[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