is now to discuss ways to improve an

HACCP-based inspection system.

2 Meat and Poultry Inspection—The Scientific

Basis of the Nation’s Program, National Academy

Press, 1985 (pp. 134–135).

3The NACMCF streamlined the principles in a

report adopted August 14, 1997. That report

reversed principles six and seven from the original

order established by NACMCF to the order

presented above. See Hazard Analysis and Critical

Control Point Principles and Application

Guidelines (hereinafter the Guidelines), J. of Food

Protection, Vol. 61, No. 6, at 762–775, 1998.

issues related to the HACCP regulation

and its implementation, FSIS is

publishing the petition in this Federal

Register notice. FSIS is also publishing

this petition as part of its on-going

efforts to keep stakeholders updated and

informed about the Agency’s activities.

The Agency is working on a separate

rulemaking related to the petition

process, to more clearly define the

requirements to be contained in a

petition for changing the FSIS

regulations.

Questions

FSIS is seeking public comment on

the following questions about the

petition:

1. The industry petition relies mainly

on the NACMCF document and does not

provide any data or examples to support

its request. Is there any information that

would support taking any of the actions

requested in the petition?

2. Would amending 9 CFR 417.2(a) in

the manner suggested in the petition

result in regulations that provide the

level of public health protection

required by the Federal Meat Inspection

Act and the Poultry Products Inspection

Act?

3. Should FSIS consider regulatory

modifications that would acknowledge

the prerequisite programs concept of

NACMCF?

4. Do FDA regulations, such as the

GMP regulations, offer an approach that

FSIS should consider? How would such

an approach fit within the HACCP

concept? How would FSIS implement

such an approach?

5. What will be the effects of making

FSIS and FDA HACCP regulatory

requirements dissimilar?

6. Should the changes suggested in

the industry petition be considered in

light of the views expressed on HACCP

by Codex and by other countries?

The Text of the Petition

Petition for Rulemaking Amendments to

Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis

Critical Control Point (HACCP); Final

Rule

The member companies of the trade

associations (the associations) identified

below support the adoption of Hazard

Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)

as the best system available for

enhancing the safety of meat and

poultry products. Through this petition,

the associations seek amendments that

will contribute to the evolution and

effectiveness of HACCP. Although some

adjustments can be made to the

inspection system administratively,

certain amendments to the Pathogen

Reduction; Hazard Analysis Critical

Control Point Systems final rule (the

Rule) published by the Food Safety and

Inspection Service (FSIS or the agency)

on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 38806) will be

required to accomplish these objectives.

Although HACCP implementation to

date has been largely successful,

disputes over ‘‘technical’’ nonconformances with certain elements of

the Rule have arisen that have adversely

affected the overall success of HACCP,

without contributing to protection of

consumers.1 In that regard, amending

the rule would reduce the occurrence of

these unproductive instances and help

focus future activities of the industry

and the agency on issues that are vital

to consumer protection.

Background

HACCP is a preventive system of

hazard control, the inherent value of

which is widely acknowledged. In that

regard, the HACCP system has provided

a framework for establishing more

effective food safety measures. Nearly

15 years ago, the National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) recognized the

importance of incorporating HACCP

into the meat and poultry inspection

system and encouraged FSIS to move

quickly to apply the HACCP system. 2

The seven principles of HACCP, as

revised by the National Advisory

Committee on Microbiological Criteria

for Foods (NACMCF) in 1997, provide

the basis for contemporary

interpretations of the HACCP system.

Those principles are:

1. Conduct a hazard analysis.

2. Determine the critical control

points.

3. Establish critical limits.

4. Establish monitoring procedures.

5. Establish corrective actions.

6. Establish verification procedures.

7. Establish recordkeeping and

documentation procedures. 3

Through the application of these

principles, simple production processes

can be accommodated. Similarly, highly

sophisticated procedures, even those

that may pose some degree of risk can

also be accommodated, assuming that

the appropriate critical control points

are identified and measurement criteria

are established.

These principles purportedly provide

the basis for the agency’s Rule. The Rule

as written, however, deviates from the

intended application of these principles

in several important ways. It is because

the Rule as implemented by the agency

does not adhere in its entirety to the

principles of HACCP that this petition is

submitted.

The Rule and industry’s adoption of

HACCP have fundamentally changed

many aspects of food safety practices

and inspection. HACCP requires

acceptance by industry that it is

responsible for ensuring the safety of

products it produces. That concept, and

the challenges it presents, has been

accepted by industry.

The Rule also has required

adjustments within the agency’s

inspection program. Companies’ HACCP

control activities occur in

establishments under some form of

continuous inspection and a wide range

of enforcement sanctions remains

available to FSIS. Indeed, the Rule has,

in effect, expanded that capability

through provisions permitting

withholding actions in the event an

establishment’s HACCP plan is deemed

to be inadequate. Under HACCP,

however, inspection emphasis was to

have shifted away from the application

of subjective criteria and toward

monitoring of specific, quantitative

benchmarks.

HACCP should result in a food

inspection system with a much higher

level of private and public cooperation.

Ideally, under HACCP government and

industry would find themselves

working together to monitory food

safety compliance, with the goal of

providing the safest possible meat and

poultry supply.

Discussion

The Rule Is Written and Interpreted Too

Narrowly

An important component of HACCP is

the requirement that a written HACCP

plan be developed for all products in

accordance with HACCP principles.

That plan should identify the hazards

associated with the product, identify the

critical control points in the process,

establish quantitative monitoring

procedures to assure compliance and

corrective actions, and provide effective

documentation of compliance. A

HACCP plan is, however, only one part

of a plant’s overall food safety system.

Other integral components of that

system include Sanitation Standard

30954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Notices

4Prerequisite programs have been identified as

the foundation upon which a HACCP plan is built.

See ‘‘The Role of Prerequisite Programs in

Managing a HACCP System,’’ Dairy, Food and

Environmental Sanitation, Vol. 18, No. 7 at 418–

423, July 1998.

5 9 CFR sec. 417.1.

6FSIS cross-references hazard and food safety

hazard in the Rule. See 9 CFR sec. 417.1.

7See Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point

Principles and Application Guidelines, National

Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for

Foods, at 6 (August 14, 1997).

8 Id. at 12–13.

9 Id. at 12.

10 Indeed, the Guidelines provide that hazards

identified in one facility may not be significant in

another plant for the same or similar product. Id.

at 14.

Operating Procedures (SSOPs), and

various good manufacturing practices

and other prerequisite programs

(hereinafter collectively prerequisite

programs) that are needed to form the

foundation for the HACCP system.4

Unfortunately, the agency has elected

only to recognize the sanitation part of

these other components of

establishments’ food safety systems. For

example, a beef plant typically controls

temperature according to prerequisite

programs to preserve product quality.

Although this is a necessary program for

meeting quality criteria, FSIS has

apparently taken the posisiton that

establishments must also incorporate

product temperature controls into their

HACCP plans. This position has

resulted essentially in government

mandated critical control points

(CCPS)—contrary to the agencys often

repeated statement that companies

develop and operate their own HACCP

plans and are responsible for the same.

The role of prerequisite programs is a

central question that needs to be

addressed through a dialogue with the

agency to determine the appropriate role

for prerequisite programs as a

component of a plant’s operating

system.

This mandate arises out of the

agency’s refusal to acknowledge

prerequisite programs and other

important food safety systems as very

important, integral components of an

establishment’s food safety system. The

agency specifically points to the ‘‘in the

absence of those controls’’ language it

incorporated into section 417.2(a)(1) of

the Rule. The agency’s interpretation of

the Rule’s language is unduly narrow

and ignores the commonsense approach

needed to make HACCP successful.

Notwithstanding the problems

encountered to date, the Rule can be

amended to enable the agency to

consider the other important aspects of

an establishment’s food safety system,

such as prerequisite programs. Rather

than continue to implement a regulation

that the agency interprets as forcing

FSIS to ignore certain elements of a

plant’s program, the Rule should be

amended to permit the agency to

consider those other components when

determining whether an establishment’s

HACCP plan is adequate. As discussed

below, prerequisite programs will

influence the likelihood that a food

safety hazard will occur and, therefore,

should be acknowledged by the Agency.

Such an amendment will benefit the

agency, the regulated industry, and most

significantly will enhance food safety.

In that regard, the agency will be better

able to determine whether a company’s

HACCP plan is adequate, enabling the

agency to apply its limited resources to

situations in which the integrity of the

food inspection system may be

compromised. Similarly, regulated

companies will be better able to direct

their resources to address circumstances

that involve legitimate food safety

issues, rather than including additional

and often unnecessary provisions in

their HACCP plans in order to

accommodate the current interpretation

of HACCP contained in the rule. Making

the system operate more efficiently

benefits all interested parties, including

consumers who benefit from lower

prices and also benefit from the fact that

a less complicated, less duplicative

system contributes to a more effective

system from a food safety standpoint.

The Definition and Interpretation of a

Food Safety Hazard Should Be

Amended

The Rule’s definition of ‘‘food safety

hazard’’ is inconsistent with the

definition of hazard provided by the

NACMCF. Currently, the Rule defines a

‘‘food safety hazard’’ as any ‘‘biological,

chemical, or physical property that may

cause a food to be unsafe for human

consumption.’’ 5 The NACMCF,

however, developed a tighter, more

appropriate defintion of ‘‘hazard’’ in its

1997 report.6 Specifically, NACMCF

defines a ‘‘hazard’’ as a ‘‘biological,

chemical, or physical agent that is

reasonably likely to cause illness or

injury in the absence of its control.’’ 7

This definition will facilitate

development of HACCP plans that focus

on food safety, while encouraging firms

to utilize prerequisite programs.

The Guidelines include a thorough

discussion of that definition and, in that

regard, provide that the purpose of a

hazard analysis ‘‘is to develop a list of

hazards which are of such significance

that they are reasonably likely to cause

injury or illness if not effectively

controlled.’’ 8 The Guidelines provide

that each identified potential hazard

should be evaluated, giving

consideration to its severity and likely

occurrence. That consideration should

also include the food, its method of

preparation, transportation, storage, and

the persons likely to consume the

product.9 Also included in these

considerations would be the influence

of prerequisite programs on the likely

occurrence of the hazard under

consideration. In short, the Guidelines

make clear that significance, based on a

variety of factors, is an integral part of

determining whether a potential hazard

is, in fact, a hazard that should be

addressed in a HACCP plan.10

The Rule, however, is not written, nor

interpreted, in a manner consistent with

the NACMCF Guidelines. The Rule

provides a much broader definition of

‘‘hazard’’ because it identifies as a

‘‘hazard’’ those properties that may

cause a food to be unsafe, regardless of

whether the hazard is ‘‘significant’’ in

terms of actually presenting a risk to

human health. This interpretation has

led to confusion regarding what should

be covered in HACCP plans and how to

make this determination. This problem

could be addressed by changing the

Rule’s definition of ‘‘hazard.’’ The

NACMCF definition and interpretation

of a ‘‘hazard,’’ is more precise and

consistent with the principles of HACCP

because it provides useful guidance for

identifying those properties that, when

all factors are considered, present a

significant risk of illness or injury.

Prior to the implementation date for

HACCP in the very large plants, the

agency published the first of several

notices that, in effect, dictate the

adoption or establishment of hazards,

without engaging in the necessary

hazard analysis with respect to the

significance and severity of those

hazards. For example, in November

1997 FSIS published a notice telling

establishments that zero tolerance for

visible fecal material was a food safety

standard and that FSIS would be

determining compliance before the

application of interventions. FSIS stated

in the notice that visible fecal was a

vehicle for microbial contamination.

However, an establishment employing

microbial interventions would typically

set the critical control point at the

intervention, not prior to it. In a

situation such as this the visible

contamination would need to be

minimized but would not be the most

critical point in the system. This notice,

in effect, dictated the presence of CCPs

in the production process, as well as its

positioning.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Notices 30955

Immediately following large plant

implementation the agency published a

notice that effectively abandoned the

concepts underlying HACCP in favor of

a command and control regulatory

system. Ultimately, the agency issued

letters to numerous federally inspected

facilities effectively dictating CCPs

when a hazard analysis conducted by

those plants, consistent with the

NACMCF model for conducting such an

analysis, indicated that the hazard was

not of sufficient significance and

severity to warrant its control through

the HACCP plan. Finally, more recently,

the agency has again insisted on

dictating the presence and positioning

of CCPs in plants that manufacture raw

ground and not ground products.

Implementing the change

recommended by this petition would

address this problem and would benefit

the agency, consumers, and the

regulated industry. As previously

discussed, such a change would enable

the agency to focus its resources in a

more efficient and effective manner and

would enhance food safety by doing so.

Accordingly, the Rule should be

amended to adopt the definition of

‘‘hazard’’ as set forth by the NACMCF

and abide by the NACMCF’s intent with

regard to conducting a hazard analysis.

The Rule Does Not Adequately Address

When a Product Is Within an

Establishment’s Control

The Rule does not provide adequate

guidance as to when a product has left

the producing facility’s control. The

agency’s interpretation of the Rule fails

to acknowledge that products can be

within an establishment’s control even

when the product is outside the

physical boundaries of an

establishment. For example, product on

a company-owned or contracted truck is

still under that company’s control, as is

product still owned by the

establishment but held in a cold storage

warehouse away from the production

facility. FSIS has, on several occasions,

contended that product was no longer

within the establishment’s control once

it left the production facility’s loading

dock. Indeed, the agency has taken that

position even when the product was

stored on tractor-trailers still on the

physical plant compound.

The Rule should be amended to

define, for purposes of compliance with

the HACCP regulations, when a product

is shipped. In that regard, product

should be deemed to have been shipped

for purposes of HACCP compliance

when it has been sold to another entity

and is no longer in the direct or effective

control of the producing establishment.

For example, when product owned by

the establishment is stored at a cold

storage warehouse and is still subject to

movement at the direction of the

establishment it should be deemed to be

in the establishment’s control.

The Provision Regarding Inadequate

Plans Should Be Amended

The Rule provides that a plant’s

HACCP plan may be deemed to be

inadequate when ‘‘adulterated product

is produced or shipped.’’ That provision

however, is too draconian and should be

amended to delete the reference to

‘‘produced.’’

The checks built into a HACCP plan

are intended to identify not only when

the production process is working as

intended, but also to alert an

establishment when the process has not

met the critical limits relevant to the

identified CCPs. A HACCP plan

operating, as intended, will alert a

company when a critical limit has not

been met for one of many reasons that

can, over the course of time, be expected

to occur. In some cases, that will result

in the production of ‘‘adulterated’’

product as that term is defined in the

Federal Meat Inspection Act and the

Poultry Products Inspection Act. What

is relevant for purposes of compliance

with the Rule is whether administration

of the HACCP plan resulted in the

company being able to detect the

problem, as well as enabling the

company to take corrective action.

A plant’s operation should not be in

jeopardy when it identifies a problem,

as its plan is designed to do—even

though adulterated product has been

produced. The Rule, however, puts the

agency in the position of taking action

and deciding that an establishment’s

HACCP plan is inadequate when

adulterated product is produced, even if

the company caught the problem before

any product left the plant’s control. If

the system is working a company

should not be penalized. At a minimum,

no plan should be deemed to be

inadequate for deviations detected by

the company in pre-shipment review.

Numerous examples of such technical

non-conformances can be cited and

such instances have encumbered the

agency and industry in resource

intensive discussions that do not

enhance public health protection. By

modifying the Rule the squandering of

valuable inspection resources can be

avoided.

Specific Action Requested

The undersigned organizations

request that the FSIS HACCP

regulations be amended as set forth

below.

Amend section 417.2(a)(1) to read as

follows: ‘‘Every official establishment

shall conduct, or have conducted for it,

a hazard analysis to develop a list of

hazards that are of such severity and

significance that they are reasonably

likely to cause injury or illness if not

effectively controlled. Hazards that are

not reasonably likely to cause injury or

illness do not require further

consideration within a HACCP plan.

The hazard analysis shall consider the

ingredients and raw materials, each step

in the process, product storage and

distribution, and final preparation and

use by the consumer.’’

Amend section 417.1 to include

several necessary definitions to ensure

consistency with the recommendations

of the NACMCF. In that regard the

following amendments should be

promulgated.

• Delete the term food safety hazard

and provide the following definition of

hazard: ‘‘A biological, chemical, or

physical agent that is reasonably likely

to cause illness or injury in the absence

of its control.’’

• Provide the following definition of

hazard analysis: ‘‘The process of

collecting and evaluating information

on hazards associated with the food

under consideration to decide which are

significant and must be addressed in the

HACCP plan.’’

• Provide the following definition of

severity: ‘‘The seriousness of the

effect(s) of a hazard.’’

• Provide the following definition of

shipped: ‘‘A product has been shipped

if it has been sold to a third party and

is not under the direct or effective

control of the inspected establishment.

Products have not been shipped in

circumstances such as when the product

is still owned by the inspected

establishment, whether stored at the

inspected establishment or at another

storage location, as well as when the

product is moving from one facility to

another that is owned by the same

person or company.’’

Amend section 417.3 to provide when

product produced pursuant to a HACCP

plan has been shipped for purposes of

compliance with the rule. Specifically,

section 417.3(b)(3) should be amended

by striking the words ‘‘enters

commerce’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

‘‘is shipped.’’

Amend section 417.6(e) to provide

that a HACCP system may be found to

be inadequate when adulterated product

has been shipped. Specifically, section

417.6(e) should be amended by striking

‘‘produced or.’’

30956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Notices

Conclusion

Amendments to the Rule as suggested

by this Petition will advance the

interests of government, industry, and

the consuming public. The Food Safety

and Inspection Service should proceed

without further delay toward adoption

of these amendments. With regard

specifically to prerequisite programs,

the undersigned organizations intend to

engage the agency in discussions to

develop the appropriate consideration

of these programs within a

comprehensive system for managing

food safety, quality, and

wholesomeness.

Certification

The undersigned certifies that, to the

best of his knowledge and belief, the

Petition includes all information and

views on which the Petition relies, and

that it includes representative data and

information known to the Petitioners

that are unfavorable to the Petitioners.

Respectfully submitted,

American Meat Institute

American Association of Meat Processors

National Chicken Council

National Food Processors Association

National Meat Association

National Turkey Federation

North American Meat Processors

Additional Public Notification

Public awareness of all segments of

rulemaking and policy development is

important. Consequently, in an effort to

better ensure that minorities, women,

and persons with disabilities are aware

of this notice, FSIS will announce it and

provide copies of this Federal Register

publication in the FSIS Constituent

Update. FSIS provides a weekly FSIS

Constituent Update, which is

communicated via fax to over 300

organizations and individuals. In

addition, the update is available on-line

through the FSIS web page located at

http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is

used to provide information regarding

FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,

Federal Register notices, FSIS public

meetings, recalls, and any other types of

information that could affect or would

be of interest to our constituents/

stakeholders. The constituent fax list

consists of industry, trade, and farm

groups, consumer interest groups, allied

health professionals, scientific

professionals, and other individuals that

have requested to be included. Through

these various channels, FSIS is able to

provide information to a much broader,

more diverse audience. For more

information and to be added to the

constituent fax list, fax your request to

the Congressional and Public Affairs

Office, at (202) 720–5704.

Done at Washington, DC, on: May 8, 2000.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–12156 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

invites U.S. companies to participate in

the following overseas trade missions

that they also explain at the following

website: http://www.its.doc.gov/doctm.

For a comprehensive description of the

trade mission, obtain a copy of the

mission statement from the project

officer listed below. The recruitment

and selection of private sector

participants will be conducted

according to the Statement of Policy

Governing Department of Commerce

Overseas Trade Missions announced by

Secretary Daley on March 3, 1997.

The Aerospace Executive Service at the

Farnborough International Air Show

2000

United Kingdom

July 24–30, 2000

For Further Information Contact:

Roderick A. Hirsch at the Department of

Commerce in Long Beach, CA;

Telephone number: (562) 980–4566 or

Fax: (562) 980–4561.

Housing Business Development Mission

to China

Hong Kong, Shanghai, Chendu & Beijing

June 5–14, 2000

For Further Information Contact:

Chris Twarok at the Department of

Commerce in Washington, DC;

Telephone number: (202) 482–0377 or

Fax: (202) 482–0382.

Anita Blackman,

Director of Operations, Office of Domestic

Operations.

[FR Doc. 00–12077 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–FP–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

Public Telecommunications Facilities

Program Application Form

ACTION: Proposed collection; comments

requested.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on

proposed and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before July 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Linda Engelmeier, Departmental

Forms Clearance Officer, Department of

Commerce, Room 5027, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230 (or via the Internet

lengelme@doc.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

instrument(s) and instructions should

be directed to Clifton Beck, NTIA, Room

H–4888, U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

The purpose of the Public

Telecommunications Facilities Program

is to assist, through matching funds, in

the planning and construction of public

telecommunications facilities in order to

achieve the following objectives:

• Extend delivery of public

telecommunications services to as many

citizens in the United States as possible

by the most efficient and economical

means, including the use of broadcast

and nonbroadcast technologies;

• Increase public telecommunications

services and facilities available to,

operated by, and owned by minorities

and women; and

• Strengthen the capability of existing

public radio and television stations to

provide public telecommunications

services to the public.

II. Method of Collection

The information collection instrument

to be used is in written form.

• Application form distributed to all

potential applicants who have notified

PTFP that they wish to be placed on the

mailing list for applications.

III. Data

OMB Number: 0660–0003.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Public

Telecommunications Facilities Program

applicants (who may be non-profit

corporations, public and private