Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 19491

conditions, such as homelessness or

migrancy.

* * * * *

(4) Nutritional risk priority system.

The competent professional authority

shall fill vacancies which occur after a

local agency has reached its maximum

participation level by applying the

following participant priority system to

persons on the local agency’s waiting

list. Priorities I through VI shall be

utilized in all States. The State agency

may, at its discretion, expand the

priority system to include Priority VII.

The State agency may set income or

other sub-priority levels within any of

these seven priority levels. The State

agency may expand Priority III, IV, or V

to include high-risk postpartum women.

The State agency may place pregnant or

breastfeeding women and infants who

are at nutritional risk solely because of

homelessness or migrancy in Priority IV;

children who are at nutritional risk

solely because of homelessness or

migrancy in Priority V; and postpartum

women who are at nutritional risk solely

because of homelessness or migrancy in

Priority VI, OR, the State agency may

place pregnant, breastfeeding or

postpartum women, infants, and

children who are at nutritional risk

solely because of homelessness or

migrancy in Priority VII.

* * * * *

(vii) Priority VII. Individuals certified

for WIC solely due to homelessness or

migrancy and, at State agency option,

and in accordance with the provisions

of paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section,

previously certified participants who

might regress in nutritional status

without continued provision of

supplemental foods.

* * * * *

Dated: April 11, 1995.

William E. Ludwig,

Administrator, Food and Consumer Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9657 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR PARTS 318, 381 and 391

[Docket No. 94–033F]

RIN 0583–AB87

Reduction of Accreditation Fees for

FSIS Accredited Laboratories

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Confirmation of interim rule.

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and

Inspection Service (FSIS) is confirming

the interim regulations amending

provisions of the Federal meat and

poultry products inspection regulations

to reduce the fees charged participants

in the Agency’s voluntary Accredited

Laboratory Program (ALP). Non-Federal

analytical laboratories are qualified

under the ALP to conduct analyses of

official meat and poultry samples. The

payment by laboratories of annual

accreditation fees that cover the costs of

the ALP is mandated by the Food,

Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade

Act of 1990 (the 1990 Farm Bill), as

amended. FSIS determined late last year

that reduced ALP administrative

expenditures for fiscal year 1995 would

enable the Agency to charge a smaller

accreditation fee than it did last year.

Since the amount of the laboratory

accreditation fee is set forth in the

regulations, the regulations had to be

changed before the Agency could charge

a different fee. To meet fee billing

deadlines, FSIS found it necessary to

publish the fee reduction rule on an

interim basis.

The Agency also took the opportunity

to make some editorial corrections to

the regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Jess Rajan, Food Safety and Inspection

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Room 516A, Annex Building, 300 12th

Street SW., Washington DC 20250–3700,

(202) 205–0679.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 1327 (7 USC 138f) of the

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and

Trade Act of 1990 (PL 101–624), as

amended, known as the 1990 Farm Bill,

requires USDA to charge a

nonrefundable accreditation fee for

laboratories seeking accreditation by the

Secretary under the authority of the

FMIA or PPIA. The fee is required to be

in an amount that offsets the cost of the

ALP administered by FSIS under the

authority of the FMIA and PPIA.

Fees are billed annually on a peraccreditation basis at a rate that is

established by regulation (9 CFR 391.5).

The ALP regulations define an

accreditation to be a determination by

FSIS that a laboratory is qualified to

analyze official samples of meat and

poultry products for the presence and

amount of four food chemistry analytes

or a determination that a laboratory is

qualified to analyze official samples of

product for the presence and amount of

one of several classes of chemical

residue. The per-accreditation fee for

fiscal year 1994 was $3,500.

FSIS projected late last year that the

expenses of administering the ALP

during fiscal year 1995 would be less

than the expenses for fiscal year 1994.

The reduction came about because of

management savings and, to a lesser

extent, a smaller enrollment in the ALP

than anticipated. The Agency

determined that the smaller overall cost

of running the program meant that it

could reduce the fee per accreditation.

The Agency determined that, for fiscal

year 1995, the fee for original

accreditations and renewals would be

$2,500.

In order to meet billing deadlines for

accreditation renewals, avoid rebates for

renewals paid for at the old rate, and

avoid unnecessary administrative

burdens on the Government and

industry, the Agency found it necessary

to promulgate an interim rule with

request for comments on December 27,

1994 (59 FR 66446), effective the same

date. The interim rule amended the

administrative provisions of the Federal

meat and poultry inspection regulations

to change the fee. Also, some editorial

corrections were made to the ALP

regulations.

The interim rule provided a 30-day

comment period ending January 26,

1995. During this period one comment

was received from a trade association

favoring the fee reduction.

Executive Order 12866

This final rule has been determined to

be significant and was reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12778

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule reduces the

accreditation fees for non-Federal

analytical chemistry laboratories

accredited under the Federal Meat and

Poultry Products Inspection Acts and

regulations promulgated thereunder.

States and local jurisdictions are

preempted under the Federal Meat

Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry

Products Inspection Act (PPIA) from

imposing any requirements with respect

to federally inspected premises and

facilities, and operations of such

establishments, that are in addition to,

or different than, those imposed under

the FMIA or PPIA. States and local

jurisdictions are also preempted under

the FMIA and PPIA from imposing any

marking, labeling, packaging, or

ingredient requirements on federally

inspected meat or poultry products that

are in addition to, or different than,
19492 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

those imposed under the FMIA or the

PPIA, as well as preempted from

imposing, under the PPIA for poultry

products, certain storage and handling

requirements. States and local

jurisdictions may, however, exercise

concurrent jurisdiction over meat and

poultry products that are outside official

establishments for the purpose of

preventing the distribution of meat or

poultry products that are misbranded or

adulterated under the FMIA or PPIA or,

in the case of imported articles, which

are not at such an establishment, after

their entry into the United States. States

and local jurisdictions may also make

requirements or take other actions, that

are consistent with the FMIA and PPIA,

with respect to any other matters

regulated under the FMIA and PPIA.

Under the FMIA and the PPIA, States

that maintain meat and poultry

inspection programs must impose

requirements that are at least equal to

those required under the FMIA or PPIA.

These States may, however, impose

more stringent requirements on such

State-inspected products and

establishments.

This final rule will have no

retroactive effect and applicable

administrative procedures must be

exhausted before any judicial challenge

to the application of these provisions.

Those administrative procedures are set

forth in 9 CFR §§ 306.5, 318.21(h),

381.35, and 381.153(h).

Effect on Small Entities

Most of the entities accredited by

FSIS that will be affected by this final

rule are large, independent laboratories

or official meat packing establishments

or States that own or operate accredited

laboratories.

There are currently approximately

150 laboratories in the FSIS accredited

laboratory program. About three

quarters of these are large entities, with

respect to the volume of business, or

part of such entities as large business

corporations, State universities, or State

governments. These laboratories provide

analytical services to large and small

establishments for analysis of official

samples.

Participation in the Agency’s

Accredited Laboratory Program is

voluntary. The principal burden of the

final rule on laboratories will be the fee

charged for FSIS accreditation ($2,500

per accreditation, of which a laboratory

may have more than one) and the

minimal billing and accounting costs.

This fee is substantially lower than the

fee previously charged.

Some large laboratories have multiple

accreditations for food chemistry and

chemical residues, while many small

laboratories are accredited only for food

chemistry. Thus, smaller laboratories

(small entities) tend to pay smaller

amounts of accreditation fees than large

laboratories. Balanced against these

costs are the revenues from analyzing

official samples, which are likely to be

greater because firms can be expected to

pass much of the costs of obtaining

accreditation to clients, and the

enhancement of income from other

services provided by the laboratories

because of their status as ‘‘accredited by

FSIS.’’ As a result, the net effect of this

rulemaking on both small and large

laboratories will not be significant. The

user-fee costs for having official samples

analyzed by accredited laboratories are

passed on to the establishments doing

business with accredited laboratories, or

absorbed by the official establishment if

the establishment has an in-house

accredited laboratory. Establishments

using the laboratories benefit from the

earlier marketing of product released

from official retention. Because of the

accreditation fee reduction authorized

by this final rule, the overall benefits to

the meat and poultry industry,

including both small and large

establishments, from using accredited

laboratories can be expected to increase

very modestly.

It is possible that some small

laboratories that are not now

participating in the ALP may choose to

apply for the program because of the

lower fee. If they did so, a larger number

of accredited laboratories would be

available for use by official

establishments, including small

establishments, than there are at

present.

For these reasons, the net effects of

the final rule, though beneficial, are not

likely to be significant on a substantial

number of small entities.

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 318

Meat inspection, Laboratory

accreditation.

9 CFR Part 381

Poultry and poultry products

inspection, Laboratory accreditation.

9 CFR 391

Fees and charges for inspection

services, Laboratory accreditation fees.

Final Rule

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble:

§ 318.21 [Amended]

1. In part 318, the revisions of

§ 318.21(c)(3)(ix)(A)(1), (A)(2), (B), and

(C) published December 27, 1994 (59 FR

66446), are confirmed as final.

§ 381.153 [Amended]

2. In part 381, the revisions of

§ 381.153(c)(3)(ix)(A)(1), (A)(2), (B), and

(C) published December 27, 1994 (59 FR

66446), are confirmed as final.

§ 391.5 [Amended]

3. In part 391, the revision of § 391.5

published December 27, 1994 (59 FR

66446), is confirmed as final.

Done at Washington, DC, on: April 12,

1995.

Michael R. Taylor,

Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety.

[FR Doc. 95–9592 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–123–AD; Amendment

39–9172; AD 95–06–02]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747 Series Airplanes, Excluding

Airplanes Equipped With Pratt &

Whitney PW4000 and General Electric

CF6–80C2 Series Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects a

typographical error that appeared in the

applicability statement of the abovecaptioned airworthiness directive (AD)

that was published in the Federal

Register on March 14, 1995 (60 FR

13618). A typographical error in the

applicability statement of the AD

resulted in a reference to airplane line

numbers that are inaccurate.

DATES: Effective April 13, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations was previously approved by

the Director of the Federal Register as of

April 13, 1995 (60 FR 13618, March 14,

1995).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056;

telephone (206) 227–2776; fax (206)

227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95–06–02,

amendment 39–9172, applicable to

certain Boeing Model 747 series