[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49048-49060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21143]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2018 / 
Notices  

[[Page 49048]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

[Docket No. FSIS-2018-0014]


Petition To Permit Waivers of Maximum Line Speeds for Young 
Chicken Establishments Operating Under the New Poultry Inspection 
System; Criteria for Consideration of Waiver Requests for Young Chicken 
Establishments To Operate at Line Speeds of Up to 175 Birds per Minute

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Response to comments and information on waiver criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responding to 
public comments on a petition submitted by the National Chicken Council 
(NCC) on September 1, 2017, and is also providing information on the 
criteria applicable to line speed waivers for young chicken 
establishments. The NCC submitted a petition to FSIS requesting that 
the Agency establish a waiver program to permit young chicken slaughter 
establishments to operate without line speed limits if they participate 
in the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) and the FSIS Salmonella 
Initiative Program (SIP) and develop a system for monitoring and 
responding to loss of process control. FSIS issued a response denying 
the petition on January 29, 2018. The response explained that instead 
of establishing a separate line speed waiver program under the 
conditions requested in the petition, FSIS would make available 
criteria that it will use under its existing waiver procedures to 
consider individual waiver requests from young chicken establishments 
to operate at line speeds of up to 175 bpm.
    FSIS published these criteria in the February 23, 2018, Constituent 
Update. This notice provides additional information on the criteria 
that FSIS will use to evaluate new line speed waiver request 
submissions. Additionally, FSIS is announcing that the 20 young chicken 
establishments already operating under line speed waivers must meet the 
new criteria to remain eligible for the waiver. FSIS will issue these 
establishments new waiver letters that reflect the eligibility criteria 
described in this document. Failure by establishments already operating 
under line speed waivers to meet the new criteria within 120 days of 
receipt of these letters may result in the revocation of the waivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberta Wagner, Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, FSIS, USDA; 
Telephone: (202) 205-0495.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On August 24, 2014, FSIS published a final rule that, among other 
things, established the NPIS as an additional inspection system for 
young chicken and all turkey slaughter establishments (79 FR 49566). 
The NPIS did not replace FSIS's other poultry slaughter inspection 
systems, and young chicken and turkey slaughter establishments that do 
not choose to operate under the NPIS may continue to operate under 
their current inspection system.\1\ Under the inspection systems other 
than the NPIS, FSIS online inspectors positioned along the slaughter 
line are responsible for identifying unacceptable carcasses and parts, 
examining carcasses for visual defects, and directing establishment 
employees to take appropriate corrective actions if the defects can be 
corrected through trimming and reprocessing. The maximum line speeds 
authorized under these inspection systems reflect the time it takes for 
an inspector to effectively perform the online carcass inspection 
procedures required for the system. The fastest line speed authorized 
for a non-NPIS young chicken inspection system is 140 birds per minute 
(bpm) with four online inspectors, i.e., 35 bpm per inspector, under 
the Streamlined Inspection System (SIS) for young chickens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Poultry slaughter inspections systems other than the NPIS 
include the Streamlined Inspection System (SIS), New Line Speed 
Inspection System (NELS), the New Turkey Inspection System (NTIS), 
and Traditional Inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the NPIS, establishment employees sort carcasses and remove 
unacceptable carcasses and parts before the birds are presented to an 
online inspector located at the end of the line before the chiller. 
Because the online inspector under the NPIS is presented with carcasses 
that have been sorted, washed, and trimmed by establishment employees, 
and are thus much more likely to pass inspection, the inspector is able 
to conduct a more efficient and effective online inspection of each 
bird processed.
    The NPIS was informed by the Agency's experience under the Hazard 
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)-Based Inspection Models 
Project (HIMP) pilot study. FSIS's experience under the HIMP pilot 
showed that online inspectors in HIMP young chicken establishments were 
able to conduct an effective online inspection of each carcass when 
operating at a line speed of up to 175 bpm and that HIMP establishments 
were able to maintain process control at the line speeds authorized 
under HIMP. Based on FSIS's experience under HIMP, the Agency initially 
proposed 175 bpm as the maximum line speed for NPIS young chicken 
establishments (77 FR 4408). However, after considering the public 
comments submitted on the proposed rule, FSIS concluded that it was 
important to assess young chicken establishments' ability to maintain 
process control as they implement changes to operate under the NPIS (79 
FR 49591). Therefore, the final rule that established the NPIS provided 
for a maximum line speed of 140 bpm for young chicken establishments, 
instead of 175 bpm as was proposed, with an exception for the 20 young 
chicken establishments that participated in the HIMP pilot study.
    In the preamble to the final rule, FSIS explained that it decided 
to grant waivers to the 20 young chicken HIMP establishments to permit 
them to continue to operate at lines speeds of up to 175 bpm after they 
convert to NPIS because data from the HIMP pilot demonstrated that 
these establishments were capable of consistently producing safe, 
wholesome and unadulterated product and meeting pathogen reduction and 
other performance standards when operating under line speeds authorized 
under HIMP (79 FR 49591). The preamble to the final rule

[[Page 49049]]

also explained that if an NPIS establishment operating under a line 
speed waiver goes out of business or decides to give up its waiver, 
FSIS will select another establishment to take its place (79 FR 49583). 
Thus, when it published the final rule, FSIS planned to continue to 
provide waivers for up to 20 young chicken establishments to operate at 
up to 175 bpm under the NPIS.
    In the preamble to the final rule, FSIS also explained that 
``[a]fter the NPIS has been fully implemented on a wide scale, and the 
Agency has gained at least a year of experience under the new system, 
FSIS intends to assess the impact of changes adopted by establishments 
operating under the NPIS by evaluating the results of the Agency's 
Salmonella and Campylobacter verification sampling, reviewing 
documentation on establishments' [other consumer protection] 
performance, and other relevant factors'' (79 FR 49591). The preamble 
also stated that ``once the NPIS is fully implemented at most 
establishments, data from these establishments can be used to compare 
against data from the [former HIMP] young chicken establishments 
operating under the [line speed] waivers'' (79 FR 49591). Thus, when 
FSIS published the final rule establishing NPIS, it made clear that the 
Agency would continue to consider line speeds at which establishments 
are capable of consistently producing safe, wholesome, and 
unadulterated product and are meeting pathogen reduction and other 
performance standards.

National Chicken Council Petition and FSIS Response

    Petition. On September 1, 2017, NCC petitioned \2\ FSIS to 
implement a waiver system to exempt young chicken slaughter 
establishments from the regulation that prescribes 140 bpm as the 
maximum line speed under the NPIS (9 CFR 381.69(a)). As conditions for 
the waiver, the petition requested that establishments be required to 
opt into the NPIS, participate in SIP,\3\ and develop a system for 
monitoring and responding to loss of process control. According to the 
petition, the 140 bpm maximum line speed for the NPIS has deterred many 
young chicken establishments from opting into the NPIS. The petition 
stated that FSIS has the authority to implement such a wavier program 
under 9 CFR 381.3(b), which provides that ``[t]he Administrator may, in 
specific cases, waive for limited periods . . . any provision of the 
regulations . . . to permit experimentation so that new procedures, 
equipment, and processing techniques may be tested to facilitate 
definite improvements: Provided, [t]hat such waivers . . . are not in 
conflict with the purposes or provisions of the [Poultry Products 
Inspection Act (PPIA)].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NCC petition available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/7734f5cf-05d9-4f89-a7eb-6d85037ad2a7/17-05-Petition-National-Chicken-Council-09012017.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
    \3\ Under SIP, FSIS grants establishments a waiver of the 
regulation under the condition that the establishment collects and 
analyzes samples for microbial organisms and shares the results with 
FSIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition asserted that the requested waiver program will 
encourage more establishments to opt into the NPIS and will promote and 
enhance Agency and industry efficiency without compromising food 
safety, worker safety, or animal welfare. The petition referenced 
information from the 2011 HIMP pilot study,\4\ a 2001 published study, 
a report from the Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS), and an unpublished industry survey conducted by NCC in 2017 to 
support the requested action. The petition also stated that the current 
line speed regulation imposes costs on the industry, creates 
competitive disparities among U.S. poultry establishments, and places 
U.S. poultry establishments at a competitive disadvantage with 
international competitors. The petition said that allowing 
establishments to operate without line speed limits is consistent with 
Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 on ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 2011 HIMP Report is available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/fcd9ca3e-3f08-421f-84a7-936bc410627c/Evaluation_HACCP_HIMP.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with its regulations on petitions, FSIS posted the NCC 
petition on the FSIS website and received comments from interested 
persons on the petition (9 CFR 392.6 and 392.7). FSIS also announced 
the availability of the petition in the October 13, 2017, Constituent 
Update \5\ and explained that, based on communications with 
stakeholders, the Agency anticipated that it would receive a 
significant number of additional comments on the petition. Therefore, 
to facilitate submission and public posting of comments on the 
petition, FSIS announced that interested persons could submit comments 
online through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. Comments were accepted online until December 13, 
2017, and FSIS considered all timely comments on the petition as part 
of its review of the petition (9 CFR 392.7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The October 13, 2017 Constituent Update is available at: 
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/a54d5331-372e-4df3-ac4d-8c2953969039/ConstiUpdate101317.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=a54d5331-372e-4df3-ac4d-8c2953969039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FSIS Response to Petition. On January 29, 2018, FSIS sent a 
response to the NCC denying the petition.\6\ In its response, FSIS 
explained that it had decided to deny the petition because the Agency 
already has detailed procedures for the submission of new technology 
notifications and protocols and requests for waivers from regulatory 
requirements. The response noted that these procedures include a 
process for submitting requests for the use of alternative procedures, 
such as faster line speeds, that would require regulatory waivers under 
the SIP. The response further stated that because FSIS has already 
implemented procedures for establishments to request regulatory 
waivers, the Agency determined that it was not necessary to establish a 
separate system to provide line speed waivers to young chicken 
establishments operating under the NPIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FSIS's January 29, 2018, response to the petition is 
available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/235092cf-e3c0-4285-9560-e60cf6956df8/17-05-FSIS-Response-Letter-01292018.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to denying the request to establish a line speed waiver 
program, the January 2018 response also stated that FSIS was denying 
NCC's request to permit waivers that would allow NPIS young chicken 
establishments to operate without a maximum line speed. As noted in the 
response, the preamble to the final rule that established the NPIS 
stated that, based on its experience under the HIMP pilot, FSIS found 
that inspectors are able to conduct an effective online inspection of 
each carcass at line speeds of up to 175 bpm (79 FR 49592). The 
response noted that the petition did not include data to demonstrate 
that online inspectors can conduct an effective carcass-by-carcass 
inspection at line speeds faster than those authorized under HIMP.
    In addition to denying the petition, the response noted that FSIS 
now has over a year of documented process control history for many 
young chicken establishments operating under the NPIS. The response 
explained that based on this history, FSIS has decided to consider 
requests for waivers from young chicken establishments in addition to 
the current 20 HIMP establishments, to operate at line speeds of up to 
175 bpm. The response also explained that in the near future, FSIS

[[Page 49050]]

intends to make available criteria that it will use to consider these 
waiver requests.

Criteria for FSIS To Consider Line Speed Waivers

    On February 23, 2018, in the Constituent Update, FSIS announced the 
criteria that the Agency will use to consider requests from NPIS young 
chicken slaughter establishments to operate at line speeds of up to 175 
bpm and outlined the submission requirements.\7\ As provided in that 
document, to be eligible for a line speed waiver, a young chicken 
establishment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The February 23, 2018, Constituent Update is available at: 
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/ee977696-7f87-4b87-8717-15a824ce0a81/ConstiUpdate022318.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=ee977696-7f87-4b87-8717-15a824ce0a81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Must have been operating under the NPIS for at least one 
year, during which time it has been in compliance with all NPIS 
requirements;
     Must be in Salmonella performance standard category 1 or 2 
for young chicken carcasses;
     Must have a demonstrated history of regulatory compliance. 
More specifically, the establishment has not received a public health 
alert \8\ for the last 120 days; has not had an enforcement action as a 
result of a Food Safety Assessment (FSA) conducted in the last 120 
days; and has not been the subject of a public health related 
enforcement action in the last 120 days; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This refers to a public health alert issued through the 
Public Health Information System for non-compliance with public 
health regulations (see FSIS Notice 15-08, Public Health Regulations 
and Alerts for Use in Determining Inspection Program Personnel 
Actions and Public Health Risk Evaluation Scheduling in Meat and 
Poultry Establishments (March 20, 2018)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Must be able to demonstrate that the new equipment, 
technologies, or procedures that allow the establishment to operate at 
faster line speeds will maintain or improve food safety.
    In addition to outlining the criteria that FSIS will consider to 
determine whether to grant a line speed waiver, the February 23, 2018 
Constituent Update also describes the documentation that establishments 
will need to include with their waiver request submissions. As stated 
in the Constituent Update, the waiver request submission will need to 
include documentation that:
     Provides details about the establishment's HACCP system, 
including how the establishment addresses the inhibition and reduction 
of Salmonella;
     Demonstrates that the establishment has effective process 
control by submitting one year of microbial data, methodology for 
evaluating that microbial data (e.g., indicator organism data in a 
process control chart identifying upper and lower control limits), 
correlation of that microbial data to the establishment's sanitary 
dressing process control data, correlation of that microbial data to 
FSIS's Salmonella data, and interventions to address seasonality;
     Describes how existing or new equipment, technologies, or 
procedures will allow for the operation at a faster line speed (e.g., 
descriptions or names of the equipment, line configuration, and 
verification activities that will be used);
     Provides support on how the increased line speed will not 
negatively impact FSIS employee safety nor interfere with inspection 
procedures (e.g., information about safety protocols or line 
configuration);
     Supports how the modifications to its food safety system 
to operate at the faster line speed will maintain or improve food 
safety (e.g., a statement that explains how the new equipment will 
provide the same as or cleaner evisceration processes, or how an 
improved line configuration will continue to prevent cross 
contamination); and
     Indicates the type of records that will be maintained in 
the new process, including the collection of information that will 
assist FSIS in performing appropriate rule-making analysis (e.g., 
laboratory results, weekly or monthly summary production reports, or 
evaluations from inspection program personnel).
    Because FSIS intends to use the data collected from young chicken 
establishments to evaluate their ability to maintain process control at 
higher line speeds, the Constituent Update explained that the Agency 
will limit the additional line speed waivers to establishments that 
have the ability and intend to operate at line speeds higher than 140 
bpm.
    In addition, after reviewing comments submitted in response to the 
NCC petition, FSIS is adding compliance with good commercial practices 
(GCPs) to the criteria that the Agency will use to consider line speed 
waiver requests submitted by NPIS young chicken slaughter 
establishments. The regulations require that poultry be slaughtered in 
accordance with GCPs, in a manner that will result in thorough bleeding 
of the poultry carcass and will ensure that breathing has stopped 
before scalding (9 CFR 381.65(b)). In a Federal Register notice 
published on September 28, 2005, FSIS explained that poultry products 
are more likely to be adulterated if, among other circumstances, they 
are produced from birds that have not been treated humanely because 
such birds are more likely to be bruised or to die other than by 
slaughter (70 FR 56624).
    If an establishment is not following GCPs, and birds are dying 
other than by slaughter, FSIS inspection program personnel (IPP) will 
document a non-compliance record (NR) citing 9 CFR 381.65(b). If birds 
are being mistreated, but can still be fully bled and are not breathing 
when they enter the scalder, IPP are instructed to discuss the 
mistreatment with the establishment and document the discussion and any 
planned action by the establishment in a Memorandum of Interview (MOI). 
IPP will forward a copy of the MOI to the FSIS District Veterinary 
Medical Specialist (DVMS) for review (FSIS Directive 6100.3, Ante-
Mortem and Post-Mortem Poultry Inspection, April 11, 2011).
    As discussed below, some comments raised issues related to line 
speeds for NPIS young chicken establishments and compliance with GCPs. 
Under all poultry inspection systems, including the NPIS, 
establishments are required to slaughter poultry in accordance with 
GCPs. Therefore, in addition to the criteria described above, the 
Agency will consider compliance with GCPs as part of an establishment's 
demonstrated history of regulatory compliance. Thus, consistent with 
the above regulatory compliance criteria, to be eligible for a line 
speed waiver, establishments must also have not had an NR for violation 
of GCPs (9 CFR 381.65(b)) in the past 120 days.
    Finally, FSIS also will be requiring establishments with line speed 
waivers to conduct daily Aerobic Plate Count (APC) testing, instead of 
weekly testing for indicator organisms, and to make the results 
available to FSIS. This testing will provide additional data for 
consideration by FSIS when it determines whether rulemaking for young 
chicken slaughter line speeds is supported.

Conditions for Operating Under a Waiver and FSIS Verification

    Establishments that are eligible for a line speed waiver and that 
have assembled the documentation that needs to be included in their 
waiver request described above should submit their line speed waiver 
requests to the FSIS Office of Policy and Program Development (OPPD) 
Risk Innovations and Management Staff (RIMS). After FSIS receives a 
line speed waiver request, the Agency will follow the

[[Page 49051]]

procedures in FSIS Directive 5020.2, The New Technology Review Process 
(October 24, 2017), to verify that the establishment meets the criteria 
to be eligible for the waiver and to evaluate the establishment's 
waiver request submission.
    As noted in the Constituent Update, if an establishment is granted 
a waiver, RIMS will provide the establishment with a waiver letter that 
specifies the required conditions for operating under the waiver. To 
ensure consistency in data collection and analysis, when FSIS issues 
the waiver letter, the Agency will also include a template for the 
establishment to use to record and report to FSIS the data that the 
establishment will be required to collect as a condition for its 
waiver. This template will provide for the reporting of data on the 
daily Aerobic Plate Count (APC) testing described above. FSIS will 
require that all young chicken establishments with line speed waivers 
use the template to submit their data to facilitate data aggregation 
and analysis.
    As also noted in the Constituent Update, one of the conditions for 
operating under a line speed waiver will be that establishments notify 
the FSIS inspector-in-charge (IIC) when they are operating at line 
speeds higher than 140 bpm and when they reduce their line speeds to 
140 bpm or below to allow FSIS to evaluate the establishment's ability 
to maintain process control at a given line speed. Young chicken 
establishments that are granted a line speed waiver will routinely need 
to operate at least one line at speeds above 140 bpm on average, but 
not higher than 175 bpm. Establishments with multiple lines may operate 
more than one line above 140 bpm and up to 175 bpm, but if they do, 
they will need to collect separate data for each individual line. While 
FSIS recognizes that establishments may need to occasionally reduce 
line speed during the course of operations, the average speed for each 
line used to collect data under the waiver will need to be higher than 
140 bpm. Establishments consistently unable to maintain process control 
at line speeds higher than 140 bpm or consistently operating at line 
speeds lower than 140 bpm will be subject to waiver revocation.
    Consistent with the waivers granted to the 20 HIMP young chicken 
establishments to operate at up to 175 bpm, any additional NPIS 
establishments that are granted a line speed waiver will need to 
participate in the SIP as a condition of their waivers. Under the SIP, 
FSIS grants establishments a waiver of a regulation with the condition 
that the establishment collects and analyzes samples for microbial 
organisms including both Salmonella and indicator organisms, and shares 
the results with FSIS. As discussed above, FSIS will require 
establishments with line speed waivers to conduct daily APC testing, 
instead of weekly testing for indicator organisms, as a condition of 
their waivers. Establishments operating under a line speed waiver will 
need to identify the line speed they were operating under when they 
collected the microbial data required under the SIP and include the 
line speed when they submit their SIP data to FSIS. FSIS intends to use 
a six-month moving window approach to determine the establishment's 
average line speed based on the line speeds recorded as part of the SIP 
data.
    In addition to participating in the SIP, young chicken 
establishments that have been granted a line speed waiver will need to 
continue to meet the criteria outlined in the February 23, 2018, 
Constituent Update described above to remain eligible for a waiver. The 
Agency will follow the procedures in FSIS Directive 5020.1, 
Verification Activities for the Use of New Technology in Meat and 
Poultry Establishments, and Egg Products Plants (October 6, 2016), to 
verify that establishments that have been granted waivers remain 
eligible for their waivers and are following the process control 
procedures agreed to as a condition for the waivers.
    Under Directive 5020.1, FSIS IPP verify, among other things, that 
the establishment is effectively implementing its process control 
procedures as documented in its waiver letter and collecting SIP 
microbial data to monitor its ability to maintain process control. IPP 
will review the results of the establishment's microbial sampling 
program and verify that the establishment takes appropriate corrective 
actions in response to its testing results, including slowing the line 
when needed to maintain process control.
    Additionally, FSIS will review the results of the Agency's 
Salmonella sampling to verify that the establishment continues to meet 
the performance standards for Category 1 or 2 for young chicken 
carcasses when operating at faster line speeds. FSIS will also evaluate 
process control by reviewing the results of the Agency's 10-bird 
offline verification checks to verify that the establishment is meeting 
the zero tolerance standard for fecal contamination and septicemia/
toxemia, and that it is not producing product with persistent, 
unattended non-food safety trim and processing defects when operating 
at higher line speeds.
    Directive 5020.1 provides that FSIS may revoke a waiver of 
regulatory requirements when an establishment fails to meet or follow 
its alternative procedures associated with the waiver. Thus, if FSIS 
finds that an establishment that has been granted a line speed waiver 
is unable to meet the conditions of its waiver agreement, the Agency 
will consider whether to allow the establishment to implement 
corrective actions and resume operating under the waiver or whether the 
waiver needs to be revoked. If the waiver is revoked, the establishment 
will be required to comply with the 140 bpm maximum line speed for the 
NPIS (9 CFR 381.69(a)).
    FSIS currently posts a table of all establishments that have been 
granted regulatory waivers under the SIP on the FSIS website at: 
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/188bf583-45c9-4837-9205-37e0eb1ba243/Waiver_Table.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. The 20 former HIMP young 
chicken establishments now operating under the NPIS that have been 
granted line speed waivers are included in the table. These 
establishments are the only NPIS young chicken establishments that have 
been granted line speed waivers under the SIP. FSIS intends to update 
this table if the Agency grants additional SIP waivers or revokes 
existing waivers.

Former HIMP Young Chicken Establishments' Line Speed Waivers

    As noted above, when FSIS implemented the NPIS, the Agency granted 
waivers to allow the 20 young chicken establishments that participated 
in the HIMP pilot to operate at line speeds up to 175 bpm after they 
converted to the NPIS because data from the HIMP pilot showed that 
these establishments were able to maintain process control when 
operating at the line speeds authorized by HIMP (79 FR 49591). A 
preliminary review of the SIP data that these establishments have 
submitted to FSIS as a condition of their waivers shows that most of 
them have operated at line speeds higher than 140 bpm since they 
converted to the NPIS, and over half report that they have operated 
between 170 and 175 bpm. Thus, the data collected under these waivers 
has allowed FSIS to continue to evaluate the ability of the former HIMP 
young chicken establishments to maintain process control when operating 
at higher line speeds after they convert to the NPIS.
    As discussed above, FSIS now has over a year of documented process 
control history for many young chicken

[[Page 49052]]

establishments operating under the NPIS.\9\ Therefore, the Agency 
intends to consider additional waiver requests to allow NPIS young 
chicken establishments that meet the criteria described above to 
operate at line speeds of up to 175 bpm. FSIS intends to use the data 
collected from young chicken establishments that are granted these 
additional waivers, along with data collected from the 20 former young 
chicken HIMP establishments that have been granted waivers, to assess 
the ability of NPIS establishments to maintain process control at 
higher line speeds and to inform future rulemaking, if supported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As of August 21, 2018, 67 young chicken establishments were 
operating under the NPIS, including the 20 former HIMP 
establishments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So that the data collected from all NPIS establishments with line 
speed waivers will be comparable, the 20 former HIMP young chicken 
establishments granted line speed waivers and establishments applying 
for new line speed waivers will have to meet the new, additional line 
speed waiver criteria. FSIS intends to issue new waiver letters 
containing the eligibility criteria described above to the 20 former 
HIMP establishments and grant them 120 days from receipt to meet the 
criteria. If an establishment is unable to meet any of the criteria 
within 120 days of receipt, FSIS may revoke its line speed waiver.

Comments

    As noted above, FSIS made the NCC petition available to the public 
on the FSIS website and the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. FSIS received over 100,000 comments and signatures 
on the NCC petition, most of them identical comments or form letters 
submitted as part of organized write-in campaigns. FSIS received 
comments from poultry slaughter establishments and their employees, 
companies that own poultry slaughter establishments, trade associations 
representing the poultry industry, consumer advocacy organizations, 
animal welfare advocacy organizations, worker advocacy organizations, 
civil rights advocacy organizations, environmental advocacy 
organizations, labor unions, members of Congress, poultry establishment 
employees, and individuals. The comments also included a petition from 
an animal welfare advocacy organization with over 53,000 signatures and 
a petition from a consumer advocacy organization with over 17,000 
signatures. FSIS also received approximately 7,900 identical postcards 
from individuals employed by poultry slaughter establishments urging 
the Agency to deny the petition. In addition, several employees from 
various poultry slaughter companies submitted comments on company 
letterhead in support of the petition.
    Comments from poultry slaughter establishments and their employees, 
companies that own poultry slaughter establishments, trade associations 
representing the poultry industry, and a few individuals supported 
granting the petition. Comments from consumer advocacy organizations, 
animal welfare advocacy organizations, worker advocacy organizations, 
civil rights advocacy organizations, labor unions, members of Congress, 
poultry establishment employees, and several individuals urged FSIS to 
deny the petition. All of the comments submitted in response to 
organized write-in campaigns urged FSIS to deny the petition.
    A summary of the general issues raised by the comments received in 
response to the NCC petition and FSIS's responses are presented below. 
Several of the issues have been addressed by FSIS's denial of the NCC 
petition.

Support for Petition

    Comment: Poultry slaughter establishments, companies that own 
poultry slaughter establishments, and trade associations representing 
the poultry industry said that granting the NCC petition would enhance 
FSIS inspection procedures and increase industry efficiency while 
ensuring safeguards are in place to promote worker safety and bird 
welfare. The comments stated that line speeds should be based on an 
establishment's ability to maintain process control rather than 
regulatory line speed limits. The comments noted that the NPIS was 
intended to improve food safety outcomes and generate cost efficiencies 
for both establishments and FSIS. According to the comments, without 
the incentive of higher line speeds, the 140 bpm line speed cap 
established in the final NPIS rule has discouraged many establishments 
from opting into the NPIS and has caused the industry and FSIS to 
forego potential cost savings associated with making better use of 
resources. The comments asserted that allowing establishments to 
increase line speeds will enhance food safety by encouraging more 
establishments to participate in the NPIS and SIP.
    Response: As stated in FSIS's response to the NCC petition, the 
Agency has determined that it is not necessary to establish a separate 
system to provide line speed waivers to young chicken establishments 
operating under the NPIS because FSIS has already issued regulations 
and implemented procedures for establishments to request regulatory 
waivers. Establishments that meet the criteria to be eligible for a 
line speed waiver may use the existing procedures to submit a waiver 
request.
    FSIS established 140 bpm as the maximum line speed for the NPIS, 
with an exception for the 20 former HIMP young chicken establishments, 
because FSIS concluded that it is important to assess each young 
chicken establishment's ability to maintain process control as they 
implement changes to operate under the NPIS (79 FR 49591). In the final 
rule that established the NPIS, FSIS made clear that it would continue 
to evaluate the line speeds at which establishments are capable of 
consistently producing safe, wholesome, and unadulterated product, as 
well as meeting Salmonella and other performance standards.
    Although FSIS has denied NCC's request to establish a waiver 
program that would provide for unlimited line speeds, the Agency will 
consider granting individual waivers to allow young chicken 
establishments that meet the criteria described above to operate at 
line speeds of up to 175 bpm. The data collected from establishments 
that are granted these waivers will allow FSIS to evaluate the ability 
of NPIS establishments that did not participate in the HIMP pilot to 
maintain process control at line speeds of up to 175 bpm. The waivers 
do not provide for unlimited line speeds, as requested in the NCC 
petition, because the Agency's experience under the HIMP pilot showed 
that online inspectors are able to conduct an effective online 
inspection of each bird processed at line speeds of up to 175 bpm.

Waiver Regulations

    Comment: Comments from consumer advocacy organizations, animal 
welfare advocacy organizations, worker safety advocacy organizations, 
civil rights advocacy organizations, labor unions, and members of 
Congress stated that FSIS must deny the NCC petition because the 
requested action does not meet any of the criteria to qualify for a 
waiver under 9 CFR 381.3(b). The waiver regulations in 9 CFR 381.3(b) 
provide that ``[t]he Administrator may, in specific cases, waive any 
provision of the poultry inspection regulations in order to permit 
appropriate and necessary action in the event of a public health 
emergency or to permit experimentation so that new procedures, 
equipment, and processing techniques may be tested to facilitate

[[Page 49053]]

definite improvements: Provided, That such waivers . . . are not in 
conflict with the purposes or provisions of the Act.''
    The comments stated that the petition does not identify a public 
health emergency, does not provide for experimentation, does not 
identify a new technology, would not be for a limited period of time, 
and does not describe any definite improvements as required under the 
regulation. Specific issues raised in the comments received follow:
     Public health emergency. The comments stated that the 
requested waiver system does not meet the first basis for granting a 
waiver under 9 CFR 381.3(b) because providing for faster line speeds is 
not ``an appropriate or necessary action in the event of a public 
health emergency.''
     ``Specific classes of cases'' and ``limited periods''. The 
comments noted that 9 CFR 381.3(b) only authorizes FSIS to grant 
waivers in ``specific classes of cases'' for ``limited periods.'' The 
comments said that the NCC petition does not identify any specific 
classes of cases because the line speed waiver requested in the 
petition would apply to any slaughter establishment that participates 
in the NPIS or the SIP. The comments also asserted that the petition 
does not provide for time limits for the requested waiver system. The 
comments stated that granting the petition would establish an 
indefinite waiver program in violation of the regulation.
     ``Experimentation with new technology''. The comments 
stated that the petition asks that FSIS allow establishments 
participating in the NPIS to operate without any line speed limitations 
without identifying any new procedures, equipment, or processing 
techniques. A worker rights advocacy organization and a labor union 
commented that in FSIS's 2003 notice regarding procedures for 
notification of new technology, the Agency acknowledged that line 
speeds are not a new technology when it explained that ``a new 
technology that changed the line speeds for poultry would require a 
waiver to the regulations for a limited time to test the new 
technology'' (68 FR 6874). According to the comments, a change in line 
speed may be the result of a new technology, but is not a new 
technology itself.
     ``Definite improvements''. The comments stated that the 
NCC petition does not include any information to show how a waiver of 
the maximum line speed authorized under the NPIS would ``facilitate 
definite improvements'' consistent with the purposes or provisions of 
the PPIA. Several comments stated that rather than describe how the 
requested waiver system would facilitate definite improvements in food 
safety, the petition asserts that allowing faster line speeds would not 
be worse for public health or worker safety than the current line 
speeds. Several comments stated that the economic considerations 
identified in the petition, such as cost savings, profitability, and 
competitiveness are not valid criteria for granting a waiver because 
they do not qualify as ``definite improvements'' under 9 CFR 381.3(b).
    FSIS Response: For the reasons specified below, FSIS believes that 
line speed waivers are consistent with its regulations under 9 CFR 
381.3(b) and has developed criteria that the Agency intends to use to 
consider these waiver requests and has specified the documentation that 
establishments will need to include in their waiver request 
submissions.
    ``Specified classes of cases'' and ``limited periods.''
    Any individual waivers that FSIS may grant using the aforementioned 
criteria will comply with the regulatory requirements for waivers in 9 
CFR 381.3(b) because the waivers will apply to specific classes of 
cases, i.e., young chicken establishments that meet the criteria 
described above. Further, the waivers are time limited in that if the 
data generated under the waivers support regulatory changes, i.e., the 
establishments are able to consistently maintain process control at the 
higher line speeds, the waivers will be in effect only until the 
rulemaking process is complete. If the data generated do not support 
regulatory changes, the waivers will be terminated.
    ``Experimentation with new technology.''
    FSIS broadly defines ``new technology as new, or new applications 
of, equipment, substances, methods, processes, or procedures affecting 
the slaughter of livestock and poultry or processing of meat, poultry, 
or egg products. (68 FR 6873, February 11, 2003). At a minimum, 
increasing line speeds is a new application of existing technology in 
facilities that have never operated at these higher speeds in the past. 
Further, it is expected that some facilities that request waivers would 
have to install new equipment or reconfigure existing equipment in 
order to accommodate higher line speeds. In the same Federal Register 
notice cited above, FSIS noted that technology changes that could 
adversely affect product safety, interfere with FSIS inspection 
procedures, or jeopardize the safety of inspection program personnel, 
including changes in line speeds, would require regulatory waivers (68 
FR 6874). Therefore, FSIS believes that the line speed waivers 
contemplated in this document are consistent with past Agency policy 
and the regulations at 9 CFR 381.3(b).
    ``Definite improvements.''
    FSIS interprets ``definite improvement'' to mean any improvement of 
equipment, substances, methods, processes, or procedures affecting the 
slaughter of livestock and poultry or processing of meat, poultry or 
egg products, (83 FR 4782, February 1, 2018). FSIS believes that if an 
establishment were able to increase efficiency in poultry production by 
operating at higher line speeds, while consistently maintaining process 
control, with no diminution in the food safety profile of the finished 
product, it would constitute a ``definite improvement'' within the 
meaning of 9 CFR 381.3(b). As previously noted, an establishment's 
waiver submission request will need to explain how food safety system 
modifications undertaken to operate at faster line speeds will maintain 
or improve food safety.
    Comment: In addition to the criteria for granting waivers described 
above, the comments also noted that under the regulation, FSIS may only 
grant waivers that are not in conflict with the purposes or provisions 
of the PPIA (9 CFR 381.3(b)).
    Comments from consumer advocacy organizations, animal welfare 
organizations, members of Congress, and worker advocacy organizations 
stated that the requested waiver system, if implemented, would be 
inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the PPIA because 
eliminating maximum line speeds has the potential to increase the risk 
that adulterated product will enter commerce. A consumer advocacy 
organization stated that the potential for human error increases with 
an increase in line speed, and workers forced to perform the same 
repetitive activities at a faster pace will become increasingly 
fatigued, making them more likely to make mistakes that result in 
product contamination or failure to notice and address safety risks. 
Consumer advocacy organizations, worker advocacy organizations, and an 
environmental advocacy organization commented that higher line speeds 
may also affect the accuracy of the equipment on the evisceration and 
cause carcasses to become contaminated with fecal material.
    Several comments stated that faster line speeds give company 
sorters less time to identify carcasses affected with food safety 
defects, such as septicemia/

[[Page 49054]]

toxemia and visible fecal contamination. An animal welfare advocacy 
organization commented that NCC's requested action would increase the 
risk that poultry meat would become adulterated from inhumane handling 
of chickens because faster line speeds are correlated with loss of 
process control that results in birds being intentionally mistreated by 
workers, improperly hung in shackles, insufficiently cut and bled, and 
scalded alive.
    FSIS Response: Because FSIS has denied the NCC petition, the Agency 
will not be establishing a waiver program that the comments state will 
conflict with the purposes or provisions of the PPIA. Instead, as noted 
throughout this document, the Agency will use its existing waiver 
procedures to consider granting line speed waivers to individual 
establishments that meet the criteria described above to operate at 
line speeds of up to 175 bpm. Under these criteria, establishments will 
only be eligible for a waiver if, among other things, they have been 
operating under the NPIS for at least one year with a demonstrated 
ability to maintain process control and demonstrated history of 
regulatory compliance. After an establishment has been granted a 
waiver, it will need to submit microbial data and other records, such 
as statistical process control charts, to FSIS to demonstrate that it 
is able to maintain process control when operating at faster line 
speeds. FSIS will monitor the establishment's ability to maintain 
process control by evaluating the results of the Agency's Salmonella 
verification sampling, performing carcass verification checks, 
performing sanitation verification activities, and reviewing the 
records that the establishment maintains to demonstrate process 
control, including the establishment's microbiological testing data. 
Finally, in regard to the handling of live chickens, as discussed 
above, compliance with GCP regulations will be a condition of operating 
under a line speed waiver for both waiver applicants and establishments 
already operating under waivers.
    Comment: Several comments asserted that, in addition to the 
potential for increased contamination, the petition's requested waiver 
system would conflict with the purposes or provisions of the PPIA 
because high line speeds would make it difficult for FSIS inspectors to 
conduct an effective online carcass-by-carcass inspection. Comments 
from consumer and animal welfare advocacy organizations noted that the 
PPIA requires FSIS inspectors to inspect ``the carcass of each bird 
processed'' (21 U.S.C. 455(b)) and that ``inspection'' means that the 
inspector gives a ``critical determination whether [a carcass or part 
of a carcass] is adulterated or unadulterated'' (AFGE v. Glickman, 215 
F 2nd 7 (D.C. Cir., 2000)). According to the comments, NCC's request to 
allow poultry slaughter establishments to operate at line speeds 
greater than 175 bpm would make it extremely difficult, if not 
impossible, for FSIS to inspect the carcass of each bird processed. A 
consumer advocacy organization stated that faster line speeds will also 
reduce the percentage of carcasses assessed through offline inspections 
because the number of assigned offline carcass verification checks does 
not vary with line speed, meaning a smaller percentage of birds will be 
inspected offline for fecal contamination as line speeds increase.
    FSIS Response: Because FSIS has denied the NCC petition, young 
chicken NPIS establishments will not be granted waivers to operate 
without line speed limits. FSIS's experience under the HIMP pilot 
showed that online inspectors in HIMP young chicken establishments were 
able to conduct an effective online inspection of each carcass when 
operating at a line speed of up to 175 bpm. As discussed above, FSIS 
intends to grant individual waivers to allow certain young chicken NPIS 
establishments to operate at line speeds up to 175 bpm. To ensure that 
online inspectors are able to conduct an effective online inspection of 
each bird processed, FSIS inspectors-in-charge (IICs) in all NPIS 
establishments, including those operating under waivers, are authorized 
to direct establishments to operate at a reduced line speed when in the 
IIC's judgment a carcass-by-carcass inspection cannot be performed 
within the time available, due to the manner in which the birds are 
presented to the online carcass inspector, the health conditions of a 
particular flock, or factors that may indicate a loss of process 
control (9 CFR 381.69(d)).
    With respect to the comment that faster line speeds will reduce the 
percentage of carcasses assessed through offline inspections, as stated 
in the preamble to the rule that established the NPIS, under the NPIS, 
the offline carcass verification checks will be more risk-based than 
under the HIMP pilot to reflect the performance of the establishment 
(79 FR 49587). As under the HIMP pilot, FSIS continues to conduct eight 
10-bird verification checks per line per shift under the NPIS. However, 
as noted in the final NPIS rule, FSIS monitors and analyzes the ongoing 
results of its offline carcass verification activities to assess the 
effectiveness of the establishment's sorting and other process control 
procedures (79 FR 49587). FSIS conducts additional verification 
activities in all NPIS establishments, including those operating under 
waivers, as needed to respond to the Agency's verification findings 
(FSIS Directive 6500.1, New Poultry Inspection System: Post-Mortem 
Inspection and Verification of Ready-to-Cook Requirement, February 1, 
2017).
    Comment: A worker rights advocacy organization stated that even if 
the requirements of the waiver regulations are met, the NCC is not 
authorized to submit a waiver request under CFR 381.3(b). The 
organization stated that FSIS's Procedures for Notification of New 
Technology (68 FR 6873) allow official establishments and companies 
that manufacture and sell technology to official establishments to 
submit new technology notifications to the Agency. The comment noted 
that the NCC is not an official establishment or a company that 
manufactures or sells new technologies.
    FSIS Response: Nothing in the regulations at 9 CFR 381.3(b) limits 
the submission of waiver requests to the regulated industry or 
companies that manufacture or sell new technologies. FSIS has denied 
the NCC petition, but will continue to consider waiver requests from 
official establishments, companies that manufacture or sell new 
technologies, and other interested parties.

NPIS Line Speed Regulation

    Comment: Comments from consumer advocacy organizations, animal 
welfare advocacy organizations, worker rights advocacy organizations, 
civil rights advocacy organizations, and members of Congress asserted 
that the NCC petition is an attempt to bypass the maximum line speed 
for the NPIS prescribed in the regulations without going through the 
rulemaking process in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). These comments stated that the 140 bpm maximum 
line speed is a legislative rule established through notice-and-comment 
rulemaking and, therefore, can only be modified through notice-and-
comment rulemaking. A consumer advocacy organization stated that the 
SIP waiver process is intended to facilitate experimentation, not 
implement industry-wide changes.
    FSIS Response: Because FSIS has denied the NCC petition, the Agency 
will not be establishing a line speed waiver system for all young 
chicken establishments and will not allow all young chicken NPIS 
establishments to operate at line speeds faster than the

[[Page 49055]]

maximum 140 bpm prescribed by the regulation (9 CFR 381.69(a)). The 
Agency will consider individual line speed waiver request submissions 
through its existing procedures using the criteria described above. It 
should be noted that the existing waiver regulations were promulgated 
by notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to the APA. FSIS's decision 
to grant individual regulatory waivers under 9 CFR 381.3(b) will not 
apply to all young chicken slaughter establishments nor establish a new 
maximum line speed under NPIS and, therefore, would not be subject to 
the APA's notice-and-comment rulemaking provisions.
    Comment: Comments from consumer advocacy organizations, animal 
welfare advocacy organizations, worker rights advocacy organizations, 
civil rights advocacy organizations, and members of Congress stated 
that granting waivers from the line speed limits established for the 
NPIS would be an arbitrary reversal of Agency position. The comments 
asserted that FSIS considered and rejected requests to allow for faster 
line speeds under the NPIS when the Agency finalized the rule that 
established the NPIS in 2014 (79 FR 49566). The comments noted that the 
2014 final rule was the result of a comprehensive, two-and-a-half year 
rulemaking process during which FSIS received and considered more than 
250,000 public comments. A worker safety advocacy organization noted 
that the question of the maximum allowable line speed was the single 
most commented-upon aspect of the NPIS rulemaking. Several comments 
also noted that in the fall of 2013, a network of worker safety groups 
petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and 
USDA to regulate and reduce assembly line speeds in meat and poultry 
processing establishments. The comments stated that OSHA ultimately 
denied the petition due to ``a lack of resources,'' but in the 2014 
NPIS final rule, FSIS chose not to increase the current maximum line 
speed limits for poultry slaughter establishments.
    Comments from consumer advocacy organizations, animal welfare 
advocacy organizations, worker rights advocacy organizations, civil 
rights advocacy organizations, and members of Congress stated that in 
FSIS's 2014 NPIS rulemaking, the Agency acknowledged that line speeds 
should not increase without further research ``to assess 
establishments' ability to maintain process control as they implement 
changes to operate under the NPIS'' (79 FR 49615). The comments noted 
that FSIS intended to conduct this assessment ``[a]fter the NPIS has 
been fully implemented on a wide scale and the Agency has gained at 
least a year of experience under the new system'' (79 FR 49615). The 
comments noted that at the time the NCC petition was submitted, 
approximately 60 establishments had converted to the NPIS while in the 
final rule that established the NPIS, FSIS had estimated that 219 
establishment would convert. Therefore, the comments asserted, the NPIS 
has not yet been fully implemented on a wide scale. According to the 
comments, FSIS has not accrued the necessary experience to evaluate the 
NPIS establishments' ability to maintain process control at any given 
line speed.
    A consumer advocacy organization noted that FSIS granted SIP 
waivers to allow the 20 former young chicken HIMP establishments to 
continue to operate at line speeds of up to 175 bpm after they 
converted to the NPIS because these establishments have demonstrated 
that they are able to maintain process control under the line speeds 
authorized by HIMP. The comment said that in granting these SIP 
waivers, FSIS stated that it would compare the data from the former 
HIMP young chicken establishments to data from other non-HIMP NPIS 
establishments as a means of evaluating the new program (79 FR 49591). 
The comment stated that FSIS has not made any efforts to conduct such 
an assessment that is available to the public.
    FSIS Response: As noted above, FSIS has denied the NCC petition and 
thus, will not be implementing the line speed waiver program requested 
in the petition. FSIS's decision to consider individual waiver requests 
to allow certain young chicken NPIS establishments to operate at line 
speeds of up to 175 bpm does not affect the regulation that prescribes 
140 bpm as the maximum line speed for NPIS young chickens 
establishments (9 CFR 381.69(a)) and is consistent with the Agency's 
position on line speeds as stated in the final rule that established 
the NPIS.
    Also as discussed above, when FSIS published the final rule that 
established the NPIS, the Agency made it clear that it would continue 
to evaluate the line speeds at which establishments are capable of 
consistently producing safe, wholesome, and unadulterated product, as 
well as meeting pathogen reduction and other performance standards (79 
FR 49591). The data collected from establishments that are granted new 
line speed waivers will allow FSIS to evaluate the ability of NPIS 
establishments that did not participate in the HIMP pilot to maintain 
process control at line speeds up to 175 bpm. FSIS intends to use these 
data, along with the data from establishments currently operating under 
line speed waivers, to inform future rulemaking, if warranted, with 
respect to line speeds under the NPIS.
    Comment: An animal welfare advocacy organization commented that the 
PPIA requires a hearing be held for ``oral presentation of views'' for 
interested parties when the Agency engages in rulemaking related to its 
subject matter (21 U.S.C. 463(c)). The organization stated that FSIS 
has not held such a public hearing, and the public comment period that 
FSIS provided on regulations.gov is not a lawful substitute for the 
hearing requirement.
    FSIS Response: FSIS's regulations on petitions provide for 
interested persons to submit comments on a petition (9 CFR 392.7). The 
public comment period that FSIS provided on regulations.gov is 
consistent with this regulatory provision. Under 21 U.S.C. 463(c), FSIS 
is required to provide interested persons an opportunity for the oral 
presentation of views after the Agency has initiated informal 
rulemaking. FSIS has not initiated informal rulemaking in response to 
the petition. In addition, 21 U.S.C. 463(c) does not require that FSIS 
hold public hearings to receive oral presentation of views as part of 
the rulemaking process.

NPIS Line Speed Data

    Comment: As discussed earlier in this document, the NCC petition 
cited data in support of its position, including information from the 
2011 HIMP pilot study, a 2001 published study on the HIMP pilot, and a 
2017 unpublished survey of NCC member companies operating under the 
NPIS with and without line speed waivers. Comments from poultry 
slaughter establishments and trade associations representing the 
poultry industry stated that the available data demonstrate that young 
chicken NPIS establishments are able to operate at line speeds above 
140 bpm without compromising food safety. The comments stated that 
FSIS's experience with the HIMP pilot upon which the NPIS is based 
demonstrates that establishments can safely operate at higher line 
speeds. The comments referenced data from the 2011 HIMP Report that 
shows that establishments operating under the line speeds authorized by 
HIMP perform as well as or better than comparable non-HIMP 
establishments. A trade association representing the poultry industry 
referenced the 2001 study cited in the

[[Page 49056]]

petition and claimed that this study reinforces the conclusions in the 
HIMP Report. The comments also referenced a preliminary analysis of 
data from NPIS and non-NPIS establishments that FSIS presented to 
stakeholders in October 2017. The comments asserted that this analysis 
further confirms that establishments permitted to operate at line 
speeds greater than 140 bpm had comparable Salmonella and Campylobacter 
percent positives for both whole chicken carcasses and chicken parts, 
and that both were below the FSIS performance standards for these 
pathogens. The comments also stated that an NCC analysis of FSIS 
performance standards sampling data, NR rates, and other key food 
safety performance indicators submitted in support of the petition 
shows that NPIS establishments, including former HIMP establishments 
operating with higher line speeds, are performing at least as well as 
non-NPIS establishments.
    Consumer advocacy organizations, animal welfare advocacy 
organizations, and worker advocacy organizations asserted that the 
petition does not include any data to demonstrate that the NPIS 
establishments would be able to maintain process control at faster line 
speeds. The comments stated that although the petition discusses the 
results of an unpublished industry survey, the discussion does not 
provide sufficient detail for FSIS to consider the data. The comments 
noted that the petition does not include any information on how 
establishments were chosen for the survey, the methodology used to 
conduct the survey, or how the results are statistically sound or 
valid. Comments from a consumer advocacy organization and an animal 
welfare advocacy organization noted that the petition did not present 
the Campylobacter and Salmonella data, even in summary form. The 
comments stated that the petition only lists the survey participants' 
total Salmonella and Campylobacter percent positives and that the 
petition states that the NPIS participants' percent positives were ``as 
good as if not better than their non-NPIS counterparts.''
    The comments also noted that the NCC survey results were not peer 
reviewed. A consumer advocacy organization stated that the survey also 
did not include a pre-specified analysis plan, which could allow for 
selective reporting, and that the survey relied upon data collected in 
the winter months, a time period when Salmonella positives are 
typically lower. Another consumer advocacy organization stated that the 
NCC seeks to draw conclusions on line speeds beyond the range of actual 
line speeds studied in its survey.
    Two consumer advocacy organizations noted that the petition also 
referenced data from the 2011 HIMP Report to support the requested 
action. The comments asserted that data in the 2011 HIMP Report does 
not establish that food safety will be maintained should line speed 
caps be lifted. The comments noted that the 2011 HIMP Report stated 
that the average line speed under HIMP was 131 bpm, well below the 
maximum line speed of 175 bpm authorized under HIMP. The comments also 
asserted that line speed information from former HIMP establishments 
does not provide insight into operation at unlimited line speeds. The 
organizations also commented that the petition does not address the 
concern that other young chicken establishments might behave 
differently than the 20 former HIMP establishments. One comment stated 
that the 2011 HIMP Report findings of no statistical difference in 
fecal NRs and Salmonella positives based on line speed show that FSIS 
did not find that increased line speeds were statistically related to 
these indicia of contamination. The comment stated that this is not a 
``definite improvement.''
    FSIS Response: Although FSIS considered the supporting data in the 
petition and the comments on these data when evaluating the NCC 
petition, the supporting data were not the primary basis for denying 
the petition. FSIS denied the NCC petition because the Agency has 
already implemented procedures for establishments to request regulatory 
waivers and therefore, FSIS determined that it is not necessary to 
establish a separate waiver system to provide line speed waivers to 
young chicken establishments operating under the NPIS. FSIS reviews 
submissions for the use of procedures or processes that require 
regulatory waivers on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the 
waiver request submission includes a method to document the performance 
of the new technology, so the resulting data can be monitored and 
analyzed.
    As noted above, FSIS has established criteria that the Agency 
intends to use under its existing waiver process to consider waiver 
requests by young chicken establishments to operate at line speeds of 
up to 175 bpm. FSIS will consider individual waiver requests on a case-
by-case basis and will base its decision on whether to grant a waiver 
on the information included in an establishment's waiver request 
submission, not on the data submitted in support of the petition.

Worker Safety

    Comment: Comments from poultry slaughter establishments, trade 
associations representing the poultry industry, and individuals stated 
that permitting NPIS young chicken establishments to run at line speeds 
faster than 140 bpm would not be expected to have a significant impact 
on worker safety because the waivers would only apply to a specific 
highly automated part of the processing line with little direct 
employee interaction with the equipment or the birds. The comments 
stated that the ``further processing lines'' where workers debone and 
cut up chicken parts are separate from the evisceration line and do not 
run at the same speed as the evisceration line. The comments stated 
that even under the current NPIS system, these further processing lines 
run at slower speeds appropriate for the type of work being done and 
this would not change if FSIS were to grant the petition.
    Poultry establishments and trade associations representing the 
poultry industry commented that the available data show that increased 
line speeds do not present greater risks for worker safety. The 
comments asserted that worker safety in poultry establishments has 
improved in the past two decades, with worker illness and injury rates 
reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) decreasing by more 
than 80 percent since 1994. The comments stated that the incidence of 
non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses in the poultry sector, 
which includes slaughter and processing, remains at an all-time low. 
The comments further stated that the total recordable poultry 
processing illness and injury rate for 2016 was 4.2 cases per 100 full-
time workers per year, down from 4.3 in 2005. The comments also stated 
that the poultry industry's rate of 4.2 was below the rate of 6.9 for 
similar agricultural industries in terms of injuries per 100 full-time 
workers and lower than the rate of 4.7 for the entire food 
manufacturing sector. In addition to these statistics, the comments 
noted that the NCC's industry survey of establishments that have 
recently opted into the NPIS and those that had been former HIMP 
establishments revealed that all plants surveyed, on average, were 
operating well below the industry's total DART (days away, restricted, 
or transferred) rates. According to the comments, this provides 
evidence that the increased line speeds have not resulted in an 
increase in worker injuries.

[[Page 49057]]

    Comments from worker and civil rights advocacy organizations, 
poultry establishment employees, consumer advocacy organizations, labor 
unions, members of Congress, an environmental advocacy organization, 
and private citizens asserted that establishing a line speed waiver 
system as requested in the NCC petition would increase risks to worker 
health and safety in establishments that operate under such waivers and 
would expose workers to hazards that have not been studied. The 
comments referenced studies, reports, and other data on work-related 
injuries in the meat and poultry processing industry. The most commonly 
referenced information sources included:
     Studies published by the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that found high rates of carpal 
tunnel syndrome among workers in the poultry industry. One study found 
that 34 percent of workers in poultry processing establishments had 
carpal tunnel syndrome, and 76 percent had evidence of nerve damage in 
their hands and wrists. Another study found that 42 percent of workers 
at a poultry processing establishment had carpal tunnel syndrome.
     2016 BLS data showing that employer reported injury rates 
for poultry workers were 60 percent above the national average for all 
private industry, and illness rates were more than five times as high.
     Reports published by the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) in 2005, 2016, and 2017 that concluded, among other things, that 
injury rates in the meat and poultry slaughter industries continue to 
be higher than the rates for others in the manufacturing industry, that 
meat and poultry workers may under-report illnesses and injuries 
because they fear losing their jobs, and that employers may underreport 
worker injuries because of concerns about potential costs.
     Various reports from worker advocacy organizations on 
worker safety in meat and poultry processing establishments. These 
reports include surveys of poultry workers that have suffered illnesses 
and injury from the fast-paced repetitive tasks associated with the 
current line speeds.
     OSHA citations of poultry processing establishments for 
failure to record injuries and illnesses requiring more than first aid.
    The comments stated that the available studies, reports, and data 
contradict NCC's assertion that worker illness and injury are at an 
all-time low, and, according to the comments, the statistics that NCC 
relied on are based on a potentially biased self-reporting system. 
Several comments noted that in the preamble to the final rule that 
established the NPIS, FSIS recognized that the systemic underreporting 
of the poultry industry work-related injuries and illness ``could make 
it difficult to accurately assess the extent to which poultry workers 
suffer from work related injuries and musculoskeletal diseases and 
disorders.'' Comments from a civil rights organization, members of 
Congress, and a labor union expressed concern that increased line 
speeds will disproportionately hurt women and people of color. The 
labor union commented that nearly 40 percent of those who work in 
animal slaughtering and processing are women and 67 percent are people 
of color.
    FSIS Response: While FSIS agrees that working conditions in poultry 
slaughter establishments is an important issue, the Agency has neither 
the authority nor the expertise to regulate issues related to 
establishment worker safety. FSIS has been delegated the authority to 
exercise the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture under the 
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the PPIA 
(21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 
U.S.C 1301 et seq.) (the Acts). Under the Acts, FSIS protects the 
public by verifying that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, 
wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged. 
The Acts authorize FSIS to administer and enforce laws and regulations 
solely to protect the health and welfare of consumers.
    The DOL's OSHA was created by the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) to assure safe and healthful 
working conditions for men and women by setting and enforcing standards 
and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance. As was 
noted in the preamble to the final rule that established the NPIS, OSHA 
is the Federal agency with statutory and regulatory authority to 
promote workplace safety and health (79 FR 49600). FSIS's authority 
with respect to working conditions in poultry slaughter establishments 
extends only to FSIS inspection personnel. While FSIS is prepared to 
address worker safety within the bounds of its authority, as noted 
above, FSIS has neither the legal authority nor the expertise to 
regulate or enforce workplace standards for establishment employees.
    During the development of the final rule that established the NPIS, 
FSIS collaborated with OSHA and NIOSH, to address issues related to 
worker safety raised by the public comments. OSHA and NIOSH are the 
government agencies with the expertise and authority to address worker 
safety issues in private industry workplaces. As a result of this 
collaboration, the final NPIS regulations include provisions to remind 
establishments of their existing legal obligations to comply with the 
worker safety laws administered by OSHA (9 CFR 381.69(d)). The final 
regulations also provide for establishments operating under the NPIS to 
submit on an annual basis an attestation to the management member of 
the local FSIS circuit safety committee stating that the establishment 
maintains a program to monitor and document any work-related conditions 
of establishment workers (9 CFR 381.45). Because OSHA is the Federal 
agency with statutory and regulatory authority to promote workplace 
safety and health, FSIS forwards the annual attestation to OSHA for use 
in its own enforcement program. All establishments operating under the 
NPIS are subject to the attestation regulation, including the NPIS 
establishments operating under regulatory waivers. However, FSIS 
employees are not responsible for determining the merit of the content 
of the attestation or for enforcement of non-compliance with the 
attestation provision.

Animal Welfare

    Comment: Comments from animal welfare advocacy organizations and 
individuals concerned about animal welfare asserted that granting the 
petition and allowing NPIS establishments to operate at faster line 
speeds would have adverse effects on the humane handling of poultry. 
The comments expressed concern about worker frustration over faster 
line speeds and the potential for workers to take these frustrations 
out on the birds; the potential for increased injuries that may occur 
from shackling birds at faster line speeds; the potential for worker 
injuries from birds vigorously flapping their wings while in shackles; 
and the potential for ineffective stunning and throat cutting of birds 
at faster line speeds. The comments noted that for over 12 years, FSIS 
has recognized that ``poultry products are more likely to be 
adulterated if, among other circumstances, they are produced by birds 
who have not been treated humanely, because such birds are more likely 
to be bruised or to die other than by slaughter'' (79 FR 49590). The 
comments referenced FSIS NRs for cadavers, birds entering the scalder 
alive or not fully bled out, and birds

[[Page 49058]]

exhibiting severe bruising primarily caused by dislocated legs and 
broken wings. According to the comments, faster line speeds will 
exacerbate these conditions. Two animal welfare advocacy organizations 
asserted that setting policy for poultry slaughter that promotes better 
animal handling practices would further compliance with the PPIA and 
ensure more effective and efficient inspections.
    FSIS Response: Because the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) 
(7 U.S.C. 1901-1907) does not apply to poultry, FSIS does not have 
direct authority to regulate the humane handling of live poultry in 
connection with slaughter. As noted above, under all poultry inspection 
systems, including the NPIS, establishments are required to slaughter 
poultry in accordance with GCPs, in a manner that results in thorough 
bleeding of the poultry carcasses and ensures that breathing has 
stopped before scalding (9 CFR 381.65(b)). As noted in the comments, in 
September 2005, FSIS published a Federal Register notice to explain 
that poultry products are more likely to be adulterated if, among other 
circumstances, they are produced from birds that have not been treated 
humanely because such birds are more likely to be bruised or to die 
other than by slaughter (70 FR 56624). Under both the PPIA and its 
implementing regulations, poultry carcasses showing evidence of having 
died from causes other than by slaughter are considered adulterated and 
as such must be condemned (21 U.S.C. 453(g)(5) and 9 CFR 381.90). 
Establishments operating under the NPIS have always been, and will 
continue to be, subject to these requirements regardless of their line 
speed, including establishments that have been granted waivers to 
operate at line speeds of up to 175 bpm. As outlined in FSIS Directive 
6300.1, Ante-mortem and Post-mortem Poultry Inspection, FSIS verifies 
GCPs as part of a daily, per-shift inspection task performed by the 
public health veterinarian (PHV). Any non-compliances are documented 
under 9 CFR 381.65(b) and reviewed weekly as one of many measures of 
process control. However, in response to these comments, as discussed 
above, FSIS has decided to add compliance with the GCP regulation to 
the criteria that the Agency will consider when evaluating an 
establishment's line speed waiver request submission. Also, as 
discussed above, FSIS will now consider compliance with the GCP 
regulations as a condition for existing line speed waivers.
    Comment: Two animal welfare advocacy organizations commented that 
if FSIS grants NCC's petition, it should require multi-stage controlled 
atmosphere killing (CAK) as a condition of increasing line speeds. 
According to the comments, faster line speeds will likely result in 
more frequent loss of process control, and FSIS is unlikely to be able 
to provide a rational explanation on how removing line speed limits 
will result in similar or better process control than is currently 
achieved with the line speed limit for the NPIS. The comments asserted 
that multi-stage CAK systems would help maintain process control 
because birds stunned while in transport cages do not need to be 
removed from their cages, dumped onto conveyor belts, and shackled 
upside down while still conscious. The organizations stated that this 
would facilitate proper handling.
    FSIS Response: FSIS does not prescribe specific methods that 
establishments must use to stun or kill poultry in connection with 
slaughter. Establishments are required to maintain process control and 
comply with requirements for GCPs regardless of the methods they use to 
stun or kill the birds. Establishments may use CAK stunning if they 
choose to do so.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Comment: Comments from animal welfare advocacy organizations and an 
environmental advocacy organization stated that if FSIS grants the NCC 
petition, the Agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)(42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) because the requested action to allow poultry 
slaughterhouses to increase line speeds would result in significant 
environmental impacts. The comments stated that faster line speeds 
would mean more birds slaughtered per shift. According to the comments, 
more birds slaughtered would mean more waste, more water use, and more 
fossil fuels required to transport the birds from farm to 
slaughterhouse. The comments asserted that these are all significant 
environmental impacts, with both individual and cumulative effects at 
the local, state, and national levels. The comments also stated that if 
FSIS grants NCC's petition, FSIS cannot claim the categorical exclusion 
from the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an EIS 
under 7 CFR part 1b of the USDA regulations.
    FSIS Response: Because FSIS has denied the NCC petition, it will 
not be implementing the waiver system that these commenters believe 
could result in significant environmental impacts and thus is not 
required to analyze potential environmental impacts resulting from the 
waiver system proposed by NCC as suggested by the comments.
    With respect to the Agency's decision to consider granting waivers 
to additional NPIS establishments to operate at line speeds of up to 
175 bpm, that decision is categorically excluded from NEPA 
requirements. Federal agencies may identify classes of actions that 
normally do not require the preparation of either an EA or EIS because 
such actions do not have a significant effect on the human environment, 
either individually or cumulatively (40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)). Such classes 
of actions are ``categorically excluded'' from NEPA requirements (40 
CFR 1508.4). Under 7 CFR 1b.4, all FSIS actions, including inspection 
functions, are categorically excluded from preparation of an EA or EIS 
unless the Agency head determines that a particular action may have a 
significant environmental effect. Accordingly, FSIS is not required to 
prepare an EA or EIS unless it anticipates that granting additional 
line speed waivers may have a significant environmental effect.
    The Agency does not anticipate that its decision to consider 
granting waivers to additional NPIS establishments to operate at line 
speeds of up to 175 bpm will have individual or cumulative effects on 
the environment. Expected sales of poultry products to consumers will 
determine the total number of birds that a poultry establishment 
slaughters, not the maximum line speed under which it operates. The 
Agency has no authority to determine a poultry establishment's 
production levels. An establishment may decide to increase production 
hours to slaughter more birds in response to market demand, regardless 
of its maximum line speed. Granting an establishment a waiver to 
operate at up to 175 bpm will allow that establishment to slaughter 
birds more efficiently, but will not affect consumer demand for the 
establishment's poultry products. In some instances, an establishment 
that is granted a waiver may be able to reduce its hours of operation 
while maintaining production at a rate necessary to meet market demand 
for its poultry products. Thus, granting waivers to allow additional 
NPIS establishments to operate at up to 175 bpm is not expected to 
affect the number of birds slaughtered or result in more waste, more 
water use, or require more fossil fuels to transport the birds from 
farm to slaughterhouse, as suggested by the comments. In addition,

[[Page 49059]]

all poultry slaughter establishments, regardless of line speed, are 
required to meet all local, State, and Federal environmental 
requirements.

Economic Issues and Regulatory Reform

    Comment: Comments from poultry slaughter establishments and an 
individual stated that granting the NCC petition would be consistent 
with Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, which requires that for each new 
regulation issued, at least two existing regulations must be eliminated 
to offset the cost of the new regulations. The comments noted that a 
line speed waiver program would be a deregulatory action under E.O. 
13771 because it would expand production options and provide for cost 
savings to industry.
    Comments from consumer advocacy organizations and animal welfare 
advocacy organizations noted that the petition states that the 
requested waiver system would be consistent with the Administration's 
emphasis on reducing regulatory burdens on the industry and assuring 
competitiveness with other countries. Comments from consumer advocacy 
and animal welfare advocacy organizations stated that enhanced 
competitiveness and reduced regulatory burden are not justifications 
for FSIS to take an action that is inconsistent with its regulatory 
authority and that, according to the comments, could potentially 
compromise food safety. Animal welfare advocacy organizations stated 
that the petition exaggerates the regulatory burden of the maximum 
authorized line speed under the NPIS. According to the organizations, 
the petition does not identify any clear cost savings or decreases in 
FSIS administrative burden and does not include any explanation of how 
the administration of the requested action would be cost-effective or 
even financially neutral to FSIS.
    FSIS Response: The purpose of the waiver process is to allow 
establishments to experiment with new equipment, technologies, or 
procedures to facilitate definite improvements, not to initiate 
regulatory changes across the industry, as some of the comments seem to 
suggest. FSIS evaluates the data generated by establishments operating 
under regulatory waivers to inform future rulemaking, if warranted. 
FSIS would consider the costs, benefits, and other economic impacts 
associated with implementing a new technology, including new 
technologies that would permit faster line speeds, if, based on the 
data collected under regulatory waivers, the Agency decided to initiate 
rulemaking to provide for the use of the new technology in the 
regulations.
    Comment: Comments from poultry establishments, trade associations 
representing the poultry industry, and an individual asserted that 
allowing the 20 former young chicken HIMP establishments to operate 
under line speed waivers after they convert to the NPIS gives these 
establishments a competitive advantage over the other NPIS 
establishments. The comments stated that all facilities operating under 
the same inspection system should be regulated under identical 
criteria, and that the granting of waivers should be done equitably as 
well. According to the comments, limiting line speed waivers to the 20 
former young chicken HIMP establishments has no justification and puts 
the Agency in the position of apparently granting financial favors to 
select poultry processing operations.
    Several worker advocacy organizations stated that, in the final 
rule establishing the NPIS, after FSIS considered the extensive 
comments from affected stakeholders on all sides, and in light of 
evidence that young chicken establishments authorized to operate up to 
175 bpm under the HIMP pilot were in fact operating at an average speed 
of 131 bpm, FSIS determined that a maximum line speed of 140 bpm would 
meet the economic needs of poultry slaughter establishments.
    A consumer advocacy organization stated that lifting line speed 
caps across NPIS establishments will lead to new competitive pressures 
that could undermine food safety in ways not predictable from currently 
available data. According to the organization, it is conceivable that 
lifting line speed caps across the industry would create competitive 
pressure to push line speeds even higher than observed previously, 
potentially compromising food safety.
    FSIS Response: FSIS disagrees that the line speed waivers granted 
to the former HIMP establishments to operate at line speeds up to 175 
bpm after they converted to the NPIS created a new competitive 
advantage over other NPIS establishments subject to the 140 bpm maximum 
line speeds prescribed in the final NPIS regulations. The 20 former 
HIIMP young chicken establishments had been authorized to operate at 
line speeds up to 175 bpm for over 20 years during the time they were 
participating in the HIMP pilot. Under the final NPIS rule, these 
establishments were permitted to run at the line speeds that were 
authorized before FSIS established the NPIS.
    Although FSIS has denied NCC's request to establish a waiver 
program to allow young chicken NPIS establishments to operate without 
line speed limits, the Agency will consider granting individual waivers 
to allow young chicken establishments that meet the criteria described 
above to operate at line speeds of up to 175 bpm. Under these criteria, 
line speed waivers will no longer be limited to the 20 former HIMP 
establishments, and thus, will be equitably distributed to eligible 
establishments. Because FSIS is not removing the maximum line speed for 
all NPIS establishments, FSIS has no reason to believe that granting 
additional individual waivers will create competitive pressure for 
establishments to increase line speeds. Establishments will not submit 
line speed waiver requests if their current line speeds meet their 
business needs.
    Comment: Comments from poultry establishments, trade associations 
representing the poultry industry, and individuals commented that the 
current system places the U.S. chicken industry at a disadvantage 
compared to global competitors in South America, Asia, Canada, and 
Europe that are allowed to operate at line speeds in excess of 200 bpm 
using the same equipment as processors in the United States. An 
individual commented that animal welfare is important, and countries in 
Europe have shown that poultry can be slaughtered humanely under faster 
line speeds.
    Comments from worker advocacy organizations asserted that the 
evidence points to clear problems with the faster line speeds permitted 
in foreign countries. According to the comments, certain foreign 
countries are not permitted to export poultry products to the United 
States because their poultry inspection systems have not been found 
equivalent to the U.S. system. The comments also stated that the 
poultry processed in certain foreign establishments have high levels of 
pathogens that continue to be of concern to European food safety 
officials. However, the comments did not indicate what the maximum line 
speeds permitted in these countries were and did not explain how 
maximum line speeds affected the countries' pathogen levels.
    Response: As noted above, the purpose of the waiver process is to 
allow establishments to experiment with new equipment, technologies, or 
procedures, not to initiate regulatory changes across the industry. 
Regulatory waivers are not the appropriate vehicle to address the 
poultry industry's global competition issues. Additionally, countries 
that currently export poultry to the United States require that

[[Page 49060]]

establishments that process poultry for export comply with maximum line 
speeds regulations similar to those in the United States.

USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds 
of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual 
orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, 
income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, 
exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to 
discrimination any person in the United States under any program or 
activity conducted by the USDA.
    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 
Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your 
authorized representative.
    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, 
or email:
    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of 
Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410.
    Fax: (202) 690-7442.
    Email: [email protected].
    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 
communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 
USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Additional Public Notification

    FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS web page 
located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS will also 
make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the 
FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding 
FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS 
public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or 
would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is 
communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service 
for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health 
professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The 
Update is also available on the FSIS web page. In addition, FSIS offers 
an electronic mail subscription service which provides automatic and 
customized access to selected food safety news and information. This 
service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options 
range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, 
and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and 
have the option to password protect their accounts.

Paul Kiecker,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-21143 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P