Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 1996 / Notices 20509

Signed at Washington, DC., April 18, 1996.

Susan Offutt,

Administrator, Economic Research Service.

[FR Doc. 96–11298 Filed 5–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–18–M

Food Safety and Inspection Service

[Docket No. 96–012N]

Interstate Shipment of State-inspected

Meat and Poultry Products

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; request for public

comments.

SUMMARY: The 1996 Farm Bill requires

the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to

Congress, by July 3, 1996,

recommendations concerning the steps

necessary to achieve interstate shipment

of State-inspected meat and poultry

products. Under the Federal Meat

Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry

Products Inspection Act (PPIA),

products inspected under State

programs ‘‘at least equal to’’ the Federal

inspection program may be distributed

only within State boundaries. FSIS is

requesting comment from the public on

which issues need to be addressed in

responding to the Congressional

directive to make recommendations

concerning the interstate shipment of

State-inspected products. Possible

issues include, but are not limited to:

the safety, wholesomeness, and labeling

of State-inspected products; recall

responsibilities; the administration of

State programs; the funding of Federal

oversight of State inspection programs;

the funding of Federal assistance to

State inspection programs; jurisdictional

complications; eligibility of such

products for export; and economic

effects. The Agency plans to use these

comments in formulating its

recommendations to Congress

concerning State-inspected meat and

poultry products.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 6, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

two copies of written comments to

Policy, Evaluation and Planning Staff,

Attn: FSIS Docket Clerk, DOCKET No.

96–012N, Room 4352 South Building,

Food Safety and Inspection Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC 20250.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Patrick Clerkin, Office of the

Administrator, Food Safety and

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250;

Code (202) 205–0700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1996 Farm Bill Provision

Section 918(b) of the Federal

Agriculture Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996 (PL 104–127; known as the

1996 Farm Bill), which was signed into

law April 4, 1996, requires that, not

later than 90 days after enactment of the

Farm Bill, or by July 3, 1996, the

Secretary of Agriculture submit a report

to Congress concerning the steps

necessary to achieve interstate shipment

of meat and poultry products inspected

under State programs that are ‘‘at least

equal to’’ the Federal inspection

programs. Under the current Federal

meat and poultry inspection laws, such

products may be distributed solely

within the States in which they are

prepared.

Background

Under the Federal Meat Inspection

Act (FMIA; 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and

the Poultry Products Inspection Act

(PPIA; 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), FSIS is

responsible for ensuring that meat, meat

food, and poultry products distributed

in interstate and foreign commerce are

safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and

properly marked, labeled, and packaged.

FSIS currently conducts antemortem

and postmortem inspection of livestock

and poultry at slaughtering

establishments, inspects furtherprocessed meat and poultry products,

inspects the sanitary conditions of

facilities where meat and poultry

products are produced, and certifies

U.S. products for export to foreign

countries. FSIS investigates violations of

the inspection laws and violative

products are controlled through

detentions, civil seizures and voluntary

recalls.

FSIS inspection is supported by

laboratory services in the fields of

chemistry, microbiology, serology, and

pathology. An important laboratorysupported function is the National

Residue Program, which is designed to

help prevent the distribution in

commerce of products containing illegal

concentrations of drugs, pesticides, and

other chemicals. FSIS also carries out

microbiological surveys to determine

pathogen levels in raw meat and poultry

and special microbiological studies and

surveillance of raw and processed

products. An example of this is the

testing of raw ground beef for the

presence of E. coli O157:H7.

FSIS operates a compliance program

aimed at ensuring that meat and poultry

products in commerce are not

adulterated or misbranded. Through this

program, the Agency exercises

regulatory authority over businesses that

transport, store, or distribute meat and

poultry products in interstate commerce

after those products leave federally

inspected establishments. The Agency

also registers meat or poultry brokers,

renderers, manufacturers, or

wholesalers, or others dealing in meat or

poultry products that are not intended

for human consumption.

FSIS also maintains a comprehensive

import inspection system. That system

involves two major activities, the first

being oversight to ensure that exporting

countries have in place appropriate

controls over their meat and poultry

inspection systems. Such countries (1)

must undergo a rigorous review process

before they can become eligible to

export meat and poultry to the United

States and (2) must receive periodic

reviews by FSIS to maintain such

eligibility. Only plants operating under

FSIS approved national inspection

programs may qualify to export meat

and poultry products into the United

States. Meat and poultry products

inspected under regional or provincial

(i.e., state) inspection programs in

foreign countries are not eligible for

export to the United States.

The second part of our import control

program is reinspection at the port of

entry, on a sample basis, of meat and

poultry products as they enter the

United States. Reinspection is a check to

make sure that the foreign country’s

inspection system is working. Seventyfour import inspection personnel carry

out import reinspection at

approximately 160 official import

establishments.

The program for determining the

eligibility of a foreign country to export

to the United States is based on a

systems approach. FSIS focuses on a

country’s overall inspection system as a

means of ensuring consumer protection.

For instance, the Agency examines

whether the country has the legal

authority to impose requirements

equivalent to those of the United States

in areas such as sanitation and

antemortem and postmortem inspection.

We examine the organizational structure

and staffing of its inspection program.

We also conduct on-site reviews of the

country’s inspection operations to

evaluate the effectiveness of all aspects

of the country’s program.

Once a country becomes eligible, FSIS

conducts on-site reviews of its

inspection system—usually one or more

times a year. The frequency of the

reviews is determined by a country’s

performance history, including previous

plant reviews as well as product

reinspection at United States ports-ofentry. If a country does not continue to

operate an inspection system that
20510 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 1996 / Notices

complies with all FSIS requirements, it

is removed from the list of countries

eligible to export to the United States.

FSIS port-of-entry inspection is a

further check on the effectiveness of the

foreign country’s inspection system. It

should be emphasized that reinspection

is carried out on products that have

already passed the foreign country’s

inspection and been certified as meeting

all U.S. requirements by the exporting

country.

USDA import inspectors, using an

automated system, examine each lot of

product for general condition, proper

labeling, and proper certification that

the products comply with all U.S.

regulatory requirements. In addition,

based on a plant’s history of compliance

with inspection requirements, the

nature of the product, and the size of the

shipment, the automated system

generates an inspection plan for each

shipment that may identify additional

inspection tasks. The system applies a

statistical sampling plan to each lot of

product presented for reinspection.

Selected reinspection tasks could

include detailed product examination;

net weight verification; container

condition review; product label

examination; species testing; and

laboratory analyses for food chemistry,

residues, and microbial contamination.

In addition, import inspectors can take

additional samples whenever they

suspect a problem. Daily reinspection

results from all ports-of-entry are

entered and stored in the system,

continuously updating the compliance

histories for every foreign establishment

exporting to the United States.

The FMIA (at 7 U.S.C. 661) and the

PPIA (at 7 U.S.C. 454) authorize the

Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate

with the States in their development

and administration of meat and poultry

inspection programs that impose

requirements for mandatory antemortem

and postmortem inspection and

establishment sanitation, and

requirements governing the preparation

of further-processed products, that are

‘‘at least equal to’’ the corresponding

Federal requirements. Products

produced for human food and inspected

under ‘‘equal-to’’ State programs are

limited by Federal law to intrastate

distribution. The Acts further authorize

the Secretary to cooperate with the

States in administering compliance

programs under authorities that are ‘‘at

least equal to’’ those provided by Title

II of the FMIA (21 U.S.C. 641–645) or

Section 11 of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 460).

FSIS has signed State-Federal

cooperative agreements with States that

have chosen to operate their own

inspection programs; with separate

agreements on compliance-related

matters. Under these agreements, FSIS

provides advice and technical assistance

to the States and funds up to 50 percent

of the cost of operating the State

programs. Technical assistance

activities include providing routine

training of State inspection personnel at

the FSIS training center, providing

special training when new inspection

systems are introduced, and helping

State laboratories with problems

requiring specialized expertise. Federal

and State compliance personnel are

trained together at the Federal Law

Enforcement Training Center.

If, for any reason, a State fails to

develop or maintain and enforce

effective inspection requirements that

are ‘‘at least equal to’’ those of the

Federal program, USDA is required to

designate the State for Federal

inspection. In designated States, all

establishments wishing to engage in

commercial activities requiring

inspection must apply to, and be

approved by, FSIS for Federal

inspection. Designation may also be

applied to individual establishments,

the meat portion of a State program, the

poultry portion, or the entire program.

The FMIA and PPIA provisions for

‘‘equal-to’’ State inspection programs

were introduced by the 1967

Wholesome Meat Act (WMA) and the

1968 Wholesome Poultry Products Act

(WPPA), which provided numerous

amendments to the Meat Inspection Act

of 1906 and the Poultry Products

Inspection Act of 1957. The

amendments relating to State programs

were prompted mainly by concern over

the potential for distribution to the

consumer of unwholesome or

adulterated meat and poultry products

because of the absence of mandatory

inspection for products produced and

sold within States and localities. The

original inspection laws had provided

for mandatory Federal inspection of

products in interstate commerce but not

of products distributed solely within a

State. At the time the WMA and WPPA

were passed, up to 25 percent of meat

food products and 13 percent of poultry

products were produced without

Federal inspection coverage and, if

inspected at all, were subject to widely

varying State and local standards.

The WMA and WPPA extended

inspection coverage to thousands of

establishments that had not been

previously subject to Federal standards

or ‘‘equal-to’’ State standards. Many of

the establishments affected were smaller

facilities, some located in remote areas,

which produced small quantities of

meat, meat food, or poultry products. In

presenting the WMA to the Senate, the

Senate Committee on Agriculture and

Forestry (Senate Report No. 799, Nov.

21, 1967) expressed the view that some

of the Federal standards for plant

construction were unrealistic for some

small facilities, and encouraged USDA

to consider basing the eligibility of an

establishment for inspection on a

combined evaluation of the operating

procedures used by the establishment

and the building construction and

physical facilities rather than upon a

separate evaluation of these factors. If

the operating procedures were patterned

so as to ensure the sanitary handling of

products within the establishment and

result in wholesome food, the

establishment could be declared eligible

for Federal inspection. However, the

Senate report emphasized that State

requirements concerning

wholesomeness, additives, labeling, and

other regulations were not to be

compromised and had to be at least

equal to Federal standards. The WPPA

accommodated small establishments by

authorizing USDA to exempt from

inspection establishments handling

20,000 or fewer birds per year to be

distributed solely within a State and by

providing other exemptions.

Growth and Development of the StateFederal Cooperative Inspection

Program

Following the enactment of the WMA

and the WPPA, many States opted for

designation rather than fund the

necessary improvements to meet the

‘‘equal-to’’ provisions of the Acts. From

1971 to 1981, 23 States and four

Territories were designated, primarily

because of an inability to fund the

programs. Four States chose to designate

the poultry inspection branches of their

programs, but retained the meat

inspection branches. USDA monitored

and reviewed the remaining 27 meat or

meat and poultry inspection programs,

and issued annual certifications that the

programs were meeting the ‘‘equal-to’’

requirements, as provided in the Acts.

At present, 26 States have active

programs, 24 covering both meat and

poultry inspection and 2 covering meat

only.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, the

Federal approach to oversight of State

programs changed. Initially, FSIS

provided training and guidance to assist

the States in applying the national

standards. Once the various State

programs were able to demonstrate their

ability to administer and maintain

‘‘equal-to’’ programs without Federal

guidance, FSIS changed its oversight

approach to one of monitoring and

verification.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 1996 / Notices 20511

1Members of the public who are interested in

reviewing a State’s SPP may contact Dr. Robert

Fetzner, Director, Federal-State Relations Staff, at

(202) 720–6313, to arrange an appointment.

2A copy of the GAO report is on file in the FSIS

Docket Room, Room 4352 South Agriculture

Building, Washington DC 20250.

3A copy of the OIG report is on file in the FSIS

Docket Room, Room 4352 South Agriculture

Building, Washington, DC 20250.

In exercising its oversight function,

FSIS conducts a system review of each

State’s program. A system review

involves a combined evaluation of the

State’s requirements, operations, and

enforcement of its meat and poultry

inspection laws. Each State maintaining

an inspection program must keep on file

with USDA an up-to-date State

Performance Plan (SPP) 1. The SPP,

which is required by an FSIS directive

and not by regulation, documents the

existence of State laws, regulations,

funding, workforce, laboratories, and

other resources necessary for the State

to operate an ‘‘equal-to’’ program. The

SPP also describes operations and

enforcement and how the State’s

program works in the particular

environment of the State to ensure the

integrity of meat and poultry products

intended for intrastate sale,

transportation, and use. The head of

each State program must certify

annually, in writing, that the program

meets ‘‘equal-to’’ requirements.

Teams of subject matter experts from

FSIS conduct comprehensive reviews of

each State program every three-to-five

years to verify adherence to SPP’s.

These reviews include random sampling

of in-plant records and conditions. On

a continuing basis, FSIS field officials

work directly with State officials

providing advice and assistance. When

information from Federal officials in the

field or from other sources leads FSIS to

suspect deficiencies in State programs,

FSIS conducts special reviews.

FSIS also exercises oversight of State

compliance programs covering intrastate

commerce in meat and poultry products

intended for human food or other

purposes to ensure that these programs

are ‘‘at least equal to’’ the Federal

compliance program. FSIS verifies that

the laws and regulations covering

compliance-related matters provide the

State with authorities ‘‘at least equal to’’

those provided FSIS under the FMIA

and PPIA. FSIS also ensures that State

agencies have resources adequate to

carry out effective compliance

programs, including qualified personnel

and adequate funding. State compliance

programs must be effective in

controlling products that are suspected

of being adulterated or misbranded; in

enforcing recordkeeping requirements

and providing for necessary access to

establishment facilities, records, and

inventory; and in ensuring proper

registration of meat or poultry brokers,

renderers, manufacturers, wholesalers,

or others dealing in meat or poultry

products not intended for human

consumption.

In addition, FSIS reviews State

procedures for reporting violations of

State meat and poultry inspection laws,

initiating civil or criminal proceedings,

documenting breakdowns in the State

inspection system, and ensuring that the

requirements for products not to be used

for human food are observed.

External Reviews of FSIS Oversight of

State Programs

The efficacy of FSIS reviews of State

‘‘equal-to’’ status has been questioned

periodically by external reviewers. In

1983, the General Accounting Office

(GAO) audited USDA’s State oversight

procedures to determine whether FSIS

certification of State ‘‘equal-to’’ status

conformed to the authorizing

legislation. At the time, FSIS was basing

its certification on a quarterly review

and rating of individual State-inspected

establishments. GAO reported that

USDA’s procedures were reasonable,

but that the certification process lacked

uniformity across regions.2 GAO also

noted that FSIS’s internal reviews did

not include regular assessments of State

program oversight.

In response to the GAO Report, FSIS

adopted a systems approach to

reviewing and evaluating State

inspection programs. This change

resulted in the SPP requirement and the

comprehensive reviews described

above. FSIS chose this approach

because it provided for long-range

improvement, allowed States to assume

more responsibility for program

controls, broadened the scope of Federal

oversight, and reduced Federal costs.

In January 1994, the Department’s

Office of Inspector General (OIG)

reported, among other findings, that the

Agency’s comprehensive reviews did

not address State program weaknesses

in a number of areas, including

establishment sanitation, inspection

scheduling, and procedures for

obtaining and handling laboratory

samples.3 OIG also questioned the

consistency of FSIS reviews from region

to region and the adequacy of followups to verify that State corrective action

plans resulting from FSIS

comprehensive reviews were carried

out. FSIS has taken some steps to

address the deficiencies noted in the

OIG report and continues to work on

improvements.

The Interstate Shipment Issue

As stated above, the FMIA and PPIA,

as amended by the WMA and the

WPPA, permit State-inspected products

to be shipped only in intrastate

commerce. The Acts would have to be

amended before State-inspected

products could be distributed in

interstate commerce.

In 1968, when Congress was

deliberating on the WPPA, the issue of

interstate shipment of State poultry

products was debated at length.

Congress rejected the proposal at that

time. One reason was that allowing

interstate shipment of State inspected

poultry but not of red meat would create

an unacceptable disparity between the

red meat and poultry inspection

programs. Congress left open the

possibility of future consideration of the

interstate shipment issue after State

meat and poultry inspection programs

had been firmly established. Congress

has considered amending the Acts to

allow the interstate shipment of Stateinspected products on a number of

occasions since that time.

Issues to be Addressed

FSIS is requesting comments to be

used in preparing its report to Congress

on the interstate shipment issue as

required by the 1996 Farm Bill. FSIS is,

regrettably, setting a short time limit for

submitting comments on this issue.

However, the Farm Bill has set a 90-day

timeframe within which the Agency

must submit its recommendations to

Congress.

In the view of FSIS, reporting on ‘‘the

steps necessary to achieve interstate

shipment’’ of State-inspected meat and

poultry products, means, in part,

addressing any issues arising from the

States’ Performance Plans. Concerning

these issues, commenters should

identify the factors that might weigh for

or against permitting State-inspected

products into interstate commerce and

what steps would be necessary to

address those factors. Commenters

should specify whether such factors are

generic to all establishment types or

specific to slaughter establishments or

to processing establishments. Some

specific aspects of the current SPP’s that

may warrant focus include:

• Food safety

• Laboratory services and sampling

• Facility and equipment

requirements

• Labeling

• Recall procedures
20512 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 1996 / Notices

Food Safety Issues: Current Inspection

System

• What additional steps, if any,

should be taken to provide full

assurance to the Nation’s consumers

that State-inspected products produced

under the current system of inspection

meet the same standards of food safety

and wholesomeness as Federal or

foreign-inspected products?

• What modifications to the SPP’s

would be necessary to provide for the

monitoring of each State’s product in

interstate commerce and for feedback to

the State program?

Laboratory Services

• What improvements, if any, need to

be made in State laboratory standards,

sampling programs, or performance?

Establishment facility and equipment

requirements

• What issues relating to

establishments’ facilities, equipment,

and sanitation need to be considered,

and how?

Marking and Labeling; Product

Identification

• How should State-inspected

product be identified in commerce?

Should special marking or labeling

requirements be imposed?

• What effect would permitting

interstate shipment of State-inspected

product have on the consumer’s ability

to determine whether a product or its

ingredients had been inspected and

would consumer confidence in the

safety and quality of meat and poultry

products be in any way affected?

Recall Procedures

• Which agency or agencies should

exercise jurisdiction in cases involving

the recall of a State-inspected product

that may have been distributed to

several other States?

• Could confusion over jurisdiction

arise that could impede timely action to

prevent the consumption of unsafe,

adulterated products?

In addition to the issues arising from

the SPP’s, FSIS welcomes comments on

other issues that could have a bearing

on interstate shipment of Stateinspected products. These issues

include State implementation of

HACCP-based inspection, interstate

relations (including the refusal of one

State to accept the products of another

State), acceptance of product inspected

under equivalent systems, the export of

State-inspected product, economic

effects, and the availability of resources

for Federal assistance and oversight.

Administration of State Programs;

HACCP

Commenters are invited to consider

what additional challenges might arise

with the adoption and implementation

of ‘‘Pathogen Reduction; HACCP’’

regulations proposed by the Agency.

• Should interstate shipment of Stateinspected products be authorized prior

to the States’ implementation of the

HACCP and pathogen reduction

regulations?

◆ Should interstate shipment of

State-inspected products be authorized

prior to FSIS’s evaluation of States’

operations under these adopted

regulations?

◆ Is implementation of HACCP by

the States a factor that should even be

considered?

Interstate Relations

◆ What potential exists for States

with conflicting standards to bring

actions in Federal courts against firms

located in other States or against the

States in which such firms are located?

◆ If interstate shipment of Stateinspected meat and poultry products is

allowed, should there be some provision

for all consumers in the States and

Territories to participate in the

rulemaking proceedings in any one of

the States concerning such products?

◆ Should a State be able to refuse

acceptance of another State’s products?

If so, under what conditions? What

avenues of recourse are available to the

State whose products are refused? What

should be the FSIS role in such matters?

Acceptance of Product Inspected Under

Equivalent Systems

Meat and poultry products prepared

under foreign inspection systems that

are equivalent to the Federal inspection

system are allowed in interstate

commerce. Foreign products that are

shipped to the United States have been

inspected and passed by a national

inspection program that meets standards

equivalent to those of this country’s

Federal program. These programs are

subject to regular systems reviews by

FSIS officials and, in addition, products

imported to this country are subject to

FSIS reinspection at points of entry

before they are shipped in interstate

commerce. Reinspection is a

performance-based system; foreign

establishments with better compliance

histories have their products

reinspected less frequently.

◆ Should the FSIS reinspection

system for imported products be

considered to provide the same level of

assurance to the public that foreigninspected products receive?

◆ If State-inspected products are

allowed in interstate commerce without

reinspection, should any other measures

be considered?

◆ What resources would be necessary

to carry out this inspection and from

what source or sources should they be

obtained?

Export of State-inspected Product

◆ Should State-inspected product be

considered eligible for export? Why or

why not? Under what conditions should

export of State-inspected product be

permitted?

◆ How would technical problems

and trade issues be addressed? By

whom would these problems and issues

be addressed?

◆ How would costs be addressed?

◆ How would permitting the

interstate shipment of State-inspected

product affect the acceptability to

foreign countries and importers of U.S.-

export products generally?

◆ What agency or agencies would be

responsible for certifying exports?

Economic Effects

The number of meat and poultry

establishments under State inspection

has been declining steadily in recent

years. For example, in 1986, 3,707 meat

or poultry establishments were

operating under State inspection in 27

States, but by 1994 there were 2,904

such establishments in the same number

of States.

Permitting interstate sale and

distribution of State-inspected products

could eliminate the incentives for

holding a Federal grant of inspection

rather than a State grant. This change

could affect the economies of the

Federal and State programs if it resulted

in significant shifts of establishments

between the Federal and State systems.

◆ Should the ability of an

establishment to choose between

Federal and State inspection be

restricted in any way? Why?

◆ Would States be induced to

compete with one another by marketing

their inspection programs so as to

influence company decisions on where

to locate new or relocate existing meat

and poultry establishments? If so, what

would be the consequences for the

States, for workers, for consumers?

◆ What would be the implications or

consequences of allowing sales of Stateinspected product to Federal

establishments for further processing?

Would this affect decisions by domestic

or foreign buyers?

◆ What effect should permitting the

interstate shipment of State-inspected

product have on establishments where

Federal inspection is performed by State
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 1996 / Notices 20513

employees under Federal-State

cooperative agreements, pursuant to the

Talmadge-Aiken Act (7 U.S.C. 450)?

Availability of Resources for Federal

Oversight of and Assistance to State

Programs

A perennial question to be addressed

is the availability of resources for

appropriate Federal oversight of State

programs to ensure that they are ‘‘at

least equal to’’ the Federal program. The

resource question is sometimes

highlighted when the Agency’s

oversight of State programs undergoes

external evaluation by GAO or OIG, as

discussed above. Nevertheless, the

ability of the Agency to meet the need

for oversight of State programs will

continue to be challenged by a scarcity

of resources. This challenge is likely to

be far greater than it is at present if

State-inspected products are permitted

to be shipped in interstate commerce,

for the volume and geographical

distribution of State-inspected products

could be greater than they are now, and

the handling of the products more

complicated.

◆ What is the best way to ensure the

continued provision of resources

necessary for Federal oversight of State

programs?

◆ What would be the effect on State

resources of allowing interstate

shipment of State-inspected product,

especially if large numbers of

establishments switch from Federal to

State inspection?

◆ In addition, how should the

financing of State programs be

accomplished? Should USDA continue

to pay up to half the cost of operating

a State program?

◆ If a wider market were opened to

State-inspected products, would sales

volumes rise and would State

economies be better able to support a

larger share of program operations?

The foregoing list of issues is not

intended to be inclusive; FSIS

recognizes that commenters may suggest

other issues and provide comments

regarding them. FSIS welcomes

comments on other issues related to

interstate shipment of meat and poultry

from State-inspected establishments.

Done, at Washington, D.C., on: May 3,

1996.

Michael R. Taylor,

Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety.

[FR Doc. 96–11456 Filed 5–3–96; 1:40 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–12–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Submission For OMB Review;

Comment Request

DOC has submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

clearance the following proposal for

collection of information under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Agency: Bureau of the Census.

Title: Survey of Public Attitudes

Toward Administrative Records Use.

Form Number(s): None –– Computer

assisted telephone interview.

Agency Approval Number: None.

Type of Request: New collection.

Burden: 300 hours.

Number of Respondents: 1,200.

Avg Hours Per Response: 15 minutes.

Needs and Uses: The Census Bureau

is testing the use of administrative

records in the Census 2000 to estimate

the characteristics of nonresponding

households, supplement data for

respondents that return incomplete

forms, and estimate the number of

persons missed within households. To

enhance the usability of administrative

record information, the Census Bureau

is also considering asking respondents

in the Census 2000 to provide their

Social Security number (SSN). This

survey asks respondents to rate their

feelings and attitudes toward our use of

administrative records and collecting

SSN in the census. Knowledge about the

public’s feelings and attitudes will help

the Census Bureau form privacy policy,

achieve effective promotion and

outreach, and determine language for

public use forms.

Affected Public: Individuals.

Frequency: One time.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Jerry Coffey, (202)

395–7314.

Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained by

calling or writing Linda Engelmeier,

Acting DOC Forms Clearance Officer,

(202) 482–3272, Department of

Commerce, Room 5312, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230.

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collection should be sent

within 30 days of publication of this

notice to Jerry Coffey, OMB Desk

Officer, Room 10201, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Linda Engelmeier,

Acting Departmental Forms Clearance

Officer, Office of Management and

Organization.

[FR Doc. 96–11259 Filed 5–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–F

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

[Docket No. 960405101–6101–0]

RIN 0693–XX17

Request To Identify Bodies Interested

in European Union (EU) Conformity

Assessment Activities

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

SUMMARY: This is to advise the public

that the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) is seeking input

regarding the identification of bodies

which can perform conformity

assessment of products that will

ultimately be entered into commerce in

the European union (EU). This

information is requested in support of

ongoing negotiations between the

United States and the EU for mutual

recognition of product approvals

pursuant to regulatory requirements. At

the present time, we wish to identify

and report to the EU those U.S.

organizations that believe that they are

qualified and are interested in certifying

products as being in compliance with

mandatory EU product safety

requirements, that is, U.S.-based

organizations that desire to be

recognized as equivalent to notified or

competent body status under a U.S.-EU

mutual recognition agreement (MRA), as

specified in the EU directives covering

telecommunications terminal

equipment (TTE) (EEC 89/263),

electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)

(89/336), low voltage electrical

equipment (LVD) (EEC 73/23), and

recreational craft (EEC 94/25). The areas

of present interest are the following: (1)

Product testing and quality assessment;

(2) quality system registration; (3)

evaluation of technical construction

files (specific to the EMC directive); and

(4) product certification. Copies of the

pertinent EU directives and related lists

of reference standards are available at

the U.S. Department of Commerce,

Room 3042, Herbert C. Hoover Building,

14th and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, D.C., or NIST, building

820, Room 164, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Organizations are invited to inform

NIST of their interest in carrying out

any of the activities listed above under

specific EU directives, indicating the

scope of their claimed competence and

identifying specific standards, test

methods, etc. Organizations should note

current accreditation by a recognized

national, regional or international

accreditation body to a recognized or

international standard and, if possible,