Department Of Agriculture
Economically Significant Regulation
Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection
January 27, 2012 -
77 FR 4408 -
RIN: 0583-AD32 -
Download Full Notice: Text |
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing a new inspection system for young chicken and turkey slaughter establishments that would replace the current Streamlined Inspection System (SIS), the New Line Speed Inspection System (NELS), and the New Turkey Inspection System (NTIS). The Agency is also proposing several changes that would affect all establishments that slaughter poultry other than ratites, regardless of the inspection system under which they operate. This proposed rule is a result of the Agency's 2011 regulatory review efforts conducted under Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.
Agency Contact: Dr. Daniel Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, FSIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, (202) 720-2709.
This is a proposed regulation.
Comments were due on April 26, 2012.
41 / 60
What this Rule is Proposing
FSIS is proposing to modernize poultry slaughter inspection as a result of its 2011 regulatory review efforts conducted under E.O. 13563. The Agency is taking this action to improve food safety and the effectiveness of poultry slaughter inspection systems, remove unnecessary regulatory obstacles to innovation, and make better use of the Agency’s resources. FSIS is proposing a new inspection system for young chicken and turkey slaughter establishments. The new inspection system would replace the current Streamlined Inspection System(SIS), the New Line Speed Inspection System (NELS), and the New Turkey Inspection System (NTIS).
This regulation sounds like it has the potential to be a win-win, reducing costs while simultaneously reducing infections. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) chose a regulation with slightly lower monetized net benefits than two alternatives, but one of those alternatives would have imposed relatively large costs on small businesses, and the other offered no ancillary unquantified health benefits. Thus, the rationale for choosing this regulation is clear. One cause for concern, however, is that the assumed 6 percent increase in speed of the production line seems plucked from thin air; it would be helpful to see better justification for this or any figure of this type. There is no real proof that processors would increase line speeds by this or any other amount. It is also puzzling why the cost reduction benefits were not calculated as a range and why the division of benefits between producers and consumers is expressed only as cents per bird and not as total figures.
Monetized Costs & Benefits (as reported by agency)
||Not Reported by Agency
|Time Horizon (Years)
||Costs discounted at 7% and annualized over 10 years. Benefits is simply an annual figure.
|Expected Costs (Annualized)
|Expected Benefits (Annualized)
|Expected Costs (Total)
|Expected Benefits (Total)
|Net Benefits (Annualized)
|Net Benefits (Total)
Submit links with information related to this regulation and your link will appear right here on this page. Agency docs, academic and industry reports, news articles are all appropriate.
We want to make OpenRegs.com as useful tool for everyone interested in regulation. Please help us improve
by sending us your comments and suggestions.