[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49640-49645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23794]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 381
[Docket No. 97-006F]
RIN 0583-AC33
Addition of Mexico to the List of Countries Eligible to Export
Poultry Products into the United States
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is adding Mexico
to the list of countries eligible to export poultry products to the
United States. Reviews of Mexico's laws, regulations, and other
materials show that the requirements of its poultry processing system
are equivalent to relevant provisions in the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (PPIA) and its implementing regulations.
Only products processed from poultry slaughtered in federally
inspected establishments in the United States or in establishments in
other countries eligible to export poultry from certified slaughter
establishments to the United States may be imported into the United
States after processing in certified Mexican establishments. FSIS
inspectors will reinspect poultry products exported from Mexico to the
United States at U.S. ports of entry. This action enables certified
poultry processing establishments in Mexico to export processed poultry
products to the United States.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 14, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Manis, Director,
International Policy Development Division, Office of Policy, Program
Development and Evaluation; (202) 720-6400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 49641]]
Background
On November 28, 1997, FSIS published a proposal in the Federal
Register (62 FR 63284) to add Mexico to the list of countries eligible
to export poultry products to the United States. In the proposal, FSIS
reported that Mexico had met the certification requirements imposed in
the U.S.' poultry products inspection regulations, that its poultry
processing inspection system is equivalent to that of the United
States, and that its official residue control laboratory is fully
capable of testing poultry products. Therefore, FSIS proposed to permit
Mexico to export processed poultry products to the United States,
provided the poultry processed in Mexican establishments approved for
export to the United States is slaughtered in the United States under
USDA inspection or in establishments certified by countries that are
eligible to export slaughtered poultry and poultry products to the
United States.
Comments
FSIS received six comments on the proposed rule. Three were from
American poultry products companies, two from Mexican poultry products
companies, and one from a trade association. Five commenters fully
supported finalizing the rule as proposed; one commenter supported the
proposed rule provided FSIS ensures that the Mexican poultry processing
system is equivalent to the U.S. poultry processing system before any
Mexican establishments are certified to export processed poultry
products to the United States.
All commenters support free and open trade between Mexico and the
United States. Many noted that the proposal would help both countries
compete in the global economy. According to three commenters, allowing
Mexico to export processed poultry products to the United States would
support the North American Free Trade Agreement. A fourth commenter
noted that allowing such imports is consistent with U.S. obligations
under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures.
Three commenters mentioned that both the Mexican and U.S. poultry
industries will benefit if the proposed rule is finalized. One
commenter, a Mexican corporation, said that besides the increased sales
to be reaped by U.S. poultry producers, U.S. producers of other
products will benefit as well, including producers of packaging
materials, brokers, and distributors. The commenter went on to say that
there is little or no possibility of Mexican poultry-based processed
foods displacing sales by U.S. processed food suppliers, at least by
the corporation's poultry-based products, because those products
consist primarily of distinctive Mexican foods that will not compete
directly with the products marketed by U.S. suppliers.
The second commenter of these three commenters pointed out that not
only will the proposed rule benefit the economy of Mexico, in that more
jobs will be created for Mexican citizens, but that the U.S. economy
will also benefit because of the increase in poultry exports. This
commenter also pointed out that consumers will benefit from the
proposed rule because they will have additional choices as to the
processed poultry products they buy and possibly lower prices for those
products. Another commenter echoed this idea by stating that the
proposal would keep jobs in the United States, since Mexican
establishments will only be able to process poultry that has been
slaughtered in establishments certified by countries that are eligible
to export to the U.S.
One commenter supported the proposal, provided certain conditions
are met. First, FSIS must ensure that the Mexican system continues to
comply with the requirements of 9 CFR 381.196, specifically, that the
foreign system is equivalent to the U.S. system. The commenter
indicated that its support is conditioned upon FSIS review and
determination that the Mexican establishments certified to export
processed poultry products to the United States meet equivalent
requirements for Sanitation Standard Operating procedures (SSOPs) and
the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points System (HACCP). Second,
the commenter continued, FSIS should issue a schedule of the on-site
reviews of the Mexican establishments, in operation, at the time any
final rule is published. Finally, the commenter stated that Mexico must
develop a program to ensure that the limitations on the approval to
export poultry products to the United States are followed, and that
FSIS must find the program satisfactory, before a final rule is issued.
To ensure that all foreign establishments certified to export to
the U.S. comply with all relevant FSIS laws and regulations, including
SSOPs and HACCP, FSIS conducts periodic on-site audits of each eligible
foreign country's inspection system to verify that its regulatory
authority is implementing the system as described in the country's
application to export poultry to the U.S. No Mexican establishment may
begin exporting processed poultry products to the United States until
Mexico has certified that (1) the establishment is eligible to export
processed poultry products to the United States, (2) establishments
randomly selected for review during the on-site audit by FSIS operate
in a way that shows FSIS that the country's inspection system is
working as described, and (3) the country has been added to the poultry
products inspection regulations as a country eligible to export poultry
products to the United States.
Since publication of the proposed rule, FSIS has conducted an on-
site audit of Mexico's inspection system. As part of that audit, FSIS
has verified that Mexico will enforce the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP
final rule in establishments that will be certified to export to the
U.S. by the required date (January 1999 for establishments with less
than 500 employees), including the SSOPs, and Salmonella testing
requirements. At the same time, FSIS also reviewed the program Mexico
has developed to ensure that only poultry from eligible countries and
establishments is used in poultry products processed in Mexico destined
for the United States. FSIS is satisfied that the program does so and
that it has been satisfactorily implemented.
After reviewing all of the documents submitted by Mexico and
evaluating the findings of the on-site audits and subsequent written
assurances of government officials, FSIS has determined that the
government of Mexico will enforce the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule in
establishments it has certified as eligible to prepare processed
poultry products for export to the United States, and that reliance can
be placed upon the certificates from the authorities of Mexico that are
required under the PPIA.
Accordingly, FSIS is amending Sec. 381.196 of the poultry products
inspection regulations to add Mexico as a country eligible to export
processed poultry products to the United States. As a country eligible
to export such products to the United States, the government of Mexico
will certify to FSIS which establishments are operating in accordance
with U.S. requirements. FSIS retains the right to verify that
establishments certified by the Mexican government are meeting U.S.
requirements.
Although a foreign country may be listed as eligible to export
processed poultry products, those processed products must also comply
with other U.S. requirements, including
[[Page 49642]]
restrictions under Title 9, Part 94 of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service's regulations (9 CFR Part 94) relating to the
importation of processed poultry products from foreign countries into
the United States.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This final rule: (1) Preempts all state and local
laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Executive Order 12866
This final rule has been determined to be significant and,
therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under Executive Order 12866. This Order requires FSIS to identify, and
if possible, quantify and monetize potential incremental benefits and
costs associated with this rule. This section provides such an
analysis.
In 1995, Mexico requested a determination of eligibility to export
poultry and poultry products to the United States. From October 1995 to
June 1996, FSIS conducted a study to evaluate the equivalence of the
Mexican poultry inspection system with that of the United States. After
completing that study, FSIS concluded that the Mexican poultry
processing system is equivalent to that of the United States and
therefore began developing this rule.
This rule will allow U.S. poultry establishments to export
slaughtered birds to Mexico, have the birds processed in Mexico, import
the processed poultry products back into the U.S., and then sell those
products to U.S. consumers.
To determine Mexico's potential exports of poultry products, FSIS
requested the Office of Agricultural Affairs of the U.S. Embassy in
Mexico to collect information from Mexican exporters. FSIS has learned
that, at this time, there are only two plants that plan to export
processed poultry products to the U.S. These establishments intend to
export cut-up chicken, cooked chicken, and chicken products. The total
quantity of these exports is estimated to be 6 million pounds or 2,727
metric tons (MT). The most likely initial volume of exports to the
U.S., therefore, will be no more than 3,000 MT.
Because only two Mexican establishments have expressed an interest
in exporting processed poultry products to the U.S., and because their
anticipated export volume is less than 3,000 MT, FSIS does not believe
that the volume of processed poultry products exported to the U.S. will
exceed 5,000 MT in the near future. Mexico has not had yearly world
exports of poultry meat and poultry products in excess of this number
in over 30 years. FSIS does believe, however, that the potential growth
of Mexican exports of processed poultry products to the U.S. is
significant. Unfortunately, FSIS has no way of assessing the future
interest of Mexican establishments in processing U.S. poultry for
export back to the U.S.
Between 1993 and 1997, U.S. exports of cut-up broilers to Mexico
increased almost 40 percent, from 77,909 MT in 1993 to 108,364 MT in
1997. The value of U.S. exports of cut-up broilers increased 32.6
percent during this period. At the same time, U.S. exports of whole
broilers fell almost 62 percent, from 7,765 MT in 1993 to 2,995 MT in
1997, while the corresponding value of whole broilers fell by 60.5
percent. However, the estimated price of cut-up broilers fell by nearly
5 percent, while the estimated price of whole broilers rose 3.5 percent
(See Table 1).
Table 1.--Trends in U.S. Exports of Broilers to Mexico, 1993-1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cut-up Whole
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity Average Quantity Average
Calendar year metric tons Value $000 price $/mt metric tons Value $000 price $/mt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.............................. 77,909 63,384 810 7,765 8,911 1,150
1994.............................. 93,963 74,404 790 6,252 7,672 1,230
1995.............................. 87,208 70,999 810 5,519 4,618 890
1996.............................. 96,622 87,483 900 2,353 2,764 1,170
1997.............................. 108,364 84,060 770 2,995 3,521 1,190
Average........................... 92,813 76,066 816 4,977 5,497 1,126
Change (97 minus 93).............. 30,455 20,676 -40 4,770 -5,390 40
Percent Change.................... 39.09 32.62 -4.93 -61.43 -60.49 3.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service
Note: 1 Metric Ton = 2,204 pounds
Table 2 shows U.S. exports of turkey to Mexico, classified into
cut-up and whole products, over the last five calendar years. Similar
to exports of cut-up broilers, the quantity and value of cut-up turkey
exported between 1993 and 1997 rose 28.6 percent and 27.4 percent,
respectively. Also, the quantity of whole turkeys exported to Mexico
increased 3.6 percent. However, the value of whole turkeys exported to
Mexico during that period decreased 4.9 percent. The price for both
cut-up and whole turkeys fell: the price for cut-up turkey fell by 1.4
percent, while the price for whole turkeys fell more than 8 percent.
Table 2.--Trends in U.S. Exports of Turkey to Mexico, 1993-1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cut-up Whole
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quanity Average Quantity Average
Calendar year metric tons Value $000 price $/MT metric tons Value $000 price $/MT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.............................. 63,205 89,926 1,420 1,803 3,059 1,690
1994.............................. 62,829 97,292 1,550 3,903 6,445 1,650
1995.............................. 54,543 69,618 1,270 689 1,165 1,690
1996.............................. 67,880 93,782 1,380 2,583 4,223 1,630
1997.............................. 81,271 114,579 1,400 1,868 2,910 1,550
[[Page 49643]]
Average........................... 65,945 93,039 1,404 2,169 3,560 1,642
Change (97 minus 93).............. 18,066 24,653 -20 65 -149 -140
Percent Change.................... 28.58 27.41 -1.41 3.61 -4.87 -8.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service
Note: 1 Metric Ton = 2,204 pounds
Adoption of this rule will stimulate increased exports of whole and
partial birds from the U.S. to Mexico for processing for various
reasons. Poultry processing is labor intensive. Therefore, the U.S.
poultry industry will most likely attempt to reduce its processing
costs by shifting that activity to Mexico, where labor is relatively
less costly. U.S. companies will be able to import the products that
have been processed in Mexico and still save money over the cost of
doing the processing in the U.S. This will result in employment
increases in the poultry processing industry in Mexico and earnings
increases in U.S. poultry slaughter establishments.
Poultry exports to Mexico from the U.S. will also increase because
Mexican establishments will, for the first time, be able to export
processed poultry products to the U.S. At the present time, poultry
processed in Mexico may not be exported to the U.S., even if the birds
were produced and slaughtered in the U.S. The fact that Mexican
establishments will be able to process only birds that have been
slaughtered in the U.S. (or in countries eligible to export poultry to
the U.S.) will also limit the market from which Mexican establishments
can obtain birds to process. (Realistically, the great majority, if not
all of the carcasses, will come from the U.S.)
The expected lower prices of poultry products processed in Mexico
will increase the quantity demanded in the U.S., but the change should
be insignificant. This is because the U.S. demand for poultry and
poultry products is relatively inelastic, i.e., insensitive to price.
Price elasticity of demand is the percent change in demand associated
with a 1 percent change in price. A review of 11 economic studies of
the demand for poultry shows that the elasticity ranges from (-0.1) to
(-0.94). In other words, a decrease in the price of poultry by 1
percent would be associated with an increase in demand of 0.1 to 0.94
percent (see Table 3). Table 3 also shows that the estimated
elasticities vary with the time periods for which the data were
analyzed and the types of models employed by the analysts.
Since the estimated elasticities are pure numbers, FSIS calculated
an average elasticity. It is (-0.46). Therefore, an average decrease in
price of poultry by 1 percent would be associated with an increase in
demand of poultry by approximately only -0.5 percent. As a result, any
decrease in price due to imports from Mexico is unlikely to increase
demand for poultry significantly in the U.S. Therefore, U.S. processors
of poultry products are unlikely to lose their market shares as a
result of imports from Mexico, and employment decreases will be small.
Table 3.--Price Elasticity of Demand for Poultry
[A Review of Economic Studies]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price
Study No. Author(s) elasticity Time period Model
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................... Alston & Chalfont (1993) -0.94 1967-1988 Quarterly.... Rotterdam.
2..................... Brester & Wohlgenant -0.296 1962-1989 Annual....... Interrelated demand.
(1991).
3..................... Capps et al. (1994)..... -0.893 January 1986 to June Retail Demand
1987 Weekly. Functions.
4..................... Eales, J. (1994)........ -0.63 1966-1992 Quarterly.... Inverse Lewbel Demands.
5..................... Eales & Unnevehr (1993). -0.233 1966-1988 Quarterly.... Simultaneity &
Structural Change.
6..................... Gao & Shankwiler (1993). -0.47 1956-1987 Annual....... Taste Change.
7..................... Hahn, W. (1994)......... -0.299 1981-1992 Monthly...... Random Coefficient.
8..................... Hahn, W. (1988)......... -0.14 1960-1987 Quarterly.... Income Differences.
9..................... Moschini & Meilke (1989) -0.10 1967-1987 Quarterly.... Structural Change.
10.................... Thurman (1987).......... -0.64 1955-1981 Annual....... Demand Stability.
11.................... Wohlgenant (1989)....... -0.42 1956-1983 Annual....... Complete System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Administrator has determined that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Data from the 1994 Survey of Industries suggest that the poultry
slaughtering and processing industry in the U.S. is highly competitive,
with 332 firms owning 567 establishments. The industry consists of
relatively large size (employment of 500 or more) establishments. For
example, in 1994, almost 51 percent of all establishments were
classified as large according to the definition of employment used by
the U.S. Small Business Administration. In 1994, this industry employed
207,875 workers, with a payroll of $3.5 billion. The estimated revenue
of this industry amounted to $27.1 billion in 1994.
The effects of the importation of processed poultry products from
Mexico on national, regional and local poultry producers are dependent
on many factors, such as where the products would enter U.S. marketing
and distribution channels, and where they would ultimately be consumed.
Transporting whole birds is relatively costly. Therefore, to save
transportation costs, it is likely that export of whole
[[Page 49644]]
birds to Mexico and import of cut-up products to the U.S. would be by
truck and concentrated in border areas of the U.S., including the
States of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.
If a local retail chain or wholesaler purchases processed poultry
products from Mexico, they are likely to be consumed regionally. If a
national wholesaler purchases them, they could be consumed anywhere in
the U.S. The effect on small producers would be more pronounced if the
imports affect only Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.
Because exports of whole birds and imports of cut-up products are
likely to be confined to states bordering Mexico due to transport costs
from other states in the U.S. to Mexico, FSIS analyzed data for four
border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. The U.S.
Bureau of the Census collected these data for the Survey of Industries,
1994. These data do not separate statistics of slaughtering
establishments from those of processing establishments. There are no
poultry slaughtering/processing establishments in Arizona and only one
in New Mexico. There are 37 slaughtering/processing establishments in
California and 22 in Texas.
The ``very small'' size establishments are defined, as in FSIS's
Pathogen Reduction/HACCP final rule, as having less than 10 employees.
The ``small'' and ``large'' size establishments are defined, according
to the Small Business Administration's definition of employment, as
having 500 or less employees, and more than 500 employees,
respectively.
Some of the establishments in California (11 out of 37, or 34
percent) are very small. In Texas, 6 out of 22 (27 percent)
establishments are very small. No data were available for New Mexico.
In 1997, California's total broiler production was 107,532 MT, while
Texas produced 206,443 MT. California also produced 9,528 MT of turkey.
If processed poultry products enter national distribution channels,
and, therefore, economic effects are shared by all U.S. producers,
there would not be a significant economic impact on small entities no
matter the volume (low (100 MT), medium (1,000 MT) or high (5,000 MT))
of imports assumed.\1\ Even under a high-volume scenario, where Mexico
exports approximately 5,000 MT (2,000 MT more than the most likely
amount anticipated) of poultry products to the U.S., to be consumed
locally in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, there likely will
not be a significant economic impact on small entities in the U.S.
Combined, California and Texas produced 323,503 MT of poultry products
in 1997. If Mexico exports 5,000 MT of poultry, it will be only .02
percent of California's and Texas' combined annual poultry production.
Adding New Mexico's poultry production numbers to the equation (data
unavailable) will make this percentage fall even lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These volumes (low-100 MT per year, medium-1,000 MT per year
and high-5,000 MT per year) were chosen because they reflect the
range of Mexican worldwide exports of broilers since 1990. Mexico
had yearly world exports of 5,000 MT of poulty and products in 1990,
1991 and 1992. However, in 1993, 1994 and 1995, Mexico exported no
poultry and other poultry products, and, since 1996, has exported
less than 1,000 MT of poultry and other poultry products annually.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Production, Supply, and Distribution
database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
Pursuant to Departmental Regulation 4300-4, ``Civil Rights Impact
Analysis,'' dated September 22, 1993, FSIS has considered the potential
civil rights impacts of this final rule on minorities, women, and
persons with disabilities.
This final rule will add Mexico to the list of countries eligible
to export poultry products to the U.S. Only products processed from
poultry slaughtered in federally inspected establishments in the U.S.
or in establishments in other countries eligible to export poultry from
certified slaughter establishments to the U.S. may be imported into the
U.S. after processing in certified Mexican establishments. This action
will enable certified poultry processing establishments in Mexico to
export processed poultry products to the U.S.
With the possibility of U.S. poultry establishments exporting
slaughtered poultry to Mexico for further processing, there is the
potential for an adverse impact on minorities, women, and persons with
disabilities. One such impact might be the potential loss of employment
as a result of the processing work being done in Mexico, rather than
the U.S. However, further processing in Mexico may improve the
competitiveness of poultry relative to other foods and expand
production and consequently employment elsewhere in the poultry
industry. While there may be an adverse impact on hiring or loss of
jobs, FSIS has no data on poultry processing establishments and their
employment rates, nor does FSIS have data on the race, sex, national
origin, and disabilities of employees hired by such establishments.
As the rule points out, however, if poultry products further
processed in Mexico enter national distribution chains in the U.S.,
and, therefore, all U.S. producers share economic effects, there will
not be a significant negative economic impact on small entities, no
matter the volume of imports assumed. If U.S. producers do not suffer a
negative economic impact, there should be no adverse impact on hiring
or loss of jobs by minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
Between 1973 and 1991, the poultry dressing and processing industry
showed a 3.9 percent increase in productivity gains. This was the
largest such gain for a manufacturing industry (with employment in 1992
of more than 100,000) during that time period. Poultry employment had a
4 percent annual growth rate from 1980 to 1992, due to new product
innovations and markets, for a total 96 percent increase over the
period. While productivity gains slowed after 1992, the poultry
dressing and processing industry still showed a 0.1 percent increase in
productivity in 1994. (Compare this to meat packing plants, where
productivity in 1994 dropped 3.7 percent.)
Poultry production is expected to remain strong in the year 2000.
Broiler production is expected to increase between 5 and 6 percent in
the year 2000. Stronger production increases might be realized if
exports strengthen between now and then. Turkey production is expected
to increase about 2 percent in the year 2000. As with broilers,
strengthening of the export market should provide a boost for turkey
production.
Continued productivity gains in the U.S. poultry dressing and
processing industry should result in continued and additional poultry
employment through and beyond the year 2000. As a result, FSIS
anticipates that there will be no adverse impact on hiring or loss of
jobs by minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
Paperwork Requirements
FSIS has submitted a request for emergency approval for the
reinstatement of information collection package 0583-0094, which
includes burden associated with any recordkeeping requirements imposed
by this rulemaking. On November 19, 1998, FSIS announced, in the
Federal Register, its request for the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to extend the approval of this package. The following is the
request as published in that notice.
FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of
the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21
U.S.C. 601 et
[[Page 49645]]
seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 et
seq.). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by ensuring
that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and
properly labeled and packaged. FSIS is requesting an extension and
revision to the information collection package addressing meat and
poultry paperwork and recordkeeping requirements regarding exportation,
transportation, and importation of meat and poultry products. FSIS
requires that meat and poultry establishments exporting product to
foreign countries complete an export certificate. Establishments must
supply the type, amount, and destination of product being exported. The
information required by this form does not duplicate any information
required by other Federal agencies. The form is necessary to certify to
the importing countries that FSIS inspectors have inspected the product
and have found it sound and wholesome. Additionally, FSIS uses the
information from the form in its annual Report to Congress as required
by sections 301(c)(4) and 20(e) of the FMIA and sections 27 and 5(c)(4)
of the PPIA.
Meat and poultry products not marked with the mark of inspection
and shipped from one official establishment to another for further
processing must be transported under FSIS seal to prevent such unmarked
product from entering into commerce. To track products shipped under
seal, FSIS requires shipping establishments to complete a form that
identifies the type, amount, and weight of the product.
A foreign country exporting meat or poultry products to the U.S.
must establish eligibility for importation of product into the U.S. and
annually certify that its inspection systems are equivalent to the U.S.
inspection system. To maintain eligibility, a representative of the
foreign inspection system must prepare a written report for each
establishment listed in the certification. Additionally, a health
certificate must accompany meat and poultry products intended for
import into the U.S. It must be signed by an official of the foreign
government and state that certified foreign establishments have
produced the products. Establishments or brokers wishing to import
product into the United States must complete a form that specifies the
type, amount, originating country, and destination of the meat and
poultry product. The amount of meat and poultry product imported into
the United States is included in FSIS's annual Report to Congress.
Additionally, FSIS has established procedures allowing establishments
importing product to stamp such product with the inspection legend
prior to FSIS inspection, if they receive FSIS prior approval.
Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average .0773501 hours per response.
Respondents: Meat and poultry establishments.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,374
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 295.88866
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 168,769 hours
Copies of this information collection assessment and comments can
be obtained from Lee Puricelli, Paperwork Specialist, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, USDA, 300 12th Street SW, Room 109, Washington, DC
20250-3700, (202) 720-0346. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS'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 to be collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques, or other forms of information technology.
List of Subjects 9 CFR Part 381
Imports, Poultry and Poultry products.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 9 CFR part 381 is amended
as follows:
PART 381--POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f; 7 U.S.C. 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR
2.18, 2.53.
2. Section 381.196 is amended by adding ``Mexico 2'' in
alphabetical order to the list of countries in paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 381.196 Eligibility of foreign countries for importation of
poultry products into the United States.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Mexico.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ May export to the United States only processed poultry
products slaughtered under Federal inspection in the United States
or in a country eligible to export slaughtered poultry products to
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Done at Washington, DC, on: September 2, 1999.
Thomas J. Billy,
Administrator.
Appendix 1--References
Note: This appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Alston, J.M. and J.A. Chalfant (1993). ``The Silence of the Lambdas:
A Test of the Almost Ideal and Rotterdam Models.'' American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 75, No. 2, (May 1993), pp. 304-313.
Brester, G.W. and M.K. Wohlgenant (1993). ``Correcting for
Measurement Error in Food Demand Estimation.'' Review of Economics
and Statistics, Vol. 75, No. 2, (May 1993), pp. 352-356.
Capps, O., Jr., D.E. Farris, P.J. Byrune, J.C. Namken, and C.D.
Lambert (1994). ``Determinants of Wholesale Beef-Cut Prices.''
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 26, No. 1 (July),
pp. 183-199.
Eales, J.S. (1994). ``The Inverse Lewbel Demand System.'' Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1 (July), pp. 173-
182.
Eales, J.S. and L.J. Unnevehr (1993). ``Simultaneity and Structural
Change in a Model of U.S. Meat Demand.'' American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Vol. 75, No. 2 (May), pp. 259-268.
Gao, X.M. and J.S. Shonkwiler (1993). ``Characterizing Taste Change
in a Model of U.S. Meat Demand: Correcting for Spurious Regression
and Measurement Errors.'' Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 15,
No. 2 (May), pp. 313-324.
Hahn, W.F. (1994). ``A Random Coefficient Meat Demand Model.''
Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Fall),
pp. 21-30.
Hahn, W.F. (1988). ``Effects of Income Distribution on Meat
Demand.'' Journal of Agricultural Economic Research, Vol. 40, No. 2
(Spring), pp. 19-24.
Moschini, G. and K.D. Meilke (1989). ``Modeling the Pattern of
Structural Change in U.S. Meat Demand.'' American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Vol. 71, No. 2 (May), pp.253-261.
Thurman, W.N. (1987). ``The Poultry Market: Demand Stability and
Industry Structure.'' American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 69, No. 1 (February), pp. 30-37.
Wohlgenant, M.K. (1989) ``Demand for Farm Output in a Complete
System of Demand Functions.'' American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 71, No.2 (May), pp. 241-252.
[FR Doc. 99-23794 Filed 9-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P