[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5271-5275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2177]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 5271]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food And Consumer Service
7 CFR PART 250
RIN 0584-AB99
Waiver Authority Under the State Processing Program
AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule and waiver.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Food Distribution Program
regulations by giving the Food and Consumer Service authority to waive
provisions contained in the Food Distribution Program regulations for
the purpose of conducting demonstration projects to test program
changes designed to improve the State processing of donated foods. FCS
is, at this time, invoking its authority under Sec. 250.30(t) to waive
certain provisions of Sec. 250.30(f)(1)(i) in order to conduct a
demonstration project.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective February 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ursula Key, Schools/Institutions
Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Consumer Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 501,
Alexandria, Virginia 22302; or telephone (703) 305-2644.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule reflects no new information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3502). The
OMB control number assigned to the existing recordkeeping and reporting
requirements was approved by OMB for Part 250 under control number
0584-0007. The current burden hours will not change as a result of this
final rule.
Executive Order 12372
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under 10.550 and is subject to the provisions of Executive
Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State
and local officials (7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V and final rule-related
notices published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983 and 49 FR 22676, May
31, 1984).
Executive Order 12778
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This final rule is intended to have preemptive
effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies
which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its
full implementation. This final rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect unless so specified in the ``Effective Date''
section of this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the
provisions of this rule or the application of its provisions, all
applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted. This includes
any administrative procedures provided by State or local governments.
For disputes involving procurement by distributing and recipient
agencies, this includes any administrative appeal procedures to the
extent required by 7 CFR Parts 3015 or 3016.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The Administrator
of the Food and Consumer Service (FCS) has certified that this final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The cost of compliance to State processors of
donated foods is expected to be reduced by the changes proposed in this
rule.
Background
Section 250.30 of the current Food Distribution Program regulations
sets forth the terms and conditions under which distributing agencies,
subdistributing agencies, and recipient agencies may enter into
contracts with commercial firms for processing donated foods and
prescribes the minimum requirements to be included in such contracts.
On April 13, 1995, the Department published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register at 60 FR 18781 which would permit FCS to waive any of
the requirements of the Food Distribution Program regulations at Part
250 for the purpose of conducting demonstration projects to test
program changes designed to improve the State processing of donated
foods. The proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period. This final
rule incorporates the proposed waiver provision in the State processing
regulations at 7 CFR 250.30(t).
Analysis of Comments
The Department received a total of 9 comment letters from two
distributing agencies, a local school food authority, and six
commercial food processors. All commenters were in favor of the
proposed rule.
Four commenters responded favorably to the rule as it was proposed.
They stated that by allowing FCS to waive certain provisions, more
processors would be attracted to the program, and the cost of processed
end products should be reduced. They further stated that some of the
provisions contained in the State processing regulations are overly
restrictive and have resulted in processors dropping out of the State
processing program. These commenters believed that over-regulation
results in increased costs which are passed on to recipient agencies.
They supported FCS's proposal to allow pilot projects which could
provide guideposts for simplification of the regulations. One commenter
believed that demonstration projects will fully support modifications
to the current program to generate more competition and improved
efficiency.
Five commenters who also supported the proposed rule cited specific
provisions they would like to see waived as soon as possible. Three
commenters supported the removal of the Agricultural Marketing Service
acceptance service grading requirement for processing meat and poultry,
complaining of excessive costs for obtaining the services of AMS
graders. However, one commenter favored
[[Page 5272]]
retaining the requirement. Four commenters supported removing the
requirement for processors to submit annual certified public accountant
audit reports, also due to the costs involved. The commenters claimed
that the requirement has forced some processors out of the program.
They stated that those companies complying with the audit provision are
passing on audit costs in prices of end products to schools. FCS
appreciates these comments and will take them into consideration when
determining which requirements will be waived during the demonstration
projects.
Waiver of Requirements
FCS is invoking its authority under 7 CFR 250.30(t) to waive the
current prohibition in 7 CFR 250.30(f)(1)(i) of the substitution of
poultry. In a notice published elsewhere in this issue, FCS is
announcing a demonstration project under which it will permit selected
poultry processors to substitute commercial chicken for donated chicken
in the State processing of donated chicken.
Summary
Based on the comments received, this final rule adopts
Sec. 250.30(t) of the proposed rule without change.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 250
Agricultural commodities, Food assistance programs, Food
processing.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 250 is amended as
follows:
PART 250--DONATION OF FOODS FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES, ITS
TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS AND AREAS UNDER ITS JURISDICTION
1. The authority citation for Part 250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 612c, 612c note, 1431, 1431b,
1431e, 1431 note, 1446a-1, 1859; 15 U.S.C. 713c; 22 U.S.C. 1922; 42
U.S.C. 1751, 1755, 1758, 1760, 1761, 1762a, 1766, 3030a, 5179, 5180.
2. In Section 250.30, a new paragraph (t) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 250.30 State processing of donated foods.
* * * * *
(t) Waiver authority. The Food and Consumer Service may waive any
of the requirements contained in this part for the purpose of
conducting demonstration projects to test program changes designed to
improve the State processing of donated foods.
Dated: January 18, 1996.
Ellen Haas,
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
Appendix to Preamble of Final Rule--Regulatory Impact Analysis
Date: June 1995
Agency: USDA, FCS
Contact: Ursula Key
Phone: (703) 305-2644
1. Title: Food Distribution Program--Waiver Authority Under the
State Processing Program.
2. Action:
a. Nature: Final Rule.
b. Need and Purpose: This action is discretionary and is taken
to support the goal of regulatory relief, increased State
flexibility, increased program efficiency, and paperwork reduction.
This authority will be used to conduct demonstration projects to
test program alternatives to determine whether changes or greater
flexibility will improve the efficiency of the State processing
program. Of particular interest are changes that would increase
competition among processors, which should result in lower costs to
recipient agencies.
This action amends the Food Distribution Program regulations by
giving the Food and Consumer Service authority to waive provisions
pertaining to State processing of donated commodities in the Food
Distribution Program regulations at 7 CFR Part 250.30 only for the
purpose of allowing demonstration projects. Current State processing
regulations may be overly restrictive, thus increasing processor
costs and discouraging the participation of processors.
3. Background: Section 250.30 of the current Food Distribution
Program regulations sets forth the terms and conditions under which
distributing agencies, subdistributing agencies, and recipient
agencies may enter into contracts with commercial firms for
processing donated foods and prescribes the minimum requirements to
be included in such contracts. This activity is typically referred
to as State processing.
State processing is an activity principally of the Child
Nutrition Programs by which State or substate agencies arrange to
have USDA donated commodities further processed into end products
more readily usable by schools. For example, fresh bulk pack chicken
might be processed into chicken nuggets, coarse ground beef into
hamburger patties, whole turkeys into fully cooked breast meat and
turkey ham, etc. About a third to half of all USDA donated meat and
poultry is further processed under State processing contracts. For
State processing, USDA either sends the commodities directly to a
processor contracted by the State, or sends them to a State
distributing agency, which in turn arranges to have the product
backhauled to a processor. In either case, under State processing,
State or recipient agencies pay the cost of any additional
processing directly to the processor.
The total value of USDA commodities donated to the Child
Nutrition Programs was $667 million in FY 1994. A little under half
of this, of which a third, or $100 million worth, was further
processed under State processing arrangements. This figure has been
constant for the last several years. While the degree of State
processing varies by the specific type of product donated by USDA,
typically about two thirds of beef is processed under State
contracts, while less than a third of the pork, chicken and turkey
are processed. Under current FCS regulations, processors may
substitute like kind commercial commodities for USDA commodities for
their convenience in manufacturing, except the rules specifically
prohibit the substitution of meat and poultry.
On April 13, 1995, the Department published a proposed rule in
the Federal Register at 60 FR 18781 which would permit FCS to waive
provisions relative to the State processing of donated commodities
that are contained in the Food Distribution Program regulations at
Part 250 for the purpose of conducting demonstration projects to
test program changes designed to improve the State processing of
donated foods. The proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period.
This final rule incorporates the proposed waiver provision in the
State processing regulations at 7 CFR 250.30(t).
The Department received a total of 9 comment letters, all of
which were in favor of the proposed rule.
Commenters stated that by allowing FCS to waive certain
provisions of the State processing regulations, more processors
would be attracted to the program, and the cost of processed end
products should be reduced. They further stated that some of the
provisions contained in the State processing regulations are overly
restrictive and have resulted in processors dropping out of the
State processing program. These commenters believed that over-
regulation results in increased costs which are passed on to
recipient agencies. They supported FCS's proposal to conduct
demonstration projects which could provide guideposts for
simplification of the regulations. One commenter believed that
demonstration projects will fully support modifications to the
current program requirements to generate more competition and
improve efficiency.
One of the first demonstrations being considered is the
substitution of commercially acquired chicken for USDA donated
chicken. Currently, only four poultry processors are participating
in the State processing of donated foods. Processors have stated
that the current policy which prohibits the substitution of
commercially acquired chicken for donated chicken reduces the
quantity of donated chicken they are able to accept and process
during a given period. The prohibition against the substitution came
about as a result of program abuses by processors in the past (e.g.,
substituting lesser grade commercial chicken for donated chicken,
substituting mechanically boned chicken meat for high quality breast
meat, etc). In FY 1994, USDA donated approximately $68 million worth
of chicken to the Child Nutrition Program, about a third of which
underwent State processing. Chicken purchased by USDA for further
processing is typically bulk chill packed. In
[[Page 5273]]
FY 1994, USDA donated 9.5 million pounds valued at $5.3 million.
Processors must schedule production around deliveries of the donated
chicken since it is a very highly perishable product. Some of the
processors must schedule production around deliveries of donated
chicken for up to 30 individual States. Vendors do not always
deliver donated chicken to the processors as scheduled, causing
delays in production of end products. These delays may be eliminated
if the processors can substitute commercial chicken for donated
chicken. Any substituted commercial chicken must be at least as high
in quality as USDA chicken in terms of grade, condition, and other
attributes.
The demonstration project will enable FCS to evaluate whether to
amend program regulations to provide for the substitution of donated
chicken with commercial chicken in the State processing program.
Particular attention will be paid to whether such an amendment of
the regulations would be likely to increase the number of processors
participating, and whether it would probably increase the quantity
of donated chicken that each processor accepts for processing. Also,
FCS will attempt to determine whether the expected increase in
competition and the expected increase in the quantity of donated
chicken accepted for processing in fact enable processors to
function more efficiently, producing a greater variety of processed
chicken end products in a more timely manner at lower costs.
Further, FCS must determine whether USDA and the States have the
practical capability to ensure that substitutions are, in fact, for
comparable or better quality product.
4. Justification of Alternative: This final rule would authorize
the Department to conduct demonstration projects to study the effect
of waiving certain expensive and burdensome requirements in the
State processing program. For example, Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) acceptance service grading certificates may be used in
lieu of company generated production and quality control records.
Through these demonstration projects, the Department hopes to
determine if the cost of compliance for food manufacturers, as well
as the record-keeping burden associated with the administration of
the program, can be reduced. The Department's goal is to attract
more manufacturers to participate in the State processing program.
We are aware of three major poultry processors who sell commodity
product to USDA but do not participate in the State processing
program. We are not able to determine at this time exactly how many
additional processors will decide to participate in the State
processing program but AMS is optimistic that more processors will
be interested in participating. This increased competition should
ultimately lead to lower prices to recipient agencies. By conducting
the demonstration projects, the Department can determine if relaxing
certain requirements will adversely affect program accountability.
It is important to note that all remaining controls and requirements
of the State processing regulations and the State processing
contracts will remain in effect. We are only considering reductions
or waivers which are feasible because other program controls can
perform the function of the changed or waived requirements. If the
results of the demonstration projects indicate that certain
requirements can be modified or waived without compromising program
integrity, the Department can consider amending certain current
State processing program requirements. The Department expects this
rule will support efforts to streamline the administration of the
State processing program and improve customer service to recipient
agencies (primarily schools).
Two other alternatives were considered: (1) doing nothing and
(2) eliminating the audit and substitution regulations entirely. The
option of selected waivers for demonstration projects was the
preferred alternative.
5. Effects:
a. Effects on food manufacturers: Through conducting
demonstration projects, FCS can determine if it is possible to
eliminate or reduce reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
processors. Some of the more burdensome requirements include
inventory records, production records, quality control records,
sales records, monthly performance reports, grading and inspection
requirements, performance, supply, and surety bonding requirements,
and the certified public accountant audit requirement. For example,
processors which receive donated food valued at $250,000 or more
each year are required to submit an annual independent certified
public accountant audit report. This requirement may be relaxed to
require an audit every two or three years for those processors with
a history of good performance. The Department is interested in
determining whether any of the above requirements can be eliminated
or reduced while still maintaining program accountability for the
donated food. Also, the Department intends to determine how much
costs can be reduced for processors as a result of participation in
the demonstration projects. Since program controls may not be as
strong as under current rules, FCS would seek to determine the
extent to which the benefits of burden reduction are worth potential
costs due to less control.
b. Effects on State distributing agencies: Through the
demonstrations projects, the Department will determine if it is
possible to streamline the administration of the processing program
at the State level. Currently, States must enter into agreements or
renew them annually. Additionally, States must review end product
data schedules, performance, supply, and surety bonds, performance
reports and grading certificates on a monthly basis, and certified
public accountant audit reports as submitted. During the
demonstration projects, the Department hopes to review the current
responsibilities of the State agencies and determine areas where
there is duplication of effort and where reductions in reporting may
be possible.
c. Effects on Recipient agencies: Currently the processors'
costs of all the record-keeping and reporting requirements (e.g.,
acceptance service grading, performance, supply, and surety bond,
and certified public accountant audit reports) are being passed on
to the recipient agencies via higher prices for end products. Also,
fewer processors are participating in the program, claiming that
certain requirements are too burdensome and expensive. FCS has been
informed that the typical cost of an independent certified public
accountant audit report can run from $10,000 to $25,000 depending on
the volume of food processed by a manufacturer. If we could require
the audits less frequently for processors with a history of good
performance, their costs could be significantly reduced. Since
processors pass their costs on to recipient agencies, this should
enable them to reduce the prices of the products they sell to
schools. By conducting demonstration projects to study the
possibility of removing or reducing some of the requirements, the
Department hopes that more processors will participate in the State
processing program, thereby increasing the competitive base. By
reducing costs for the processors and increasing competition, it
should be possible to reduce prices of end products to the schools.
Processing adds about $0.78 to $1.09 per pound to the value of the
end product. For example, coarse ground beef costing USDA $1.08 per
pound would be worth $1.86 to $2.17 per pound to the State after
processing. In other words, processing roughly doubles the value of
donated beef.
As with beef, processing typically adds about $0.78 to $1.09 per
pound in value to chicken, roughly the same per pound as beef
processing. It is hoped that the flexibilities offered through the
demonstrations under this rule could reduce this by perhaps 5 to 10
percent. If the demonstrations prove these savings out, and the
flexibilities had been available and fully used in 1994, States
would have saved about $1 to $2 million of their processing costs
(i.e., 25 million pounds times $0.93 per pound processing (the
midpoint) equals $23 million minus 5 percent to 10 percent equals
$1.2 to $2.3 million). If a comparable savings rate were achieved in
all processed meat and poultry in 1994, the States would have saved
perhaps $7 to $14 million total. The demonstration projects will
allow FCS to quantify potential savings more accurately. See
attached tables for more detailed illustration.
d. Effects on program costs and integrity: As demonstration
projects are conducted, the Department hopes to determine if certain
administrative costs associated with the State processing program
can be reduced. The Department is also concerned that program
integrity be maintained. If elimination of audit requirements or
allowance of substitution should result in an increase in fraudulent
behavior, the potential savings desirable could be completely
eliminated.
e. Effects on small entities: This rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Commercial food processors participating in the
demonstration projects will be most affected to the extent that they
have the greatest record-keeping and reporting requirements in the
State processing program.
[[Page 5274]]
Table 1.--Child Nutrition Programs, Commodity Donations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars in thousands Pounds in thousands
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child nutrition commodities:
Entitlement........................... $520,845 $533,188 $558,154 $573,281 $574,598 952,311 1,009,384 842,193 887,012 894,648
Bonus................................. 110,601 84,306 122,162 90,163 92,226 139,820 109,105 315,727 163,940 147,851
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total commodities................... 631,446 617,494 680,316 663,444 666,824 1,092,131 1,118,489 1,157,920 1,050,952 1,042,499
=============================================================================================================
of which:
Beef patties, frz..................... 10,484 11,545 12,732 14,335 6,801 7,748 8,426 9,262 10,597 4,986
Beef patties, frz w/vpp............... 12,350 19,004 25,193 25,067 20,749 11,428 16,909 22,177 22,514 19,068
Beef patties, extra lean.............. ......... ......... 6,810 10,736 8,931 ......... ......... 3,830 6,771 5,563
Beef frozen ground.................... 103,661 110,964 115,473 116,522 94,796 80,778 84,581 88,938 92,698 74,104
Beef roasts, choice................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Beef, canned W/J...................... 942 ......... 906 753 72 612 ......... 612 504 47
Beef, frz grd course process.......... 7,014 8,880 11,759 16,035 21,039 5,437 6,930 9,072 12,390 16,422
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, beef...................... 134,451 150,393 172,873 183,448 152,388 106,003 116,846 133,891 145,474 120,190
=============================================================================================================
Chicken, canned boned................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,103 ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,083
Chickens, chilled bulk................ 6,260 5,844 7,274 5,594 5,343 10,908 11,232 14,611 10,188 9,496
Chickens, chill leg................... ......... ......... ......... 4,807 5,377 ......... ......... ......... 9,108 9,830
Chickens, drums....................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Chickens, frozen, cut up.............. 36,732 32,187 33,257 19,869 20,536 55,506 53,946 60,454 31,737 31,753
Chickens, frozen breaded.............. 3,235 ......... 4,596 12,544 13,646 2,611 ......... 3,988 11,424 12,762
Chickens, leg qtrs.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,133 ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,080
Chickens, nuggets frz soc............. ......... ......... 241 4,183 1,370 ......... ......... 468 2,652 2,028
Chickens, diced frz................... ......... ......... 22,107 12,074 18,066 ......... ......... 9,921 5,271 8,133
Chickens, patties, soc................ ......... ......... ......... 121 474 ......... ......... ......... 78 702
Chickens, thighs...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, chicken................... 46,227 38,031 67,475 59,192 68,048 69,025 65,178 89,442 70,458 78,867
=============================================================================================================
Pork, canned W/NJ..................... 336 2,045 923 680 1,572 252 1,369 720 540 1,269
Pork, frz ground...................... 17,481 23,833 15,349 20,217 15,794 16,252 20,744 16,947 19,744 15,579
Pork, frz grd coarse process.......... ......... ......... 1,986 3,170 3,733 ......... ......... 2,020 3,247 3,841
Pork, frz patties..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 291 ......... ......... ......... ......... 277
Pork, ham, frz cooked................. 19,618 114 9,641 ......... 25,513 12,915 72 6,652 ......... 16,011
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, pork...................... 37,435 25,992 27,899 24,067 46,903 29,419 22,185 26,339 23,531 36,977
=============================================================================================================
Turkey roasts, frozen................. 26,122 26,769 18,637 34,166 27,634 18,747 20,071 13,221 24,874 19,962
Turkey, commercial pack............... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Turkey, frozen ground................. 5,957 5,928 5,978 11,012 9,858 9,098 8,189 7,847 18,817 16,926
Turkey, frozen whole.................. 11,700 12,191 7,551 7,612 9,364 17,352 17,754 10,949 12,406 15,043
Turkey, chilled, bulk................. 3,832 3,613 5,870 8,212 7,287 5,976 5,544 9,821 13,752 11,720
Turkey, frz ground burgers............ ......... ......... 809 3,166 1,648 ......... ......... 756 3,348 1,872
Turkey, sausage chubbs................ ......... ......... ......... ......... 371 ......... ......... ......... ......... 468
Turkey, sausage patties............... ......... ......... ......... ......... 606 ......... ......... ......... ......... 540
Turkey, sausage links................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 409 ......... ......... ......... ......... 320
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, turkey.................... 47,611 48,501 38,845 64,168 57,177 51,173 51,558 42,594 73,197 66,851
=============================================================================================================
Total, meat and poultry............. 265,724 262,917 307,092 330,875 324,516 255,620 255,767 292,266 312,660 302,885
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Child Nutrition Programs, Commodity Donations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars in thousands Pounds in thousands
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely to be further processed by States:
Beef, frozen ground................... $103,661 $110,964 $115,473 $116,522 $94,796 80,778 84,581 88,938 92,698 74,104
Beef, frz grd coarse process.......... 7,014 8,880 11,759 16,035 21,039 5,437 6,930 9,072 12,390 16,422
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, beef...................... 110,675 119,844 127,232 132,557 115,835 86,215 91,511 98,010 105,088 90,526
=============================================================================================================
Additional processing costs at $0.93 per
pound.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 84,189 ......... ......... ......... ......... 90,526
Chicken, chilled bulk................. 6,260 5,844 7,274 5,594 5,343 10,908 11,232 14,611 10,188 9,496
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, chicken................... 6,260 5,844 7,274 5,594 5,343 10,908 11,232 14,611 10,188 9,496
=============================================================================================================
Additional processing costs at $0.93 per
pound.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 8,831 ......... ......... ......... ......... 9,496
Pork, frz ground...................... 17,481 23,833 15,349 20,217 15,794 16,252 20,744 16,947 19,744 15,579
Pork, frz grd course process.......... ......... ......... 1,986 3,170 3,733 ......... ......... 2,020 3,247 3,841
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, pork...................... 17,481 23,833 17,335 23,387 19,527 16,252 20,744 18,967 22,991 19,420
=============================================================================================================
[[Page 5275]]
Additional processing costs at $0.93 per
pound.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 18,061 ......... ......... ......... ......... 19,420
Turkey, frozen ground................. 5,957 5,928 5,978 11,012 9,858 9,098 8,189 7,847 18,817 16,926
Turkey, chilled bulk.................. 3,832 3,613 5,870 8,212 7,287 5,976 5,544 9,821 13,752 11,720
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, turkey.................... 9,789 9,541 11,848 19,224 17,145 15,074 13,733 17,668 32,569 28,646
=============================================================================================================
Additional processing costs at $0.93 per
pound.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 26,641 ......... ......... ......... ......... 28,646
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, meat and poultry............. 144,205 159,062 163,689 180,762 157,850 128,449 137,220 149,256 170,836 148,088
=============================================================================================================
Additional processing costs at $0.93 per
pound.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 137,722 ......... ......... ......... ......... 148,088
Potential State processing savings at:
1 percent............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,377 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
5 percent............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 6,886 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
10 percent............................ ......... ......... ......... ......... 13,772 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved:
Dated: June 28, 1995.
William E. Ludwig,
Administrator, Food and Consumer Service.
Dated: August 29, 1995.
Stephen B. Dewhurst,
Director, Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
Dated: August 4, 1995.
Keith Collins,
Acting Chief Economist.
Dated: September 11, 1995.
Ellen Haas,
Assistant Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 96-2177 Filed 2-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-U