[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20509-20513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11456]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
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 further-
processed 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 
laboratory-supported 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. Seventy-four 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-of-entry. If a country does not continue to operate 
an inspection system that

[[Page 20510]]

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 State-Federal 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.

[[Page 20511]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Members 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A copy of the GAO report is on file in the FSIS Docket Room, 
Room 4352 South Agriculture Building, Washington DC 20250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 follow-ups 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A copy of the OIG report is on file in the FSIS Docket Room, 
Room 4352 South Agriculture Building, Washington, DC 20250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
State-inspected 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

[[Page 20512]]

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 State-inspected 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 State-inspected 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 State-inspected 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 
foreign-inspected 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 State-inspected 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

[[Page 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