View Rule

Statement of Need: This action is being taken as part of the continuing Reinventing Government initiative to streamline and modernize the meat and poultry inspection regulations, to reduce reliance on command-and-control regulations in favor of science-based prevention measures and performance standards, and to encourage innovations that will improve food safety.

Summary of the Legal Basis: Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC 451 et seq.), FSIS issues regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products prepared for distribution in interstate commerce. The Agency also issues regulations concerning the sanitation conditions under which such products are prepared.

Alternatives: Alternatives to removing requirements for facilities and equipment prior approvals include development by FSIS of detailed standards to be published in booklets with periodic updates, recognizing industry organizations as prior approval authorities, and establishing general performance standards similar to FDA-recognized good manufacturing practices. FSIS has chosen the option of proposing general performance standards. Industry would be free to set up technical assistance organizations. For PQC prior approvals, the alternatives to removing requirements were market sampling, mandating additional in-plant controls, sampling of finished products for chemical analysis, and general requirements, and a performance standard option was the one chosen.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Costs of this proposed rulemaking to the Agency and the regulated industry would be minimal because the rulemaking would remove administrative burdens. Benefits include annual current-dollar cost savings or avoidance to FSIS of nearly $3 million and to industry of at least $40,000 for blueprint submissions that are no longer required, plus additional, substantial uncalculated benefits because there would no longer be production delays arising from prior approval of facilities, equipment, and PQC programs.

Risks: This rulemaking could induce reduced health and safety risks to the public by providing industry with additional flexibility to innovate, which the command-and-control approach of prior-approval regulation has not encouraged.