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

55568

Vol. 62, No. 207

Monday, October 27, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

Sunshine Act Meeting; Correction

Note: This document replaces the meeting

notice at 62 FR 54603 (October 21, 1997).

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., November 3,

1997.

PLACE: Room 104–A, Jamie Whitten

Building, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED

1. Approval of the Minutes of the

Special Open Meeting of February 5,

1996.

2. Memorandum re: Update of

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)-

Owned Inventory.

3. Memorandum re: Commodity

Credit Corporation’s (CCC’s) Financial

Condition Report.

4. Resolution re: Amendment of

Bylaws of the Commodity Credit

Corporation.

5. Resolution re: Termination of

Obsolete CCC Board Dockets.

6. Resolution re: Amendment of

Dockets Requiring Only a Change in

Nomenclature.

7. Resolution re: Ratification of

Commodities Available for Public Law

480 During Fiscal Year 1996.

8. Docket GCX–326 re: Market Access

Program for Fiscal Year 1996 and

Subsequent Years.

9. Docket CZ–266, Rev. 2, re:

Operations Under Agricultural Trade

Development and Assistance Act.

10. Docket CZ–332, Rev. 1, re: Food

for Progress Program.

11. Docket CZ–161a, Rev. 8, re:

Policies for Collection, Settlement, and

Adjustment of Certain Claims By or

Against the Commodity Credit

Corporation.

12. Docket GCZ–136 re: Policy with

Respect to Establishment of Valuation

Reserves Against Assets of the

Commodity Credit Corporation.

13. Docket CZ–148, Rev. 4 re: Capital

Fund Commitments and Control of

Valuation Reserves Against Assets of the

Commodity Credit Corporation.

14. Docket P–CON–96–02, re:

Environmental Activities.

15. Docket P–CON–96–03, re:

Delegating Authority for CCC

Conservation Programs.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Juanita B. Daniels, Acting Secretary,

Commodity Credit Corporation, Stop

0571, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

1400 Independence Avenue SW,

Washington, D.C. 20250–0571.

Dated: October 21, 1997.

Juanita B. Daniels,

Acting Secretary, Commodity Credit

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 97–28466 Filed 10–22–97; 4:57 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Farm Service Agency

Notice of Request for Extension of a

Currently Approved Information

Collection

AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this

notice announces the intention of the

Farm Service Agency (FSA) to request

an extension of a currently approved

information collection in support of the

FSA Aerial Photography Program. The

FSA Aerial Photography Field Office

(APFO) uses the information from this

form to collect the customer and

photography information needed to

produce and ship the various products

ordered.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 26, 1997 to be

assured consideration.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:

Contact Linda McDonald, USDA, FSA,

APFO, 2222 West 2300 South, Salt Lake

City, Utah 84119–2020, telephone (801)

975–3500 Extension 235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Request for Aerial Photography.

OMB Control Number: 0560–0176.

Expiration Date of Approval: October

31, 1997.

Type of Request: Extension of

previously approved information

collection.

Abstract: The information collected

under Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Control Number 0560–0176 as

identified above, is needed to enable the

Department of Agriculture to effectively

administrate the Aerial Photography

Program.

APFO has the authority to coordinate

aerial photography and remote sensing

programs and the aerial photography

flying contract programs.

The film secured by FSA is public

domain and reproductions are available

at cost to any customer with a need. All

receipts from the sale of aerial

photography products and services are

retained by FSA.

The FSA–441, Request for Aerial

Photography, is the form FSA supplies

to its customers when placing an order

for aerial photography products and

services.

Estimate of Respondent Burden:

Public reporting burden for this

information collection is estimated to

average 3.3 hours per response.

Respondents: Farmers, Ranchers and

other USDA Customers who wish to

purchase photography products and

services.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

24,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondents: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours on Respondents: 8,000 hours.

Proposed topics for comment include

but are not limited to: (a) Whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information from those

who are to respond, including the use

of appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology. Comments may

be sent to the Desk Officer for

Agriculture, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices 55569

DC 20503, and to Linda McDonald,

FSA, APFO, USDA, 2222 West 2300

South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119–2020.

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the collection of information

contained in these proposed regulations

between 30 and 60 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment

to OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives in within 30 days

of publication.

All responses to this notice will be

summarized and included in the request

for OMB approval. All comments will

also become a matter of public record.

Signed at Washington, DC on October 19,

1997.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency.

[FR Doc. 97–28303 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

[Docket No. 97–057N]

Notice of Change in Inspection

Procedures; Adoption of a Hands-off

Inspection Procedure for Lambs

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the American Sheep Industry

Association, the Food Safety and

Inspection Service (FSIS) is changing its

inspection procedures for lambs.

Currently, inspectors palpate the

carcasses of lambs for the purpose of

detecting and removing carcasses with

diseases such as Caseous lymphadenitis.

Under the new procedure, there will be

hands-off inspection of lambs in order

to reduce the risk and hands-on

inspection methods may spread or add

microbial contamination to carcasses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Alice Thaler, Chief, Concepts &

Design Branch, Inspection Methods

Development Division, Office of Policy,

Program Development, and Evaluation,

Food Safety and Inspection Service,

Department of Agriculture, Washington,

DC 20250–3700; telephone, (202) 205–

0005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Traditionally, meat inspectors have

palpated the carcasses of lambs as part

of their post-mortem evaluation of these

animals. The American Sheep Industry

Association recommended that we end

this practice for food safety reasons. The

primary justification for this longstanding hands-on inspection procedure

was to detect and remove carcasses with

diseases such as Caseous lymphadenitis.

In determining the desirability of such

a procedure for lambs, FSIS considered

two questions: (1) Will diseased

carcasses of parts be more likely to

reach consumers in a hands-off system?;

and (2) Are current hands-on inspection

methods likely to be spreading or

adding contamination to carcasses?

Comparing Hands-on and Hands-off

Procedures

The first issue deals with the benefits

of a hands-on system. What is the risk

that a diseased carcass or diseased parts

would be passed for food and reach the

consumer if FSIS instituted a hands-off

inspection procedure?

The second issue was to determine

whether current inspection techniques

used on lambs cause inspectors to

spread or add contamination to

carcasses. Although there is no data on

this specific question, we believe that

data from other food handling and

health care industries indicate that the

hands-on procedures could contaminate

lamb carcasses or spread such

contamination.

Caseous lymphadenitis is the primary

disease detected by carcass palpation,

and it is not a public health concern. In

the United States, there are six plants

that slaughter 80 percent of the lambs.

From Fiscal Years 1987 to 1996, these

six plants slaughtered 26,347,480 lambs

and yearlings. (Present data do not

distinguish between lambs and

yearlings.) The plants condemned 1,203

animals in the same 10-year period for

Caseous lymphadenitis, a 0.0046

percent condemnation rate. It is

unknown how many carcasses were

detected on post-mortem and trimmed,

and then passed for food.

Seven of the diseases routinely

present in lambs are of public health

concern: Actinobacillosis,

Campylobacteriosis, Contagious

ecthyma, Echinococcosis, Leptospirosis,

Salmonella dysentery, and

Toxoplasmosis. However, none of them

require carcass palpation for diagnosis.

The American Sheep Industry

Association believes that hands-on

inspection methods spread or add

contamination to carcasses, including

pathogenci microorganisms such as

Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and

Salmonella. The Agenc7y evaluated

existing information to determine its

adequacy and reviewed literature

regarding the documented spread of

contamination by hands in other

industries. (See References at end of

document.) Evidence from other food

handling and health care industries

supports these concerns. (Gould and

Ream 1996; Wenzel and Pulverer 1995).

FSIS accepts the documentation in

allied fields, which argues that the

palpation of lamb carcasses is

inconsistent with our food safety

philosophy that FSIS must return

carcasses presented for inspection with

unchanged or lower food safety risk

factors.

Conclusion

The primary reason for carcass

palpation in lambs is to detect Caseous

lymphadenitis. This disease is not in

public health concern and has an

extremely low condemnation rate.

Although it has not been proven directly

that palpation by inspectors causes

microbial contamination or actually

spreads such contamination, compelling

evidence from allied industries

indicates that hands do spread or add

microorganisms. The risk of

contamination using a hands-on

procedure exceeds the risk of diseased

carcasses being missed using a hands-off

procedure for lambs.

Therefore, FSIS is proceeding to adopt

a hands-off inspection method for

lambs. This process involves a number

of steps, including consultation with

employee organizations. FSIS intends to

complete the process within the next 12

months.

FSIS will monitor condemnation rates

in the six plants to identify the impact,

if any, of the change. Further, the

Agency intends to look at the

implications of hands-of inspection

procedures with regard to the

production of all meat and poultry

products.

Done at Washington, DC, on October 17,

1997.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

References

1. Snider, O.P., Jr., HACCP—An Industry

Food Safety Self-Control Program—Part VI,

Dairy Food & Environ. Sanitation, June 1992;

12(6):362–365.

2. Almeida, R.C., Kuaye, A.Y., Serrano,

A.M., de Almeida, P.F., Evaluation and

Control of the Microbiological Quality of

Hands in Food Handlers, Revista de Saude

Publica (Brazil), Aug. 1995; 29(4):290–4.

3. Bell, R.G., Hathaway, S.C., The Hygienic

Efficiency of Conventional and Inverted

Lamb Dressing Systems. Journal of Applied

Bacteriology (New Zealand). Sep. 1996;

81(3):225–34AB.

4. Gould, D., Ream, E., Nurses’ Infectioncontrol Practice: Hand Decontamination, the

Use of Gloves and Sharp Instruments.

International Journal of Nursing Studies

(U.K.). Apr. 1996; 33(2):143–60AB.