[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7905-7926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03228]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2026 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 7905]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 310
[Docket No. FSIS 2025-0009]
RIN 0583-AE02
Maximum Line Speed Under the New Swine Slaughter Inspection
System (NSIS)
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FSIS is proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection
regulations to allow establishments operating under the NSIS to
determine their own line speeds based on their ability to maintain
process control. FSIS is also proposing to clarify that the FSIS
inspector may reduce the rate of establishment operations at any point
in the slaughter process when, in their judgement, there is a loss of
process control, or a carcass-by-carcass inspection cannot be
adequately performed within the time available due to the manner in
which the swine are presented to the online carcass inspector or the
health condition of the particular herd. Finally, FSIS is proposing to
amend the regulations to remove the requirement that NSIS
establishments submit an annual attestation to FSIS stating that they
maintain a program to monitor and document work-related conditions of
establishment workers. The proposed amendments would allow NSIS
establishments to slaughter swine more efficiently while continuing to
ensure food safety and effective online carcass inspection.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before
April 20, 2026.
ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this
proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: This website provides the
ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this
web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions at that site for
submitting comments.
Mail: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, Washington, DC 20250-3700.
Hand- or Courier-Delivered Submittals: Deliver to 1400
Independence Avenue SW, Jamie L. Whitten Building, Room 350-E,
Washington, DC 20250-3700.
Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must
include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2025-0009. Comments
received in response to this docket will be made available for public
inspection and posted without change, including any personal
information, to https://www.regulations.gov.
Docket: For access to background documents or comments received,
call (202) 720-5046 to schedule a time to visit the FSIS Docket Room at
1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-3700.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Edelstein, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, at (202) 205-
0495 or [email protected] with a subject line of ``Docket No. FSIS
2025-0009.'' Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind,
hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States. For a summary of the proposal, please see the rule
summary document in docket FSIS-2025-0009 on www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
On October 1, 2019, FSIS published a final rule to establish the
NSIS (84 FR 52300). The NSIS final rule eliminated the existing maximum
line speed of 1,106 head per hour (hph) for NSIS establishments and
authorized these establishments to determine their own line speeds
based on their ability to maintain process control.\1\ The United Food
and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) brought suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota challenging the reduction in FSIS
inspectors and the elimination of line speed limits in NSIS
establishments, arguing that the latter would harm establishment worker
safety. On March 31, 2021, the court granted UFCW's motion for summary
judgment in part, concluding that FSIS' decision to eliminate the line
speed limits in the NSIS final rule was arbitrary and capricious
because the Agency, after inviting input from the public on
establishment worker safety, failed to consider comments received on
the issue.\2\ Therefore, the court vacated the portion of the rule that
eliminates line speed limits, which is codified at 9 CFR 310.26(c). The
court concluded that the Agency's decision with respect to line speeds
was severable from the remainder of the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An establishment is maintaining process control when their
food safety system is performing as intended to consistently control
hazards.
\2\ United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. No. 663 v. United
States Dep't of Agric., 532 F. Supp. 3d 741 (D. Minn. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7906]]
Since the court's order took effect on June 30, 2021, NSIS
establishments have been subject to a maximum line speed of 1,106 hph,
unless an establishment has obtained a regulatory waiver from FSIS.\3\
In November 2021, FSIS announced that the Agency, in collaboration with
the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), had developed a Time-Limited Trial (TLT) through which existing
NSIS establishments could apply for a regulatory waiver in order to
experiment with ergonomics, automation, and crewing to design custom
work environments that protect food safety and establishment worker
safety while increasing productivity.\4\ During the TLT, which began in
March 2022, participating establishments were permitted to operate at
increased line speeds, and from March 4, 2022, to August 17, 2022, FSIS
granted TLT waivers to six NSIS establishments (accounting for
approximately 19 percent of market hogs slaughtered in the United
States in 2024).\5\ Specifically, FSIS granted the establishments'
discrete requests in their waiver applications to operate at maximum
line speeds ranging from 1,206 hph to 1,450 hph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The regulation at 9 CFR 303.1(h) provides for the
Administrator to waive for limited periods any provisions of the
inspection regulations to permit experimentation so that new
procedures, equipment, or processing techniques may be tested to
facilitate definite improvements.
\4\ FSIS Constituent Update, November 12, 2021, available at:
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USFSIS/bulletins/2fbad98.
\5\ A list of NSIS establishments operating under a TLT
regulatory waiver, including grant dates for each waiver, is
available on the FSIS website at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/inspection-programs/inspection-meat-products/modernization-swine-slaughter-inspection; and the percentage share
is based on FSIS, Public Health Information System (PHIS) data,
accessed April 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with other slaughter establishments operating under
regulatory waivers, TLT establishments were required to participate in
FSIS' Salmonella Initiative Program (SIP), in which they collected and
analyzed food safety data (i.e., samples for microbial organisms) and
shared their results with FSIS.\6\ FSIS also hired third-party
contractors to conduct a study in the participating establishments (The
Swine Processing Line Speed Evaluation Study (``worker safety study''
or ``study'')) \7\ by collecting data during the TLT that measured the
impact of line speeds on establishment worker safety. Review of the
initial data collected from TLT establishments found that it was not
robust enough to understand the impact of line speed on worker health
and safety. Therefore, the TLT waivers were modified on February 27,
2024, to allow for collection of more robust data needed to evaluate
both work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) risk and
antimicrobial-related respiratory exposure (e.g., direct measures of
frequency and force risk factors for establishment jobs and more
comprehensive establishment worker evaluations).\8\ On January 9, 2025,
FSIS published the worker safety study.\9\ On January 10, 2025, FSIS
extended the waivers until May 15, 2025, to allow incoming USDA
leadership time to review the study report and consider relevant next
steps.\10\ On March 17, 2025, USDA announced that it would extend the
waivers and that rulemaking to propose line speed increases would begin
immediately.\11\ In April 2025, FSIS notified the TLT establishments
through individual letters that FSIS would initiate rulemaking to
consider increasing the maximum line speeds permitted in NSIS
establishments and that the establishment's line speed waiver was
extended through the duration of the rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Information on SIP is available on the FSIS website at:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/science-data/data-sets-visualizations/microbiology/microbiological-testing-program-rte-meat-and.
\7\ Swine Processing Line Speed Evaluation Study, U.C. San
Francisco, January 9, 2025, available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/PULSE_SwineStudy_250109_Final.pdf.
\8\ FSIS Constituent Update, February 27, 2024, available at:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/special-alert-constituent-update-february-27-2024.
\9\ The third-party study enrolled 574 workers across the six
TLT establishments and collected data on job-specific workload,
ergonomic exposure, pain levels, and air quality between July 2024
and January 2025. Swine Processing Line Speed Evaluation Study; See
also FSIS Constituent Update, February 27, 2024, available at:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/special-alert-constituent-update-february-27-2024.
\10\ FSIS Constituent Update, January 10, 2025, available at:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-january-10-2025.
\11\ USDA Press Release: Secretary Rollins Takes Action to
Streamline U.S. Pork and Poultry Processing, March 17, 2025,
available at: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/17/secretary-rollins-takes-action-streamline-us-pork-and-poultry-processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSIS is now proposing to republish 9 CFR 310.26(c) to eliminate the
existing maximum line speed of 1,106 hph for NSIS establishments. FSIS
is also proposing to amend 9 CFR 310.26(c) to clarify that the
inspector in charge (IIC) may require establishments to reduce the rate
of their operations at any point in the slaughter process if process
control is lost or if FSIS cannot conduct effective carcass-by-carcass
inspection, as required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA or the
Act) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). FSIS' inspection verification data and
establishment SIP data collected during the TLT are consistent with the
data and findings that supported the 2019 NSIS final rule (see below,
C. FSIS Ongoing Verification). Specifically, the TLT data confirm FSIS'
conclusion in the final rule that NSIS establishments approved to
operate under a TLT waiver are able to maintain process control and
comply with humane handling regulations when operating at increased
line speeds. As FSIS showed in the NSIS final rule, permitting NSIS
establishments to determine their own line speeds based on their
ability to maintain process control would allow the establishments to
operate more efficiently while continuing to ensure food safety.
FSIS is also proposing to remove 9 CFR 310.27, which requires that
NSIS establishments submit an annual attestation to FSIS stating that
they maintain a program to monitor and document work-related conditions
of establishment workers. If section 310.27 is removed, then section
310.28 would become obsolete. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to remove 9
CFR 310.28, which states that should a court hold any provision of 9
CFR 310.27 to be invalid, the action will be severable from (i.e., will
not affect) any other provision of the FSIS ante-mortem or post-mortem
inspection regulations. As discussed in the NSIS final rule, the Agency
does not have statutory or regulatory authority to regulate
establishment worker safety (84 FR 52300, 52315). OSHA is the Federal
agency with statutory and regulatory authority to promote workplace
safety and health (see Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1790, 29
U.S.C. 651 et seq.). FSIS' authority with respect to working conditions
in FSIS-regulated establishments extends only to Agency inspection
personnel.\12\ Removing the worker safety attestation requirement would
eliminate any confusion about FSIS' lack of statutory or regulatory
authority over establishment worker safety. Establishments would still
need to comply with all applicable Federal (e.g., OSHA-administered),
state, and local worker safety requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 holds Federal agencies responsible for providing safe and
healthful working conditions for their own workers (29 U.S.C. 668).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 presents the estimated costs, benefits, and net benefits of
the proposed rule. The regulatory impact analysis contains explanations
of the assumptions, estimates, details, and alternative scenarios. The
analysis also evaluates the number of NSIS and
[[Page 7907]]
traditional establishments that FSIS expects would increase their line
speeds over a range of potential changes. In addition, the regulatory
impact analysis provides a discussion of the uncertainty surrounding
the net benefits associated with the range of line speed increases that
the industry may adopt.
Table 1--Summary of the Net Benefits
[Million $]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates
-----------------------------------------------
Lower Mid-point Upper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
Industry.................................................... 110.9 261.6 418.2
Agency...................................................... 1.6 1.6 1.6
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits.......................................... 112.45 263.1 419.8
Costs:
Industry.................................................... 6.9 9.7 12.1
-----------------------------------------------
Net Benefits............................................ 105.6 253.4 407.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate. Numbers may not sum
due to rounding. Details and requests for comment about the underlying analysis appear later in this
publication.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. History of Maximum Line Speeds Under the NSIS
B. TLT Waivers and Worker Safety Study
C. FSIS Ongoing Verification
II. Proposed Rule
III. Executive Orders 12866, Amended by 13563, and 14192
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VI. E-Government Act
VII. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
VIII. Executive Order 13175
IX. Environmental Impact
X. Additional Public Notification
XI. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement
I. Background
A. History of Maximum Line Speeds Under the NSIS
FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of
the Secretary of Agriculture (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53), as specified in the
FMIA. The FMIA provides that the Secretary shall cause to be made by
inspectors an examination and inspection of all amenable species,
including swine, before they enter into any establishment in which they
are to be slaughtered and the meat and meat food products thereof are
to be used in commerce (21 U.S.C. 603(a)). All amenable species found
to show symptoms of disease are to be set apart and slaughtered
separately; the carcasses of such animals are to be subject to a
careful inspection (21 U.S.C. 603(a)). The FMIA requires inspectors to
conduct a post-mortem examination and inspection, and any necessary
reinspection, of carcasses and parts of amenable species, including
swine, prepared for human food (21 U.S.C. 604). The FMIA requires that
all carcasses and parts found to be adulterated be condemned (21 U.S.C.
604).\13\ The Act further provides that the Secretary shall make such
rules and regulations as are necessary for the efficient execution of
the provisions of the FMIA (21 U.S.C. 621). Finally, the FMIA requires
that the livestock be slaughtered and handled in connection with
slaughter in a manner that is consistent with the Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act (HMSA) (21 U.S.C. 603(b)). Under the HMSA, the handling
of livestock in connection with slaughter must be carried out only by
humane methods (7 U.S.C. 1902).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Under the FMIA, a meat or meat food product is adulterated,
among other circumstances, if it bears or contains any poisonous or
deleterious substance that may render it injurious to health; it is
unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human consumption;
it was prepared, packaged, or held under insanitary conditions
whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health; or if damage
or inferiority has been concealed in any manner (21 U.S.C.
601(m)(1),(3),(4), and (8)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS Final Rule
On October 1, 2019, FSIS published a final rule that established
the NSIS as an additional optional inspection system for swine
slaughter establishments (84 FR 52300). The NSIS final rule, among
other provisions, eliminated the existing maximum line speed of 1,106
hph for NSIS establishments (84 FR 52300). Specifically, the final rule
in 9 CFR 310.26(c) stated that line speeds set forth in the regulations
at 9 CFR 310.1 do not apply to an NSIS establishment, provided the
establishment is able to maintain effective process control and prevent
contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens and visible
fecal material, ingesta, and milk. Establishments design and use
process control procedures to provide control of those operating
conditions that are necessary for the production of safe, wholesome,
and unadulterated products. The procedures typically include a means of
observing or measuring system performance, analyzing the results
generated in order to define a set of control criteria, and taking
action when necessary to ensure that the system continues to perform
within the control criteria.\14\ The procedure is likely to include
planned measures that the establishment will take in response to any
loss of process control. The procedures can also be used as support for
decisions made in the establishment's hazard analysis. Agency
inspectors conduct food safety-related verification activities to
inspect and evaluate process control at all establishments under FSIS
inspection. Under the NSIS final rule, all swine slaughter
establishments, regardless of the inspection system under which they
operate (i.e., traditional inspection or the NSIS) or the age, size, or
class of swine, must conduct sampling and analysis for microbial
organisms to monitor process control and develop written procedures to
prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens, and
visible fecal material, ingesta, and milk contamination throughout the
entire
[[Page 7908]]
slaughter and dressing operation (9 CFR 310.18(c), 84 FR 52300, 52301).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See FSIS Directive 6410.1, Verifying Sanitary Dressing and
Process Control Procedures by Off-Line Inspection Program Personnel
(IPP) in Slaughter Operations of Cattle of Any Age (November 3,
2011), available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/6410.1.pdf (While this directive provides FSIS
inspectors information regarding how to verify that cattle slaughter
operations are implementing sanitary dressing and process control
procedures, the Agency's definition and purpose of process control
procedures apply to all establishments under FSIS inspection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NSIS final rule in 9 CFR 310.26(c) also provided that NSIS
establishments must reduce their line speed as directed by the IIC and
that the IIC is authorized to direct an establishment to operate at a
reduced line speed when they determine that a carcass-by-carcass
inspection cannot be adequately performed within the time available due
to the manner in which the carcasses are presented to the online
inspector, the health conditions of a particular herd, or factors that
may indicate a loss of process control. FSIS did not establish a
specific line speed in the NSIS final rule because, as discussed in the
NSIS proposed rule, the speed at which slaughter establishments can run
their lines is limited by the establishments' equipment functionality
and design, size and condition of the animals coming to slaughter, and
their ability to maintain process control when operating at a given
line speed (83 FR 4780, 4796; February 1, 2018).
HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project (HIMP)
On July 25, 1996, FSIS published the final rule, ``Pathogen
Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems'' (PR/
HACCP) (61 FR 38806; July 25, 1996), to modernize inspection and reduce
foodborne illnesses. FSIS then began experimenting with new approaches
to slaughter inspection based on HACCP principles. In 1997, the Agency
developed the HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) pilot study
to determine whether applying new government slaughter inspection
procedures, with new establishment responsibilities, could promote
industry innovation and provide at least the same food safety and
consumer protection as the other available slaughter inspection
systems. FSIS initiated the HIMP pilot study in 20 young chicken, five
young turkey, and five market hog establishments on a waiver basis (see
84 FR 52300, 52302).
Under HIMP, establishment personnel were responsible for sorting
animals before they were presented for FSIS ante-mortem inspection.
Establishment personnel also were responsible for sorting carcasses and
parts and trimming dressing defects and contamination before FSIS post-
mortem inspection. Finally, establishment personnel were responsible
for identifying pathology defects intended for removal under FSIS
supervision and carcasses and parts intended for disposal under FSIS
supervision (83 FR 4780, 4788). These establishment procedures were
similar to establishments operating under the NSIS.
FSIS' experience under the HIMP pilot informed the Agency's
elimination of maximum line speeds for NSIS establishments, as it
showed that online inspectors in HIMP market hog establishments were
able to conduct an effective online post-mortem inspection of each
carcass while operating at line speeds above the existing maximum line
speed of 1,106 hph (for market hogs under traditional inspection) (84
FR 52300, 52314).\15\ The HIMP establishments determined their line
speeds based on their equipment, size, and condition of the animals
coming to slaughter, and their ability to maintain process control when
operating at a given line speed. The pilot also demonstrated that HIMP
provided public health protection \16\ at least equivalent to the
traditional swine slaughter inspection system (84 FR 52300, 52303). The
HIMP pilot supported the NSIS final rule conclusion that NSIS
establishments are capable of ensuring food safety when operating at
increased line speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See also USDA FSIS Final Report, Evaluation of HACCP
Inspection Models Project (HIMP) for Market Hogs (November 2014)
(``2014 HIMP Report''), available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-10/Evaluation-HIMP-Market-Hogs.pdf.
\16\ As explained in the NSIS final rule, HIMP had been
demonstrated to provide public health protection at least equivalent
to the traditional inspection system based on several findings,
including: (1) HIMP market hog establishments received more off-line
food safety related inspection verification checks than the
traditional non-HIMP market hog establishments; (2) HIMP market hog
establishments had higher compliance with Sanitation SOP and HACCP
regulations, lower levels of non-food safety defects, equivalent or
better Salmonella verification testing positive rates than
traditional non-HIMP market hog establishments, and lower levels of
violative chemical residues; and (3) under the HIMP, market hog
establishments received an increased level of Sanitation SOP and
HACCP inspection (see 84 FR 52300, 52303).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 FSIS Risk Assessment
The NSIS final rule was also informed by FSIS' 2019 risk assessment
that analyzed data from FSIS' microbiological baseline studies and the
Agency's Salmonella verification results from swine slaughter
establishments (84 FR 52300, 52303).\17\ The 2019 risk assessment
demonstrated that the realignment of Agency inspector resources under
the NSIS to more offline activities was unlikely to result in a higher
prevalence of Salmonella on market hog carcasses (84 FR 52300, 52304).
The establishments included in the assessment were generally operating
at increased line speeds.\18\ As discussed above, establishments
determined their line speeds based on their equipment, size and
condition of the animals, and their ability to maintain process control
when operating at a given line speed. Therefore, the 2019 risk
assessment supported the NSIS final rule conclusion that NSIS
establishments operating under increased line speeds are able to
consistently produce safe, wholesome, and unadulterated pork products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ USDA, Assessment of the Potential Change in Human Risk of
Salmonella Illnesses Associated with Modernizing Inspection of
Market Hog Slaughter Establishments (September 2019), available at:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/swine-risk-assessment-091719.pdf.
\18\ Specifically, in calendar year 2013, the estimated line
speeds at the 5 HIMP market hog establishments varied from 885 to
1,295 hph, with an estimated average line speed of 1,099 hph. The 21
non-HIMP comparison establishments had estimated line speeds of 571
to 1,149 hph, with an estimated average line speed of 977 heads per
hour. 2014 HIMP Report, available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-10/Evaluation-HIMP-Market-Hogs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NSIS final rule explained, as the Agency's experience under and
data from the HIMP pilot and risk assessment supported, that the NSIS
allows establishments to provide equivalent or better public health
protection than traditional inspection systems while allowing FSIS to
conduct more offline inspection activities that are more effective in
ensuring food safety improvements and humane handling hazard prevention
(84 FR 52300, 52321).
B. TLT Waivers and Worker Safety Study
The UFCW brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota, challenging the reduction in FSIS inspectors and the
elimination of line speeds in NSIS establishments, arguing that the
latter would harm establishment worker safety.\19\ On March 31, 2021,
the court granted UFCW's motion for summary judgment in part,
concluding that FSIS' decision to eliminate the line speed limits in
the NSIS final rule was arbitrary and capricious because the Agency,
after inviting input from the public on establishment worker safety,
failed to consider public comments on the issue. The court noted FSIS
historically held the position that although the Agency could not enact
regulatory requirements related solely to worker safety, it could
consider the effects its actions may have on worker safety. However,
the court found that the public had no way of knowing about FSIS'
legalistic distinction between regulating and considering. The court
also criticized
[[Page 7909]]
FSIS for not explaining its change in position regarding its inability
to consider worker safety comments. Further, according to the court,
the final rule included an internal inconsistency concerning worker
safety considerations. That is, the rule included the requirement in 9
CFR 310.27 that NSIS establishments submit worker safety attestations.
The court noted that although the final rule made clear that FSIS would
not evaluate the attestations (as it would submit them to OSHA for
review), the Agency still imposed a regulatory burden that relates only
to worker safety. Therefore, the court vacated the portion of the rule
that eliminates line speed limits, which is codified at 9 CFR
310.26(c). The court concluded that the Agency's decision with respect
to line speeds was severable from the remainder of the regulation,
which went into effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. No. 663 v. United
States Dep't of Agric., 532 F. Supp. 3d 741 (D. Minn. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the District of Minnesota court's decision striking down
the elimination of line speed limits, in November 2021, FSIS announced
the TLT to allow NSIS establishments to apply for regulatory waivers to
operate at increased line speeds while collecting and submitting data
that would be used to evaluate the impact of increased line speeds on
workers.\20\ As FSIS stated in letters to all NSIS establishments
specifying the required conditions to participate in the TLT,
establishments were required to demonstrate that they had been
operating under the NSIS for at least 120 days and followed all NSIS
requirements during that time; had demonstrated a history of regulatory
compliance; had not had an enforcement action as a result of a Food
Safety Assessment conducted in the last 120 days; had not received an
enforcement action for humane handling in the last 120 days; had not
been the subject of a public health related enforcement action in the
last 120 days; and had not received an OSHA citation in the prior three
years, were not the subject of a current OSHA inspection, and were not
currently contesting any OSHA citation. All NSIS establishments met the
required food safety-related conditions. FSIS granted TLT waivers to
six NSIS establishments between March 4, 2022, and August 17, 2022.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ FSIS Constituent Update, November 12, 2021, available at:
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USFSIS/bulletins/2fbad98.
\21\ A list of NSIS establishments operating under a TLT
regulatory waiver, including grant dates for each waiver, is
available on the FSIS website at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/inspection-programs/inspection-meat-products/modernization-swine-slaughter-inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the TLT, participating establishments operated at maximum
line speeds ranging from 1,206 hph to 1,450 hph, based on the
establishments' discrete maximum line speed requests in their TLT
waiver applications. The six TLT establishments, as with all slaughter
establishments operating under regulatory waivers, were required to
participate in SIP. FSIS uses SIP to encourage slaughter establishments
to test for microbial pathogens and to respond to the ongoing results
by taking steps when necessary to regain process control and thus to
minimize the presence of pathogens of public health concern.
Participating establishments share their testing data with FSIS to
verify ongoing control of hazards while operating under a waiver. While
operating under the line speed waivers, the TLT establishments analyzed
carcass samples for Salmonella at post chill and analyzed carcasses for
indicator organisms (e.g., generic E. coli, Enterobacteriaceae, or
Aerobic Plate Count) at pre-evisceration and post chill. The third-
party contractors that the Agency hired to conduct the worker safety
study also collected data that measured the impact of line speeds on
MSDs.
Review of the initial data collected from TLT establishments found
that it was not robust enough to understand the impact of line speed on
worker safety. Therefore, the NSIS TLT waivers were modified on
February 27, 2024, to allow for collection of more robust data needed
to evaluate both MSD risk and antimicrobial-related respiratory
exposure (e.g., direct measures of frequency and force risk factors for
establishment jobs and more comprehensive establishment worker
evaluations), and the waivers were scheduled to expire on January 15,
2025.\22\ On January 9, 2025, FSIS published the worker safety
study.\23\ On January 10, 2025, FSIS extended the waivers until May 15,
2025, to allow for USDA leadership review of the study report and
consideration of relevant next steps.\24\ On March 17, 2025, USDA
announced that it would extend the waivers and that rulemaking to
propose line speed increases would begin immediately.\25\ In April
2025, FSIS notified the TLT establishments through individual letters
that FSIS would initiate rulemaking to consider increasing the maximum
line speeds permitted in NSIS establishments, and that the
establishments' line speed waivers were extended through the duration
of the rulemaking process. FSIS also stated in each letter that the
establishment's waiver is time limited in that if regulatory changes
result from the rulemaking, the waiver will be terminated at the
conclusion of the rulemaking. Alternatively, if the proposed rule is
not finalized, then the waiver will be terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Swine Processing Line Speed Evaluation Study available on
the FSIS website at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/PULSE_SwineStudy_250109_Final.pdf; See also
FSIS Constituent Update, February 27, 2024, available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/special-alert-constituent-update-february-27-2024.
\23\ Swine Processing Line Speed Evaluation Study, U.C. San
Francisco, January 9, 2025, available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/PULSE_SwineStudy_250109_Final.pdf.
\24\ FSIS Constituent Update, January 10, 2025, available at:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-january-10-2025.
\25\ USDA Press Release: Secretary Rollins Takes Action to
Streamline U.S. Pork and Poultry Processing, March 17, 2025,
available at: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/17/secretary-rollins-takes-action-streamline-us-pork-and-poultry-processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study Findings
On January 10, 2025, FSIS released the third-party worker safety
study report that evaluated the impact of line speed on: (1) the risk
of acute and chronic work-related MSDs, and (2) antimicrobial-related
respiratory exposure in the six TLT establishments.\26\ The study
evaluated a range of line speeds, from a baseline of 1,106 hph up to
1,450 hph, as determined by each establishment. The study found that in
five of the six establishments studied, there was either decreased MSD
risk, or no effect on MSD risk, because of increased line speeds.
Increased MSD risk was observed in only one of the participating
establishments. Importantly, the study found that the number of hog
parts handled per minute by a worker (``piece rate'') was more closely
associated with MSD risk, and that increasing line speed (the number of
hogs processed per hour) does not necessarily increase piece rate given
an establishment's ability to manage job-specific staffing. Thus, the
study concludes establishments can maintain or even reduce piece rate
and associated MSD risk by adding staff or redistributing tasks, even
as line speed increases. The study's authors provided several
recommendations to reduce MSD risk and improve overall worker safety in
swine processing establishments, which aligned with best practices
published by OSHA in
[[Page 7910]]
ergonomics, medical management, and exposure control.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Specifically, the study measured workload, ergonomic
exposure, pain levels, and air quality of 574 workers in six NSIS
establishments. Report available on the FSIS website at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/PULSE_SwineStudy_250109_Final.pdf.
\27\ Ergonomics Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking
Plants (DOL/OSHA 1993); Guidelines for Mitigating Ergonomic Risks in
Meat and Poultry Processing (DOL/OSHA 2013) at: https://www.osha.gov/meatpacking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. FSIS Ongoing Verification
Process Control and Food Safety Verification
The NSIS final rule, as supported by the HIMP pilot and risk
assessment, showed that establishments operating at increased speeds
under the NSIS can maintain process control and produce safe pork
products (84 FR 52300, 52303). While the worker safety study evaluated
line speeds' impacts on establishment worker safety, FSIS data on the
Agency verification activities during both the TLT and the prior period
when NSIS establishments were permitted under the NSIS final rule to
operate at increased line speeds support the prior rule's conclusions
that NSIS establishments are able to maintain process control and
produce safe, wholesome, and unadulterated products at increased line
speeds. As in all federally inspected establishments, FSIS inspectors
in NSIS establishments continuously inspect and evaluate establishment
process control through food safety-related verification activities. If
inspectors observe noncompliance with a regulatory requirement, they
are to document the finding on a noncompliance record (NR) to the
establishment. Inspectors verify that establishments take necessary
action to return to compliance and verify the corrective actions when
required by regulation (9 CFR 416.15, 417.3).
FSIS reviewed the rate of NRs issued across the TLT establishments
during two periods for select HACCP and sanitation related regulations
and compared it with the rate of NRs issued across similar large, high-
volume traditional establishments during the same two periods.\28\
Specifically, FSIS evaluated NR rates for general sanitation (9 CFR
416.1), sanitation procedures (9 CFR 416.14), sanitation monitoring and
corrective actions (9 CFR 416.16(a)), HACCP verification (9 CFR
417.2(c)(4)), HACCP recordkeeping (9 CFR 417.5(a)(1)), and HACCP
monitoring and corrective actions (9 CFR 417.5(a)(3)). For the first
period, FSIS reviewed data from the period in which all future TLT
establishments had converted to the NSIS through the Minnesota court
order vacating the portion of the rule that eliminated line speed
limits (from May 1, 2020, to June 29, 2021, when NSIS establishments
were not subject to any regulatory line speed limit). For the second
period, FSIS reviewed this NR data from the date each line speed waiver
was granted through when FSIS determined it had sufficient data to
initiate rulemaking (from March 4, 2022, to February 28, 2025, when
individual TLT establishments began operating at line speeds between
1,206 hph to 1,450 hph). As demonstrated in the following tables, the
NR rate data from both periods demonstrate that TLT establishments were
able to maintain process control while operating at increased line
speeds, with either similar or improved NR rates compared to
traditional establishments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Swine Establishment Noncompliance Rates for Select
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point and Sanitation Related
Regulations, available at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FSIS2025-0009.
\29\ FSIS granted individual TLT line speed waivers to the six
participating establishments between March 4, 2022, and August 17,
2022.
Swine Establishment Noncompliance Rates for Select Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point and Sanitation-Related Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-compliance rate Non-compliance rate
Regulation verified (%) for traditional (%) for TLT
establishments establishments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 2020-June 29, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Sanitation (416.1).. 5.94 0.31
Sanitation Procedures 0.83 0.05
(416.14)...................
Sanitation Monitoring and 0.24 0.02
Corrective Actions
(416.16(a))................
HACCP Verification 1.20 0.58
(417.2(c)(4))..............
HACCP Recordkeeping 0.04 0.65
(417.5(a)(1))..............
HACCP Monitoring and 0.21 0.07
Corrective Actions
(417.5(a)(3))..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 4, 2022 \29\-February 28, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Sanitation (416.1).. 5.86 0.73
Sanitation Procedures 0.38 0.29
(416.14)...................
Sanitation Monitoring and 0.25 0.08
Corrective Actions
(416.16(a))................
HACCP Verification 1.79 0.12
(417.2(c)(4))..............
HACCP Recordkeeping 0.10 0.15
(417.5(a)(1))..............
HACCP Monitoring and 0.05 0.15
Corrective Actions
(417.5(a)(3))..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because NR rates were consistently low across both systems, and the
few differences were small and expected (due to additional verification
tasks performed in NSIS establishments), the data show that the NSIS
and traditional systems are comparable. Indeed, aside from
recordkeeping issues, the data show that establishments operating at
higher line speeds often performed better than traditional
establishments at slower line speeds.
FSIS also reviewed SIP data (along with the line speed in effect
when the data was collected) submitted by participating establishments
during the TLT to verify that they were able to maintain process
control. Specifically, FSIS reviewed the TLT establishments' indicator
organism sampling results and found that they demonstrated a consistent
reduction from pre-evisceration to post-chill (i.e., the point in the
slaughter process after the carcass has chilled in the cooler and after
all slaughter interventions incorporated within the establishment's
HACCP system are completed). FSIS also reviewed the TLT establishments'
weekly post-chill Salmonella sampling results and found that the
average Salmonella positive rate across the TLT
[[Page 7911]]
establishments was 1.63 percent. These results were low and very
comparable to a 2010-2011 FSIS baseline survey to estimate the national
prevalence of Salmonella in market hogs, which found an estimated
prevalence of Salmonella at post-chill to be 1.66 percent with a 95
percent confidence interval between 0.82 percent and 2.51 percent.\30\
As discussed in the NSIS proposed rule, this estimated prevalence was
so low that FSIS responded to the results by discontinuing its
Salmonella verification sampling program for market hogs, stating that
the Agency did not find enough pathogen positives to justify the
resources (e.g., time and supplies) to conduct sampling (83 FR 4780,
4786).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ USDA FSIS, The Nationwide Microbiological Baseline Data
Collection Program: Market Hogs Survey August 2010-August 2011,
available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/Baseline_Data_Market_Hogs_2010-2011.pdf; see also
83 FR 4780, 4786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSIS staff reviewed each SIP establishment's sampling results to
verify that results were within their stated acceptable control limit
range (e.g., no more than 6 positives in 55 samples, as referenced in
61 FR 38806, 38865), and FSIS inspection personnel verified that the
establishment was following their written process control plan and
responded when a sampling result exceeds the upper control limit. As
with all establishments participating in SIP, FSIS verified that each
TLT establishment followed their individualized plans for responding to
a loss of process control. FSIS continues to review SIP data from
establishments, and inspection personnel continue to review that
establishments meet conditions of their waiver. The TLT establishment
Salmonella sampling data support FSIS' determination that NSIS
establishments are able to maintain process control at line speeds
faster than 1,106 hph.
FSIS follows 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),\31\ to verify
that establishments that have been granted waivers remain eligible for
their waivers and are following the process control procedures (e.g.,
data collection and submission) agreed to as a condition for the
waivers. FSIS did not revoke any waivers during the TLT, as Agency
verification found that each establishment demonstrated continued
eligibility through its submitted SIP data. Taken together, FSIS data
on process control and food safety-related verification activities
during the TLT support the NSIS final rule conclusion that NSIS
establishments operating at increased line speeds can maintain process
control and produce safe, wholesome, and unadulterated products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Available on the FSIS website at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-directives/5020.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humane Handling Verification
Under the NSIS, the Agency can effectively verify establishments'
compliance with humane handling requirements because more inspection
resources are available to conduct offline inspection activities that
are more effective in verifying the humane handling of animals, in
accordance with the HMSA (84 FR 52300). FSIS data from its verification
activities during the TLT continue to show that establishments
operating under increased line speeds are able to handle livestock in a
humane manner. To evaluate humane handling requirement compliance
across the TLT establishments, FSIS reviewed inspector humane handling
verification task data for establishments operating from the start date
of each TLT waiver through February 28, 2025.\32\ FSIS found that,
during this period, inspectors conducted 25,821 total humane handling
verification tasks across the six TLT establishments and issued only
eleven NRs related to humane handling.\33\ In every instance, the
establishment took immediate corrective action, and none of the NRs
documented egregious inhumane treatment of livestock.\34\ It also
should be noted that none of the NRs documented any incidents of market
hogs slipping or falling, which indicates that no animals at TLT
establishments were forced to move faster than normal walking speeds in
an effort to maintain increased line speeds. Together, these TLT data
support the NSIS final rule's conclusion that the NSIS allows for
effective verification of whether establishments operating at increased
line speeds are able to meet humane handling requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ FSIS inspectors verify that establishments comply with the
HMSA by performing Humane Activities Tracking System (HATS) tasks
that are divided into nine categories, measured by the time (in one-
quarter hour increments) devoted to verifying humane handling
activities for each category. See FSIS Directive 6900.2, Humane
Handling and Slaughter of Livestock, September 24, 2020, available
at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2021-03/6900.2.pdf.
\33\ FSIS, Public Health Information System (PHIS) database,
accessed November 2025.
\34\ Under FSIS inspection policy, an egregious inhumane
treatment situation is an act or condition that results in severe
harm to animals. For examples of egregious inhumane treatment and
additional information, see FSIS Directive 6900.2, Humane Handling
and Slaughter of Livestock, September 24, 2020, available at:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2021-03/6900.2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ongoing FSIS data from the TLT waivers further confirm the NSIS
final rule conclusions that establishments are able to produce safe,
wholesome, and unadulterated products and comply with humane handling
requirements while operating at increased line speeds.
II. Proposed Rule
Elimination of Line Speed Limitation
FSIS is proposing to republish 9 CFR 310.26(c), which stated that
line speeds set forth in 9 CFR 310.1 do not apply to an NSIS
establishment, provided the establishment is able to maintain effective
process control and prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by
enteric pathogens and visible fecal material, ingesta, and milk.
Under FSIS Directive 6600.1, New Swine Slaughter Inspection System:
Ante-mortem and Post-Mortem Inspection and Verification of Food Safety
and Ready-to-Cook Requirements,\35\ IICs may slow the line if an
establishment's procedures are not in control to prevent fecal and
enteric pathogen contamination or when presentation of persistent
unattended trim or processing defects affects the inspector's ability
to adequately conduct a carcass-by-carcass inspection. IICs document
when they slow a line for these reasons. FSIS is also proposing to
clarify in 9 CFR 310.26(c) that the IIC may reduce the rate of
establishment operations at any point in the slaughter process when, in
their judgement, there is a loss of process control, or a carcass-by-
carcass inspection cannot be adequately performed within the time
available due to the manner in which the swine are presented to the
online carcass inspector or the health condition of the particular
herd. For example, under this proposed rule, the IIC would slow
establishment operations based on repeated regulatory public health
enforcement actions. The proposed regulatory provision in 9 CFR
310.26(c) for slowing establishment operations is consistent with the
food safety objectives of the food safety TLT waiver criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ FSIS Directive 6600.1, New Swine Slaughter Inspection
System: Ante-mortem and Post-Mortem Inspection and Verification of
Food Safety and Ready-to-Cook Requirements (December 19, 2019),
available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/6600.1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The elimination of maximum line speeds at NSIS establishments would
remove an unnecessary regulatory obstacle to industry innovation (84 FR
52300). The NSIS final rule showed, as
[[Page 7912]]
informed by the HIMP pilot and risk assessment, that market hog
establishments are capable of consistently producing safe, wholesome,
and unadulterated pork products, and complying with humane handling
requirements, while operating at line speeds above 1,106 hph. Recent
FSIS data from the TLT, during which participating establishments
operated at an average line speed of 1,276 hph (with individual
establishment maximum line speeds ranging from 1,206 to 1,450), further
supports the Agency's conclusion during the NSIS rulemaking that the
NSIS provides public health protection equivalent or better than the
traditional swine inspection system. TLT establishments produced 19
percent of U.S. market hogs in 2024, as noted above, and these
establishments are similar to the establishments identified in the
economic impact analysis as most likely to increase their line speeds
if this proposed rule is finalized. For example, these establishments
are all large, high-volume operations with production volumes and
operational characteristics similar to other NSIS establishments that
would be eligible to operate at faster line speeds, making them an
appropriate group for assessing the potential impact of the proposed
rule. Further, as noted above and in the NSIS proposed rule,
establishments would determine their line speeds based on several
considerations, such as their equipment, animal size and condition, and
their ability to maintain process control at any given line speed (83
FR 4780, 4796; February 1, 2018). There are both natural and practical
restrictions on line speeds during swine slaughter. For example, the
large size of swine limits how quickly each animal can be safely and
effectively processed. In addition, most swine carcasses must be
chilled before further processing; therefore, the number of carcasses
that establishments can handle at one time is limited by cooler
capacity.
Should this proposed rule become final, all NSIS establishments
would be allowed to operate at increased line speeds, provided they
meet the requirements of 9 CFR 310.26(c). Accordingly, on the effective
date of the final rule, FSIS would end the line speed waiver extensions
that were granted to the TLT establishments on March 17, 2025.\36\ The
TLT establishments would no longer need to obtain a waiver and
participate in the SIP in order to operate at increased line speeds.
The former TLT waiver criteria and SIP participation requirement would
be unnecessary, as existing regulatory requirements would ensure that
NSIS establishments choosing to operate at increased line speeds are
able to consistently produce safe, wholesome, and unadulterated pork
products. For example, although they would no longer be required to
meet the former TLT waiver criteria or participate in the SIP, these
establishments (as with all establishments that slaughter swine under
FSIS inspection) would continue to be required to collect and analyze
pre-and post-chill samples for microbial organisms at the minimum
frequencies prescribed in 9 CFR 310.18(c)(1) to monitor their ability
to maintain process control. Further, as with all establishments under
FSIS inspection, Agency inspectors would conduct food safety-related
verification activities to inspect and evaluate process control at NSIS
establishments choosing to operate at increased line speeds. Inspectors
would document all findings of noncompliance and verify that the
establishments take necessary action to return to compliance. Also, as
mentioned above, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 310.26 to make clear
that the IIC may reduce the rate of establishment operations at any
point in the process if process control is not maintained or if FSIS
cannot perform an effective carcass-by-carcass inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See USDA Press Release: Secretary Rollins Takes Action to
Streamline U.S. Pork and Poultry Processing, March 17, 2025,
available at: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/17/secretary-rollins-takes-action-streamline-us-pork-and-poultry-processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of Attestation Requirement
FSIS is also proposing to remove 9 CFR 310.27, which requires that
NSIS establishments submit an annual attestation stating that they
maintain a program to monitor and document work-related conditions of
their workers. If section 310.27 is removed, then section 310.28 would
become obsolete. Therefore, FSIS is also proposing to remove 9 CFR
310.28, which states that should a court hold any provision of 9 CFR
310.27 to be invalid, the action will be severable from (i.e., will not
affect) any other provision of the FSIS ante-mortem or post-mortem
inspection regulations.
Analysis
Agencies may not assume regulatory authority where Congress has
granted none. Thus, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. v. Eagle
County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497, 1516 (2025), an agency was not
required, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to
analyze the environmental effects of projects over which it possesses
no regulatory authority because ``where an agency has no ability to
prevent a certain effect due to its limited statutory authority over
the relevant actions, the agency cannot be considered a legally
relevant `cause' of the effect.'' Id. (citing Department of
Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 770 (2004)).
``[A]gencies are not required to analyze the effects of projects over
which they do not exercise regulatory authority.'' Id. These principles
bear directly on this proposed rulemaking because FSIS does not have
statutory authority to regulate worker safety. FSIS therefore has no
legal obligation to analyze the impacts to the safety of workers in the
plants it inspects. Any prior statement to the contrary by FSIS has
been rendered moot by the Supreme Court's clarification of agency
responsibilities in Seven County. See id. Prior court rulings
suggesting that FSIS had a duty to consider worker safety concerns have
similarly been overruled by the Supreme Court's recent holding. Compare
UFCW Local No. 663, 532 F. Supp. 3d 741 (D. Minn. 2021) (finding that
FSIS's rule was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider
public comments on the issue of worker safety), with Seven Cnty., 145
S. Ct. at 1516 (holding that agencies are not required to analyze
effects over which they hold no regulatory authority).
As discussed in the NSIS final rule and reaffirmed here, the Agency
does not have statutory authority to regulate establishment worker
safety (84 FR 52300, 52315). FSIS' legal authority with respect to
regulating working conditions extends only to FSIS inspection
personnel.\37\ OSHA, not FSIS, is the Federal agency responsible for
establishment worker safety issues.\38\ Although FSIS does not have the
statutory authority to require that establishments adopt the study's
recommendations to assist them in
[[Page 7913]]
adhering to applicable worker safety requirements,\39\ FSIS commends
the report's recommendations to its inspected establishments as well as
the resources available on OSHA's website.\40\ FSIS retains the ability
to slow line speeds should those speeds not allow FSIS to ensure that
process control is maintained or that FSIS can perform an effective
carcass-by-carcass inspection as required by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 holds Federal agencies responsible for providing safe and
healthful working conditions for their own workers (29 U.S.C. 668).
\38\ Of note, in February 2015, OSHA denied a 2013 petition for
rulemaking from the Southern Poverty Law Center to end a mandatory
standard on work speeds in the meatpacking and poultry industries.
In the denial letter to the petitioner, OSHA stated, in part, that
several factors contribute to MSDs, including the number of
repetitions per shift, the force of the movements, the posture of
the workers, and cool temperatures in the workplace. Therefore,
``any effort to prevent MSDs in the meatpacking and poultry
industries must take all of these factors into account, not just the
line speeds.'' Also in the denial letter, OSHA stated that the
agency's limited resources at the time (rather than any lack of
statutory or regulatory authority) did not allow for OSHA to move
forward with a comprehensive analysis and rulemaking effort (https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FSIS-2025-0012).
\39\ For example, under the General Duty Clause of the OSHA Act,
establishments must keep their workplaces free from recognized
serious hazards, which includes ergonomics hazards (see 29 U.S.C.
654(a)(1), providing that each employer ``must furnish to each of
his employees employment and a place of employment which are free
from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause
death or serious physical harm to his employees.'').
\40\ See, for example, OSHA's Safety and Health Topics web page,
available at: https://www.osha.gov/meatpacking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even were FSIS mistaken in its interpretation of Seven County, the
available evidence demonstrates that limiting establishments' line
speeds is not an effective mechanism for reducing worker injuries.
There was either no increase in risk or a decrease in risk to worker
safety for five of the six studied establishments. Because line speeds
do not meaningfully impact worker safety, the elimination of the prior
limits on line speed should not represent a marked change to
establishment worker safety. The study's findings provide no basis for
USDA to decline to remove the limit on NSIS establishment line speeds.
FSIS is concerned with protecting the public health of consumers and
ensuring that the pork it inspects is safe for human consumption. Years
of data and agency analysis confirm that line speeds do not reduce
FSIS' ability to ensure the safety of pork products for consumers.
To the extent that FSIS was perceived to have regulated, or
actually regulated, worker safety in the past, it acted ultra vires, or
beyond its authorization. FSIS is committed going forward to act where
it is statutorily authorized; to act otherwise would detract FSIS from
its core, critical mission to protect consumers.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 21 U.S.C. 602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of
the Secretary of Agriculture under the FMIA (7 CFR 2.18(a)(1)(ii)(A),
2.53(a)(2)(i)). The FMIA authorizes FSIS to administer and enforce laws
and regulations to protect consumers by verifying that meat food
products distributed to them are wholesome, not adulterated, and
properly marked, labeled, and packaged (21 U.S.C. 601, 602). The FMIA
also requires that the livestock be slaughtered and handled in
connection with slaughter in a manner that is consistent with the HMSA
(21 U.S.C. 603(b)). Congress's policy intentions are set forth in
Sections 2 and 3, which provide that the FMIA was enacted to prevent
``the use in commerce of meat and meat food products which are
adulterated'' and to prevent the ``inhumane slaughtering of livestock''
(See 21 U.S.C. 602 and 603). Likewise, in Section 10, Congress limited
prohibited acts under the FMIA to those pertaining to food safety (21
U.S.C. 610). The FMIA authorizes FSIS to administer and enforce laws
and regulations to protect the health and welfare of consumers--not the
health and welfare of non-FSIS establishment workers.\42\ The
Administrative Procedure Act specifically bars an agency from acting
``in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or
short of statutory right'' (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(C)). Indeed, the Supreme
Court recently reaffirmed that an agency can only act within its
statutory authority.43 44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Dawkins v. U.S., 226 F.Supp.2d 750, 757 (M.D.N.C. 2002)
(``[T]he purpose and intent of the FSIS is to ensure food safety,
not workplace safety. The Government's efforts to ensure food safety
are intended to have little effect on [establishment] workers.'').
\43\ Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).
\44\ Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477, 518-19, 143 S. Ct. 2355,
2382-83, 216 L. Ed. 2d 1063 (2023) (Barrett, J. concurring)
(``Another telltale sign that an agency may have transgressed its
statutory authority is when it regulates outside its wheelhouse.'')
(citing Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 254, 275, 126 S. Ct. 904
(2006); King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 485-486, 135 S. Ct. 2480
(2015); Alabama Ass'n of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human
Servs., 594 U.S. at __, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021) (per curiam);
National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, 595 U.S. __,
142 S. Ct. 661, 663,665 (2022) (per curiam).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA is the Federal agency with statutory authority to promote
workplace safety and health. OSHA was created by the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (``OSHA Act,'' 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) to
assure safe and healthful working conditions by setting and enforcing
standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and
assistance. OSHA has many resources on its website, including
ergonomics program management guidelines for meat establishments and
case studies on participatory ergonomic interventions in meat
establishments. Consistent with the OSHA Act, swine establishments are
responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace for their
employees and for finding and correcting safety and health problems
OSHA identifies. The proposed rule would increase efficiency for U.S.
industry while, as FSIS' extensive line speed waiver experience and
data demonstrate, maintain food safety and humane handling. NSIS
establishments would be able to determine their line speed while
producing safe, wholesome, and unadulterated pork products. Removing
the worker safety attestation requirement would also eliminate any
confusion about FSIS' lack of statutory authority over establishment
worker safety.
III. Executive Orders 12866, as Amended by 13563, and 14192
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management
and Budget will determine whether a regulatory action is significant as
defined by E.O. 12866 and will review significant regulatory actions.
This proposed rule has been designated an ``economically significant''
regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. E.O. 13563
reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements
in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce
uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome
tools for achieving regulatory ends. FSIS has developed the proposed
rule consistent with E.O. 13563. E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation,'' requires that any new incremental costs
associated with certain significant regulatory actions ``shall, to the
extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs
associated with at least 10 prior regulations.'' This proposed rule, if
finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory
action.
Need for the Rule
This proposed rule, if finalized, would amend the Federal meat
inspection regulations by eliminating the existing line speed limit of
1,106 hph for NSIS establishments and allow NSIS establishments to
determine their line speeds based on their ability to maintain process
control. FSIS is also proposing to amend the regulations to remove the
requirement that NSIS establishments submit an annual attestation
stating that they maintain a program to monitor and document work-
related conditions of establishment workers. As food processing and
safety technology advances, FSIS has worked to reform its regulations
with a focus on HACCP-based process control, enabling establishments to
have more flexibility in tailoring their products and processes. This
proposed rule is needed because, for certain establishments, the
[[Page 7914]]
current line speed restriction has been shown to be unnecessary and
limiting an establishment's ability to operate at maximum efficiency.
Additionally, allowing NSIS establishments to operate more efficiently
would reduce production costs and optimize the production processes
while maintaining process control and food safety.
Baseline
In 2024, there were 751 federally inspected establishments that
slaughtered approximately 127.8 million hogs \45\ with an estimated
retail value of over $135 billion and an average retail price of $4.97
per pound.\46\ Swine production at federally inspected establishments
increased in 2023 and 2024, growing 2.1 and 1.3 percent, respectively,
after a slight decline in previous years.\47\ The majority of swine
production, 74 percent, is consumed domestically; however, average
annual consumption declined by 0.5 percent from 2020-2024.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ FSIS, PHIS database, accessed February 2025.
\46\ FSIS calculated this value using the 2024 average retail
price for pork products (sliced bacon, bone in and boneless ham,
bone in and boneless pork chops) of $4.87 per pound and a 2024 U.S.
production estimate of 27,790 million pounds. Sources: USDA,
Economic Research Service (ERS), ``Meat Price Spreads,'' Pork values
and spreads (dataset), March 13, 2025, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/meat-price-spreads/; USDA, ``World Agricultural Supply
and Demand Estimates (WASDE),'' March 11, 2025, https://www.usda.gov/historical-wasde-report-data-3.
\47\ These production growth calculations are based on
slaughtered headcounts using USDA, ERS, ``Livestock and Meat
Domestic Data,'' All Meat Statistics, Meat Statistics tables,
historical (dataset), March 27, 2025 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data/.
\48\ Measured in retail weight, per capita disappearance
(pounds) using USDA, ERS, ``Agricultural Projections (Annual
report),'' February 18, 2025, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-baseline-database/visualization-us-agricultural-baseline-projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on FSIS' Public Health Information System (PHIS) data, in
February 2025 there were 17 market hog establishments operating under
NSIS.\49\ Each of the NSIS establishments exclusively slaughters at
least one million market hogs annually. Six of the NSIS establishments
participated in the TLT and had an average line speed of 1,276 hph
while operating under a line speed waiver. The maximum line speed for
the 11 NSIS establishments operating without a waiver is 1,106 hph.
Additionally, there are 10 establishments operating under the
traditional inspection system (referred to as ``traditional
establishments'' in this analysis) that, similar to the NSIS
establishments, exclusively slaughter at least one million market hogs
annually. These 10 establishments have line speeds of at least 850 hph
and up to the 1,106 hph maximum line speed.\50\ Table 2 shows the
number of establishments included in the Proposed Regulatory Impact
Analysis (PRIA) and their market shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ FSIS, PHIS database, accessed February 2025.
\50\ Of the remaining 696 swine establishments, 569
establishments slaughtered multiple swine classes, 127 exclusively
slaughter market swine, but either slaughtered less than one million
head annually or operated at a maximum line speed of less than 850
hph.
Table 2--Baseline: Establishments Included in the PRIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Share of market hog
Establishment establishments production (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS--Waiver *................ 6 18.8
NSIS--No waiver............... 11 45.6
Traditional................... 10 27.8
-----------------------------------------
Total..................... 27 92.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The waiver indicates the TLT regulatory waiver. Numbers may not sum
due to rounding.
For this PRIA, FSIS assumed this proposed rule would benefit these
27 market hog establishments. These establishments were included in the
analysis because they exclusively slaughter a sufficient number of
market hogs at a sufficient rate to justify the likely costs associated
with operating increased line speeds or converting to NSIS. The six
establishments that already have a line speed waiver would not incur
any additional quantifiable costs or benefits but would benefit from
eliminating regulatory uncertainty regarding the duration of their
waivers. The 11 NSIS establishments operating without a line speed
waiver would experience costs and benefits associated with increasing
their line speeds, if they choose to increase their line speeds.
Similarly, the 10 traditional establishments would experience
quantified costs and benefits if they choose to convert to the NSIS and
increase their line speeds. FSIS estimates that, if the proposed rule
is finalized, it would be net beneficial.
For this analysis, FSIS assumed establishments would voluntarily
increase their line speeds over a 10-year adoption period with roughly
consistent annual adoption rates starting the year the final rule is
published, should this rule become final.\51\ The six NSIS
establishments currently operating under a line speed waiver would
continue to operate at faster line speeds. FSIS assumed the 11 NSIS
establishments would adopt faster lines speeds in years one through
five, and the 10 traditional establishments would voluntarily convert
to NSIS and adopt faster line speeds in years six through ten.\52\ For
all establishments, the Agency assumed costs would occur in the year
the establishment increased their line speed or converted to the NSIS,
while the benefits would occur in the following year. FSIS incorporated
these assumptions into the following costs and benefits estimates. FSIS
is seeking comments on this assumed adoption period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ FSIS chose a ten-year adoption period as it is standard
practice based on guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.
While the rule has been estimated to be net-beneficial regardless of
the adoption period, FSIS assumed a ten-year adoption period because
establishments will have to hire new employees, train new and
existing employees, conduct HACCP reassessments, and adjust input
and production schedules prior to increasing their line speeds.
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, February 7, 2011,
``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs),''
\52\ FSIS assumed the non-waiver NSIS establishments would
increase their line speeds prior to the traditional establishments,
because the traditional establishments will have to first convert to
NSIS a process that takes additional labor, training, and planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7915]]
Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule
The Agency expects the 11 establishments currently operating under
the NSIS without a waiver and the 10 traditional establishments likely
to convert to the NSIS, if this proposed
rule is finalized, to incur costs if they choose to increase their line
speeds or convert to the NSIS. Establishments would voluntarily incur
these costs and would do so only if the benefits outweigh the costs.
These costs are associated with additional labor, training, and HACCP
plan reassessment. FSIS also estimated a de minimis cost of $90 per
firm for rule familiarization. Establishments converting to the NSIS
would also incur costs for complying with ready-to-cook (RTC)
requirements, which is a requirement under the NSIS.\53\ FSIS is
seeking comments on any potential additional costs establishments may
incur if they choose to increase their line speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 9 CFR 310.26(d)(1); 84 FR 52300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Labor Costs
FSIS estimates that the 11 NSIS establishments currently operating
without a waiver would hire an additional 88 workers if they increase
their line speeds, while the 10 traditional establishments would hire
an additional 153 workers if they convert to NSIS and increase their
line speeds, for a total of 241 workers at the mid-point estimate. The
combined mid-point annual labor cost estimate for these 21
establishments is $9.5 million, assuming a 10-year adoption period and
discounted at 7 percent (Table 3). Below are additional details on how
FSIS estimated these potential labor costs.
Table 3--Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule: Additional Labor Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized costs (million $)
Establishment Workers mid- -----------------------------------------------
point Lower Mid-point Upper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS--No Waiver................................. 88 4.0 5.3 6.7
Traditional..................................... 153 2.8 4.2 5.1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 241 6.8 9.5 11.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate. Numbers may not sum
due to rounding.
The Agency expects the 11 NSIS establishments that choose to
operate at increased line speeds would hire additional production
workers. The Agency estimates that the 11 NSIS establishments may hire
between 3 and 5 additional workers per line per shift, with four
workers as the mid-point estimate to maintain process control.\54\ FSIS
estimated that these workers would be paid wages of $38.62 per hour
\55\ and that they would work 269 days per year.\56\ The 11 NSIS
establishments have a total of 22 lines across all shifts. Therefore,
these 11 NSIS establishments may hire 88 workers (4 workers per line x
22 lines) at the mid-point estimate, with a range of 66 (3 workers per
line x 22 lines) to 110 (5 workers per line x 22 lines) workers. The
estimated labor costs that the 11 NSIS establishments may incur is $7.3
million ($38.62 wage x 4 additional workers x 22 lines x 8 hours per
day x 269 production days), which annualizes to $5.3 million assuming a
10-year adoption period and discounted at 7 percent (Table 3). FSIS is
asking for comments on the number of additional workers that current
NSIS establishments would hire to operate at higher line speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The Agency learned that establishments operating under
waivers added between 3 and 5 employees per line per shift to
provide adequate coverage on the line and for redistributing tasks.
\55\ The wage estimate includes a labor cost of $19.31 per hour
for a production employee multiplied by a benefits and overhead
factor of two. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, 2024: 51-3023 Slaughterers and Meat
Packers in Industry Animal Slaughtering and Processing. May 2024.
https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600 (accessed April 2025).
\56\ FSIS used this estimate in the 2019 Modernization of Swine
Slaughter final rule. A previous FSIS analysis of PHIS data found
that large market hog establishments operated 269 days per year. 84
FR 52324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSIS estimates that 10 traditional establishments that convert to
the NSIS and increase their lines speeds would have to dedicate
additional labor to cover certain activities. Establishment workers
would (1) sort and remove unfit animals before ante-mortem inspection;
(2) trim and identify defects; and (3) identify animals or carcasses
that they have sorted and removed for disposal. These traditional
establishments that convert to the NSIS may also allocate additional
labor to production lines operating at increased line speeds. These
traditional establishments converting to the NSIS and increasing their
line speeds would require an increase in labor of 6 to 11 additional
workers per line per shift, or 9 workers at the mid-point estimate.\57\
FSIS estimated that the 10 establishments that may convert to the NSIS
have a total of 17 slaughter lines across all shifts, resulting in an
increase in labor of 153 workers (9 workers per line x 17 lines) at the
mid-point, with a range of 102 (6 workers per line x 17 lines) to 187
workers (11 workers per line x 17 lines). The estimated labor costs
that the 10 traditional establishments may incur is $12.7 million
($38.62 wage x 9 additional workers x 17 lines x 8 hours per day x 269
production days), which annualizes to $4.2 million assuming a 10-year
adoption period and discounted at 7 percent (Table 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 84 FR 52300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An establishment would only incur these costs if the benefits
outweigh the additional production costs because the choice to operate
under NSIS at increased line speeds is a voluntary business decision.
FSIS is asking for comments on the number of additional workers that
establishments would hire in response to the proposed rule for NSIS
establishments operating at higher line speeds and for traditional
establishments that convert to the NSIS.
Training Costs
Based on the NSIS final rule, FSIS expects establishments that
choose to increase their line speeds or convert to the NSIS may incur
employee training costs.\58\ NSIS establishments operating at a faster
line speed would provide initial training for new workers, training
replacement workers due to turnover, and continuing education training
for retained workers. For establishments converting to NSIS,
establishments would provide initial training for new workers, training
to existing workers in NSIS activities, training to replacement workers
due to turnover, and continuing education training for retained
workers. This analysis assumed per worker training costs would range
from $399 to
[[Page 7916]]
$1,197, with a mid-point estimate of $798.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ 84 FR 52324-5232.
\59\ FSIS updated the wage estimate and HACCP training costs in
the ``Cost of Food Safety Investments'' using 2024 wages from the
BLS and the 2024 Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic
Product. RTI, (2015). Costs of Food Safety Investments (Table 4-4).
Contract No. AG-3A94-B-13-0003). Prepared by Catherine L. Viator,
Mary K. Muth, Jenna E. Brophy, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Costs_of_Food_Safety_Investments_FSIS-2022-0013.pdf; BLS,
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 2024: 51-3023
Slaughterers and Meat Packers, in Industry Animal Slaughtering and
Processing. May 2024. https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600,
accessed April 2025; and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, ``Table
1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product,''
accessed April 11, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The combined one-time worker training cost for the 11 NSIS
establishments that would increase their line speeds and the 10
traditional establishments that would convert to NSIS is approximately
$0.06 million, annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and
discounted at 7 percent. The Agency expects the initial training to
occur in the first year when establishments begin hiring new workers,
specifically, years 1 through 5 of the assumed 10-year adoption period
for NSIS establishments increasing their line speeds and years 5
through 10 for traditional establishments converting to NSIS. The 11
NSIS establishments would train 88 new workers, (4 new workers per line
x 22 lines) resulting in the mid-point cost estimate for this training
of $70,224 (88 workers x $798). The 10 traditional establishments would
train 153 new workers (9 new workers per line x 17 lines) resulting in
the mid-point cost estimate for this training of $122,094 (153 new
workers x $798). These traditional establishments would also train 612
existing workers (36 existing workers per line x 17 lines) on NSIS
activities, at an estimated cost of $488,376 (612 existing workers x
$798).
Table 4--Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule: Training Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized costs (million $)
Establishment Number of -----------------------------------------------
workers Lower Mid-point Upper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS--No Waiver:
New Worker.................................. 88 0.003 0.008 0.015
Replacement Workers......................... 32 0.01 0.02 0.03
Continuing Education........................ 56 0.01 0.03 0.05
Traditional:
New Worker.................................. 153 0.005 0.014 0.026
NSIS Activities............................. 612 0.013 0.040 0.083
Replacement Workers......................... 281 0.02 0.05 0.11
Continuing Education........................ 484 0.00 0.01 0.02
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... .............. 0.058 0.168 0.328
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate. Numbers may not sum
due to rounding.
Establishments would also incur additional recurring costs due to
worker turnover each year. As the workers leave over time,
establishments would need to train replacement workers beginning the
year after establishments increases line speeds or converts to NSIS,
following the assumed 10-year adoption period. The combined annual
recurring training cost due to turnover for the 11 NSIS and 10
traditional establishments is approximately $0.07 million, annualized
assuming a 10-year adoption period and discounted at 7 percent. The 11
NSIS establishments would train 32 replacement workers (88 workers x
36.7 percent) resulting in the mid-point cost estimate for this
training of $25,536 (32 replacement workers x $798).\60\ The 10
traditional establishments would train 281 replacement workers (765
workers x 36.7 percent) resulting in the mid-point cost estimate for
this training of $224,238 (281 replacement workers x $798).\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The BLS reported that the nondurable goods manufacturing
industry had a separation rate of 36.7 percent in 2024. The total
separation rate for a given year is the sum of the separation rate
for the 12-month period. The retention rate is thus 63.3 percent
(100 percent-36.7 percent). BLS, ``Job Openings and Labor Turnover
Survey, not seasonally adjusted (2024),'' (Series
JTU340000000000000TSR), accessed April 11, 2025. Data can be
accessed at https://data.bls.gov/series-report.
\61\ Based on the total employees receiving one time training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishments would also incur additional recurring costs due to
training for retained workers by providing continuing education each
year, which would begin the year after establishments increase their
line speeds or convert to NSIS, following the assumed 10-year adoption
period. The combined continuing education training cost for the 11 NSIS
and 10 traditional establishments for retained workers is approximately
$0.04 million, annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and
discounted at 7 percent (Table 4). The 11 NSIS establishments would
train 56 retained workers (88 workers x 63.3 percent) resulting in the
mid-point cost estimate for this training of $4,312 (56 retained
workers x $77).\62\ The 10 traditional establishments would train 484
retained workers (765 workers x 63.3 percent) resulting in the mid-
point cost estimate for this training of $37,268 (484 retained workers
x $77). The combined training costs for the 11 NSIS establishments that
FSIS assumed would increase line speeds as a result of this proposed
rule and the 10 traditional establishments that FSIS assumed would
convert to NSIS is approximately $0.168 million, annualized assuming a
10-year adoption period and discounted at 7 percent (Table 4). FSIS is
seeking comments on the type and cost of establishment worker training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ FSIS updated the wage estimate and HACCP training costs in
the ``Cost of Food Safety Investments'' using 2024 wages from the
BLS. RTI, (2015). Costs of Food Safety Investments (Table 4-4).
Contract No. AG-3A94-B-13-0003). Prepared by Catherine L. Viator,
Mary K. Muth, Jenna E. Brophy, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Costs_of_Food_Safety_Investments_FSIS-2022-0013.pdf; BLS,
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 2024: 51-3023
Slaughterers and Meat Packers, in Industry Animal Slaughtering and
Processing. May 2024. https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600,
accessed April 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HACCP Plan Reassessment Cost
An NSIS establishment that chooses to operate at increased line
speeds may need to reassess its HACCP plan. Traditional establishments
that convert to the NSIS would also be required to reassess their HACCP
plans.
[[Page 7917]]
According to the Costs of Food Safety Investments report, a large
establishment requires between 30 to 90 hours to reassess their HACCP
plan, with a mid-point estimate of 60 hours.\63\ Assuming this work is
completed by an experienced establishment worker with an hourly labor
cost of $38.62,\64\ a HACCP plan reassessment cost per establishment
ranges from $1,159 to $3,476, with $2,317 as the mid-point estimate.
For the 11 NSIS establishments, the mid-point cost estimate for HACCP
reassessment is $25,487 (11 establishments x $2,317). For the 10
traditional establishments, the mid-point cost estimate is $23,170 (10
establishments x $2,317).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ FSIS used the hours of training estimates in the HACCP
training costs in the ``Cost of Food Safety Investments.'' RTI,
(2015). Costs of Food Safety Investments (Table 4-1). Contract No.
AG-3A94-B-13-0003). Prepared by Catherine L. Viator, Mary K. Muth,
Jenna E. Brophy, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Costs_of_Food_Safety_Investments_FSIS-2022-0013.pdf;
\64\ The wage estimate includes a labor cost of $19.31 per hour
for a production employee multiplied by a benefits and overhead
factor of two. BLS, Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,
2024: 51-3023 Slaughterers and Meat Packers, in Industry Animal
Slaughtering and Processing, May 2024, https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In total, this represents a one-time cost to industry of $0.005
million at the mid-point, ranging from $0.003 to $0.008 million,
annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount
rate, (Table 5).
Table 5--Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule: HACCP Plan Reassessment Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized costs (million $)
Establishment Number of -----------------------------------------------
establishments Lower Mid-point Upper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS--No Waiver................................ 11 0.002 0.003 0.004
Traditional.................................... 10 0.001 0.002 0.003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 21 0.003 0.005 0.008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate. Numbers may not sum
due to rounding.
Ready To Cook (RTC) Pork Standards Costs
Under NSIS, establishments are required to collect, record, and
analyze documentation to demonstrate that the products resulting from
their slaughter operation meet the definition of RTC pork products.\65\
Only establishments choosing to convert to NSIS would incur these costs
because existing NSIS establishments are already implementing these
requirements. FSIS assumes a quality control (QC) technician would
collect, record, and analyze documentation to meet RTC requirements,
which would take approximately one hour each day to complete.\66\ The
labor costs associated with this work is $58.36 per hour.\67\ This
equates to an annual cost of approximately $15,699 ($58.36 hourly wage
rate x 1 hour per day x 269 production days) per establishment per
year. On aggregate, for the 10 establishments expected to convert to
the NSIS, the RTC pork standards cost is approximately $0.05 million
annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount
rate (Table 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 9 CFR 310.26, Establishment responsibilities under the new
swine inspection system.
\66\ FSIS used this estimate as summarized in the 2019
Modernization of Swine Slaughter final rule. A previous FSIS
analysis found that large swine establishments can verify they meet
other consumer protection performance standards by taking 24-unit
samples, requiring roughly 1 hour to collect, record, and analyze
the data. 84 FR 52326.
\67\ The labor cost of $29.18 per hour for a QC technician is
multiplied by a benefits and overhead factor of two. BLS,
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 2024: 51-3023
Slaughterers and Meat Packers. Food Science Technicians, https://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm accessed April 2025.
Table 6--Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule: RTC Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized costs (million $)
Establishment type Number of -----------------------------------------------
establishments Lower Mid-point Upper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditional.................................... 10 0.05 0.05 0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 10 0.05 0.05 0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate. Numbers may not sum
due to rounding.
Capital Costs
Based on industry input and Agency experts, most of the
establishments likely impacted by this proposed rule already have the
necessary equipment to operate at faster line speeds. As such, this
analysis excludes further consideration of capital improvements due to
their minor potential costs. If an establishment believes that
additional capital expenditures will result in a benefit, they may
voluntarily reconfigure or update their facilities to fully capture all
the potential production efficiencies offered through increasing their
line speeds. FSIS is seeking comments on capital costs associated with
increasing line speeds.
Total Industry Costs
Establishments that voluntarily choose to increase their line
speeds, including those that may convert to NSIS, would incur costs
associated with labor, training, and HACCP plan reassessment.
Establishments converting to NSIS would have additional costs
associated with RTC recordkeeping requirements. For all establishments,
the largest cost is the likely increase in the number of establishment
workers (Table 7). This cost represents approximately 98 percent of the
costs for NSIS establishments that choose to increase their line speeds
and approximately 97 percent of the costs for establishments choosing
to convert to NSIS. The total industry cost estimates are $9.7 million
at the mid-point and range from $6.8 million at the low estimate to
$12.1 million for the high estimate annualized assuming a 10-year
adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate (Table 7).
[[Page 7918]]
Table 7--Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule: Total Industry Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized costs (million $)
Establishment type Cost elements -----------------------------------------------
Lower Mid-point Upper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS--No Waiver....................... Additional Labor........ 4.0 5.3 6.7
Training................ 0.02 0.05 0.1
HACCP Reassessment...... 0.002 0.003 0.004
-----------------------------------------------
Total................ 4.02 5.4 6.7
Traditional........................... Additional Labor........ 2.8 4.2 5.1
Training................ 0.04 0.12 0.23
HACCP Reassessment...... 0.001 0.002 0.003
RTC requirements........ 0.05 0.05 0.05
-----------------------------------------------
Total................ 2.86 4.31 5.33
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................. ........................ 6.8 9.7 12.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate. Numbers may not sum
due to rounding.
Estimated Benefits of the Proposed Rule
Changes in Production Efficiency
If the proposed rule were finalized, the six NSIS establishments
operating with a line speed waiver would benefit from a reduction in
compliance costs associated with elements of the current waiver program
that would no longer be necessary under the revised regulation.
Additionally, these establishments would benefit from the certainty
that they could continue to operate at faster line speeds. The 11 NSIS
establishments operating without a waiver and the 10 traditional
establishments that may convert to NSIS would benefit from an increase
in production efficiency if permitted to operate above the current
maximum line speed limit. In 2024, the 11 NSIS establishments operating
without a waiver accounted for 45.6 percent of total slaughtered
headcount, while the 10 traditional establishments accounted for 27.8
percent, for a combined 73.4 percent of total slaughtered headcount
(Table 8). FSIS estimated a range of line speed increases based on the
reported line speeds at waiver establishments during the TLT, which
ranged from about 6 to 24 percent faster, with a mid-point average
increase of 15 percent.\68\ For this analysis, the increase in
production efficiency is calculated by multiplying the share of
impacted swine slaughtered headcount by an estimated increase in line
speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Under the TLT, FSIS collected average line speed
information from the 6 NSIS establishments with line speed waivers.
For the lower-bound estimate, FSIS calculated the average line speed
increase from the maximum line speed of 1,106 hph of the bottom 25
percent of establishments, while for the upper-bound estimate the
Agency used the top 25 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This analysis assumed industry would increase their production
efficiency over time as resources and market conditions allow. To
account for this time, FSIS assumed production efficiency at these 21
establishments would incrementally increase over a 10-year adoption
period. The additive effect of increased production efficiency at each
establishment would increase total production efficiency. For instance,
the model estimates total production efficiency could increase by
approximately 1.4 percent in year one, assuming between 2 and 3
establishments that account for approximately 9.3 percent of 2024
slaughtered headcount, increase their line speeds by 15 percent (9.3
percent x 15 percent) (Table 8). Likewise, by year 10, total efficiency
could increase approximately 11 percent (73.4 percent x 15 percent)
(Table 8). FSIS is requesting comments on the estimated number of
establishments that would increase their line speeds, including those
that would convert to the NSIS, the portion of slaughtered headcount
impacted by this proposed rule, as well as the expected increase in
line speeds.
Table 8--Estimated Change in Production Efficiency Over the Adoption Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portion of 2024 Production efficiency gain (%) \2\
Year \1\ swine slaughtered -----------------------------------------------
headcount (%) Low (6%) Mid (15%) High (24%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................... 9.3 0.6 1.4 2.1
2........................................... 18.0 1.2 2.7 4.3
3........................................... 27.3 1.8 4.1 6.4
4........................................... 36.0 2.3 5.4 8.6
5........................................... 45.6 2.9 6.8 10.7
6........................................... 46.7 3.0 7.0 11.1
7........................................... 50.7 3.3 7.6 12.0
8........................................... 56.0 3.6 8.4 13.3
9........................................... 62.7 4.1 9.4 14.9
10.......................................... 73.4 4.4 11.0 17.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FSIS assumed that the NSIS non-waiver establishments would increase their line speeds in years 1-5, while
traditional establishments would convert to NSIS and increase their line speeds in years 6-10.
\2\ The change in line speeds estimates represent an increase from 1,106 hph and production efficiency gain is
calculated by multiplying the share of swine slaughtered headcount by the estimated line speed increases of 6,
15, and 24 percent for low, mid and high production efficiency gain, respectively.
[[Page 7919]]
Cost Savings From Production Efficiency Gains
Establishments may obtain the efficiency gains from removing the
maximum line speeds for NSIS establishments through multiple ways. For
example, establishments may choose to process more swine per hour while
reducing their hours of operation. This flexibility would allow
establishments to optimize their productivity and potentially lower
production costs. Further, elimination of the maximum line speed would
provide establishments enhanced flexibility to increase their line
speed in a limited or intermittent manner, to account for changes in
daily production such as unexpected stoppages, equipment breakdowns,
inclement weather, and supply chain disruptions.
Changes in Retail Prices and Cost Savings
In discussing potential next steps of this analysis, FSIS uses a
standard partial equilibrium model \69\ and publicly available data to
illustrate estimated benefits associated with allowing NSIS
establishments to determine their own line speeds based on their
ability to maintain process control.\70\ The results of such an
analysis include potential retail price changes and industry cost
savings. The Agency seeks comments on the model and assumptions used in
this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ In this linear model, P = a/b-(1/b) Qd represents the pork
products inverse market demand equation, while P = c/d + (1/d)Qs
represents the pork products inverse market supply equation, keeping
all other factors affecting demand and supply constant. Further
explanation about partial equilibrium and comparative statics can be
found in Varian, Hal R., ``Intermediate Microeconomics a Modern
Approach,'' seventh edition, 2006, W.W. Norton & Company.
\70\ FSIS used the values of -0.636 for the elasticity of demand
(e[supcaret]d) and 0.65 for the elasticity of supply (e[supcaret]s).
These elasticities were, respectively, adapted from Meekhof, Ronald
L., Muth, Mary K., Zhen, Chen, Beach, Robert H., Karns, Shawn A.,
Taylor, Justin L., and Viator, Catherine L. ``Pork Slaughter and
Processing Sector Facility-Level Model,'' RTI International Project
08893.009. Contract No. 53-3A94-03-12, Delivery Order 9, June 2007.
https://www.rti.org/sites/default/files/resources/muth_pork-slaughter_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSIS established the initial equilibrium condition using the 2024
pork products supply total of 27.8 billion pounds, Qo, and the 2024
average retail price for pork products of $4.87 per pound, Po.\71\ FSIS
assumed that increases in production efficiency, ef, can be represented
by increasing the market supply (Table 8). The Agency estimated that,
everything else constant, with an 11.0 percent mid-point increase in
production efficiency, the new equilibrium price of pork would be $4.73
per pound, or approximately a 3 percent decrease [((4.73-4.87)/4.87) x
100] (Table 9), and the new equilibrium quantity would be approximately
28.3 billion pounds.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ FSIS obtained the 2024 quantity of pork products of
approximately 27.8 billion pounds from USDA, ``World Agricultural
Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), Historical WASDE Report Data
(dataset),'' March 11, 2025, https://www.usda.gov/historical-wasde-report-data-3https://www.usda.gov/historical-wasde-report-data-3.
The 2024 pork products retail price of approximately $4.87 per pound
is from USDA, ERS, ``Meat Price Spreads, Historical monthly price
spread data for beef, pork, broilers (dataset),'' March 13, 2025,
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/meat-price-spreads/https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/meat-price-spreads/.
\72\ FSIS first calculated the coefficients of these models
using the data and elasticities: where b = -e[supcaret]d x Qo/Po =
0.636 x 27.8/4.87 = 3.63, a = Qo + bPo = 27.8 + 3.63 x 4.87 = 45.48,
d = e[supcaret]s x Qo/Po = 0.65 x 27.8/4.87 = 3.71 and c = -Qo + dPo
= -27.8 + 3.71 x 4.87 = -9.73. The coefficient a is the level of
demand for pork products as the retail price is set to zero, while
the coefficient c/d is interpreted as the price level of pork
products that is needed to cover all the fixed costs for the swine
industry. The parameter ef represents the estimated efficiency gains
across the industry at the 10-year adoption period of 11 percent at
the mid-point (Table 8). While keeping the elasticity of supply
constant, the Agency estimated the new equilibrium retail price
using the identity P[supcaret]new = (a + c(1 + ef))/(b + d) then
P[supcaret]new = (45.48-(9.73(1 + 11%)))/(3.63 + 3.71) = $4.73 per
pound and quantity of pork products as Q[supcaret]new = a-
bP[supcaret]new = [45.48-(3.63 x 4.73)] billion pounds = 28.3
billion pounds. Note that numbers may not sum due to rounding.
Calculating P[supcaret]new = (a + c(1 + ef))/(b + d) implies that
efficiency gain percentage ef could be applied at the Q-axis
intercept, and feedback is requested on this practice of estimating
the shift of the supply curve in a manner that emphasizes a distant-
from-equilibrium point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are limitations with using a linear model to estimate
equilibrium prices and quantities to approximate industry cost savings
associated with this rule. Allowing establishments to determine their
own line speeds could reduce their production costs, such as their
average per unit labor costs as establishments process more swine per
hour. FSIS estimated these reduced costs as industry cost saving
associated with this proposed rule by calculating the difference in
total variable costs (TVC) pre- and post-implementation for each of the
10 years in this analysis.\73\ For example, FSIS estimated the pre-
implementation TVC in year 10 to be approximately $44.00 billion, and
the post-implementation TVC to be approximately $43.49
billion.74 75 FSIS used the estimated increases in
production efficiency, as outlined in Table 8, to estimate the post-
implementation TVC. Hence, assuming the 21 establishments would
increase their line speeds by 15 percent on average, the swine industry
could save approximately $508 million ($43.49-$44.00 billion) in
production costs in year 10. The combined mid-point annual cost savings
are approximately $262 million, annualized over the 10-year adoption
period and assuming a 7 percent discount rate, with a range of $111 to
$418 million (Table 9).\76\ This benefit could be translated into an
average cost saving of $2.03 per hog ($262 million/129 million market
hogs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ In a simplified competitive market assumption, the
additional cost to produce additional pounds of pork products, known
as marginal costs, is approximated by the market supply. In
addition, the difference between the estimated equilibrium price and
quantity supplied pre- and post-implementation can be interpreted as
a change in the total variable costs (TVC) of production. This
change represents the decrease in such production costs as a result
of production efficiency gains. For the linear market supply
equation, FSIS used the standard formula to estimate the TVC for
producing pork products as TVC = \1/2\ x P x (Q-c), where P and Q
are the established equilibrium retail price and quantity of pork
products in the market, respectively, and c is as defined above.
\74\ TVC[supcaret](pre) would be approximately $44.00 billion,
\1/2\ x $4.87 per pound x (27.8-9.73) billion pounds, where c is
approximately 9.73 billion pounds, which is the amount of production
calculated by setting P = 0 in Qs = 9.73 + 3.71P. Note that numbers
may not sum due to rounding.
\75\ TVC[supcaret](post) would be approximately $43.49 billion,
\1/2\ x $4.73 per pound x (28.3-9.91) billion pounds, where the new
level of production, c[supcaret]new is approximately 9.91, is
calculated using the new equilibrium and market supply equation but
keeping price elasticity of supply constant (0.65), c[supcaret]new =
-Q[supcaret]new + d[supcaret]new x P[supcaret]new where
d[supcaret]new = e[supcaret]s x Q[supcaret]new/P[supcaret]new. Note
that numbers may not sum due to rounding.
\76\ After adding the annual present value estimates from year 1
to 10 for the mid-point estimate, FSIS estimated the total cost
savings for the swine industry associated with this proposed rule at
$1,837 million, or $262 million annualized over 10 years, assuming a
7 percent discount rate. Total cost savings = sum of present values/
((1- (1 + discount rate)[supcaret](-total number of years))/
(discount rates)) = $1,837 million/((1-(1 + 7%)[supcaret](-10))/
(7%)) = $262 million. This can also be calculated using Microsoft
Excel's PMT function = PMT (7%, 10, 1837 x -1) = $262 million. Note
that numbers may not sum due to rounding.
[[Page 7920]]
Table 9--Estimated Benefits of the Proposed Rule: Benefits From Increased Industrial Efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment Lower Mid-point Upper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings (million $) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS--No Waiver................................................. 97.1 229.2 366.8
Traditional..................................................... 13.8 32.4 51.4
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 110.9 261.6 418.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Change in Retail Price (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS--No Waiver................................................. -0.80 -1.85 -2.92
Traditional..................................................... -0.49 -1.13 -1.78
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... -1.28 -2.98 -4.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Estimates were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate. Numbers may not
sum due to rounding. Please see the surrounding discussion for details and requests for comments related to
the model parameters underlying these illustrative estimates.
The estimated cost savings could lead to an increase in industry
profits, lower consumer prices, or a combination of both. Additionally,
consumer benefits would be conditional on how an increase in line speed
affects retail prices. As such, the Agency is seeking comments on the
extent to which an increase in line speed would affect market hog
prices, establishment hours of operation, consumer prices, and export
volumes.
Costs and Benefits to FSIS
FSIS Staffing Changes
If traditional establishments choose to convert to NSIS, FSIS may
experience staffing changes. At traditional establishments, FSIS
typically assigns food inspectors (FIs) to perform online inspection on
the slaughter line and Consumer Safety Inspectors (CSIs) to perform
offline inspection tasks. At NSIS establishments, inspectors rotate
throughout the shift and work both on and off the slaughter line, and
for this reason, all inspection positions in NSIS establishments are
under the CSI classification. At traditional establishments, FSIS
assigns up to seven online FIs to each slaughter line per shift and up
to five offline CSIs to each shift, while at NSIS establishments, FSIS
typically assigns three online CSIs to each slaughter line per shift
and two additional offline CSIs to each shift.\77\ The estimated hourly
wage for an FI is $53.24 per hour, which represents a General Schedule
(GS) 7, step 5 wage rate multiplied by a benefits and overhead factor
of two.\78\ FSIS estimated the hourly wage for CSIs is $67.04, which
represents a GS 9, step 6 wage rate and a benefits and overhead factor
of two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ 84 FR 52336. Staffing at Traditional establishments varies
depending on the number of lines, configuration, slaughter class,
other non-slaughter processing, and shifts an establishment
operates.
\78\ Office of Personnel Management, 2024, Pay and Leave (Salary
Table 2020-RUS), https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/24Tables/html/RUS_h.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 10 establishments that are under traditional inspection and may
convert to NSIS operate a total of 17 lines across 14 shifts. The
Agency currently has approximately 57 FIs and 67 CSIs, for a total of
124 positions staffed at the 10 establishments, with annual costs of
approximately $16.20 million (57 FIs x $53.24 wage x 8 hours per day x
269 production days and 67 CSIs x $67.04 wage x 8 hours per day x 269).
If these 10 establishments convert to NSIS, the Agency may assign
approximately 79 CSIs [(17 lines x 3 CSIs) + (14 shifts x 2 CSIs)],
with annual cost of approximately $11.40 million (79 CSIs x $67.04 wage
x 8 hours per day x 269 production days) per year. As such, if these
establishments convert to NSIS, this analysis estimates a net change of
45 positions (decrease of 57 FIs and an increase of 12 CSIs). The
estimated change in the Agency's annual costs is a decrease of $4.80
million ($16.20 million-$11.40 million), which equates to $1.57
million, annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent
discount rate (Table 10). The Agency may utilize personnel made
available as a result of establishments converting to NSIS to fill
vacant positions.
Table 10--Changes in FSIS Staffing at Traditional Establishments
Expected To Convert to NSIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs ($
Staffing Positions millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Total........................... 124 16.20
FIs................................. 57 6.53
CSIs................................ 67 9.67
Expected Total CSIs..................... 79 11.40
Change (decrease)................... 45 -4.80
Annualized costs (savings).......... .............. -1.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated costs were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a
7 percent discount rate. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
FSIS Training
New CSIs or FIs becoming CSIs receive training on Inspection
Methods to perform both online and offline activities necessary for
those positions. This training involves a three-week meat inspector
course with a two-hour test. The total time associated with the length
of the training is 114 hours (14 days x 8 hours + 2-hour test). As
described above, FSIS estimated the
[[Page 7921]]
hourly wage for CSIs is $67.04. In addition, there would be temporary
replacement labor costs for relief inspectors required to fulfill the
work that would have been completed by the employees receiving
training. There is also an estimated meal and incidental expense of
$1,850 per CSI. In summary, the one-time cost for training 12 new CSIs,
including training, relief inspectors, and meals and incidental
expenses, results in $0.21 million [(12 CSIs x 114 hours x $67.04 wage
per hour) x 2 to account for relief inspectors + ($22,200 in meals and
incidental expenses)].\79\ This results in $0.02 million annualized
assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 12 CSIs x $1,850. FSIS, Office of Training, Transformation,
and Distance Learning staff, average MI&E cost per FTE attending the
Inspection Methods training in 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Estimated Impact on FSIS
The Agency's costs would potentially be impacted by changes to
personnel and training requirements in the future. If these 10
establishments convert to NSIS, the Agency's annual remuneration costs
may decrease by $1.57 million, annualized assuming a 10-year adoption
period and a 7 percent discount rate. In addition, the Agency plans to
provide training for additional CSIs, has an estimated cost of $0.02
million annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent
discount rate. The combined changes to the Agency's costs would be a
net reduction of roughly $1.55 million annually assuming a 10-year
adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate (Table 11).
Table 11--Costs and Benefits to FSIS: Combined Estimated Impact on FSIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midpoint agency cost changes
Total annualized benefits and costs (million $)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Staffing.................... 1.57
Training Cost......................... -0.02
---------------------------------
Net Benefit....................... 1.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Mid-point is the average of the low and high estimates of change in
Agency costs for changes in inspectors.
Estimates were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7
percent discount rate. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
Cost Savings for Removing Attestation of Work-Related Conditions
Establishments operating under the NSIS would no longer need to
submit on an annual basis an attestation to the management member of
the local FSIS circuit safety committee stating that it maintains a
program to monitor and document any work-related conditions of
establishment workers. The cost savings from removing this attestation,
which is estimated to take approximately 2 minutes per establishment or
a combined total of one hour for the industry, are $63.04 annually.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ FSIS used the time estimate included in 84 FR 52323 and the
hourly mean wage rate for Food Scientists and Technologists of
$31.52 multiplied by a benefits and overhead factor of two. BLS,
``Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics,'' Animal Slaughtering
and Processing (311600), May 2024 (Occupation code: 19-1012), June
3, 2025, https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits of the Proposed Rule
Allowing NSIS establishments the flexibility to operate at faster
line speeds would promote industrial innovation while maintaining food
safety. Establishments would only choose to operate at faster line
speeds if the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. This PRIA
estimated the potential costs and benefits from cost savings of
removing the maximum line speed requirement for NSIS establishments. In
addition, FSIS also estimated the benefit from more efficient use of
the Agency's resources.
The mid-point estimated cost for the industry associated with this
proposed rule is approximately $9.7 million, with a range of $6.9 to
$12.1 million, assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent
discount rate (Table 12). Most of this cost is associated with
establishments voluntarily hiring additional labor if they choose to
increase their line speeds or convert to NSIS. The proposed rule's mid-
point benefits from cost savings for the industry is approximately $262
million, with a range of $111 to $418 million, assuming a 10-year
adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate. In addition, the Agency
could experience a net reduction in FTEs of roughly $1.6 million,
assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate.
Overall, this rule is net beneficial for the range of line speed
increases FSIS analyzed, with an estimated mid-point net benefits of
$253 million, ranging from $106 to $408 million, assuming a 10-year
adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate (Table 12). The estimated
mid-point net benefits are $267 million, ranging from $111 to $429
million, assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 3 percent discount
rate (Table 13).
Table 12--Net Benefits of the Proposed Rule at 7 Percent Discount Rate Over 10 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment Lower Mid-point Upper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS--No Waiver................................................. 4.0 5.4 6.8
Traditional..................................................... 2.9 4.3 5.4
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 6.9 9.7 12.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS--No Waiver................................................. 97.1 229.2 366.8
Traditional..................................................... 13.8 32.4 51.4
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 110.9 261.6 418.2
[[Page 7922]]
FSIS............................................................ 1.6 1.6 1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits................................................ 105.6 253.4 407.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate.
Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
Table 13--Net Benefits of the Proposed Rule at 3 Percent Discount Rate Over 10 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment Lower Mid-point Upper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS--No Waiver................................................. 4.2 5.6 7.0
Traditional..................................................... 3.2 4.9 6.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 7.4 10.5 13.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSIS--No Waiver................................................. 100.7 237.9 380.9
Traditional..................................................... 16.0 37.5 59.6
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 116.8 275.4 440.5
FSIS............................................................ 1.7 1.7 1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits................................................ 111.1 266.7 429.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 3 percent discount rate.
Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
IV. Alternatives
A--Taking No Action and Ending the Line Speed Waivers
FSIS considered taking no further regulatory action and ending the
line speed waivers. Under this alternative, the six NSIS establishments
operating under a waiver would be required to slow their operations to
the pre-waiver maximum line speed of 1,106 hph. If the Agency were to
rescind the line speed waivers, establishments would incur costs
associated with reverting back to pre-waiver equipment, personnel, or
operations. Further, establishments with line speed waivers would forgo
benefits that they have accrued through improved efficiency. The
estimated mid-point forgone industry cost savings is approximately $105
million, annualized assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Other NSIS
establishments would also be unable to benefit from improved production
efficiency from increased line speeds. Traditional establishments may
also lack the incentive to convert to the NSIS, forgoing potential
industry and government cost savings. The Agency rejects this
alternative because it would prevent NSIS establishments from
benefitting from more efficient line speeds.
B--The Proposed Rule
Allowing NSIS establishments the flexibility to operate at faster
line speeds would promote production efficiency. Establishments would
only choose to operate at faster line speeds if the benefits of doing
so outweigh the costs. This PRIA estimated the potential costs and
benefits from cost savings from allowing establishments the flexibility
to operate at faster line speeds. At the mid-point estimate, the
annualized cost associated with this proposed rule is approximately
$9.7 million, annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7
percent discount rate (Table 13). Most of this cost is associated with
additional labor to voluntarily increase establishments' line speeds or
convert to the NSIS. The proposed rule's estimated annualized benefit
from cost savings is approximately $262 million, annualized assuming a
10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate. In comparison to
alternative A, the proposed rule has an estimated net benefit for the
industry of $252 million and cost savings of $1.6 million for FSIS,
annualized assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount
rate. For this reason, the Agency selects this alternative.
C--Requiring Traditional Establishments Converting to the NSIS To Wait
One Year Before Being Allowed To Increase Line Speeds
This alternative requires traditional establishments converting to
NSIS to wait one year before being allowed to increase line speeds to
ensure that they are able to maintain process control. This alternative
could create an unnecessary regulatory burden for traditional
establishments choosing to convert to the NSIS, because they would be
required to wait an additional year after making investments and
changes to production processes, including preparing their workforce to
operate under the NSIS. The mid-point cost savings for the industry
under this alternative are approximately $248 million, annualized
assuming a 10-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate. This
represents a 5.1 percent reduction in cost savings compared to the
proposed rule. This may be an underestimate as this unnecessary
regulatory burden would result in reduced incentives for establishments
to convert to the NSIS, compared to the proposed rule. For this reason,
FSIS rejects this alternative.
[[Page 7923]]
Table 14--Alternative Policy Options \81\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives Benefits Costs Net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Taking No Action and Ending the No benefit............. NSIS establishments This alternative is net
Line Speed Waivers. would lose their line costly.
speed waivers,
reducing their
productivity and
likely incurring costs
associated with
adjusting their
production process.
B. The Proposed Rule................. This alternative could Industry could incur Industry could gain
generate $262 million $10 million annualized $252 million
annualized industry costs at the mid-point. annualized net
cost savings at the benefits at the mid-
mid-point. point.
C. Requiring Traditional This alternative could This alternative could Approximately 5 percent
Establishment Converting to NSIS to generate $248 million impose an unnecessary lower annualized net
Wait for One Year before They annualized industry burden for some benefits compared to
Increase Line Speed. cost savings at the traditional the proposed rule.\82\
midpoint. Cost savings establishments and
for traditional reduce their incentive
establishments would to convert to the NSIS.
be lower compared to
the proposed rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Estimates were annualized assuming a 10-year adoption
period and a 7 percent discount rate. Numbers may not sum due to
rounding. Please see earlier portions of the regulatory impact
analysis for details and requests for comments related to the model
parameters underlying these illustrative estimates.
\82\ The estimated production efficiency gains shown in Table 8
for years 6 to 10 would be altered based on this alternative. At the
mid-point line speed increase of 15 percent, the new production
efficiency would be approximately 6.8, 7.0, 7.6, 8.4 and 9.4 percent
for years 6 to 10, respectively. Recalculating the model using these
production efficiency gains, the estimated present value for the
total cost savings associated with this alternative is approximately
$1,734 million, or $248 million annualized over 10 years, assuming a
7 percent discount rate. This represents a reduction of
approximately 5 percent [((248-262)/262) x 100], compared to the
proposed rule. Note that numbers may not sum due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FSIS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that
this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities in the U.S., as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). FSIS
is proposing to republish 9 CFR 310.26(c), which stated that line
speeds set forth in 9 CFR 310.1 do not apply to an NSIS establishment,
provided the establishment is able to maintain effective process
control and prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric
pathogens and visible fecal material, ingesta, and milk. Should this
proposed rule become final, all NSIS establishments would be allowed to
operate at increased line speeds. Accordingly, establishments would no
longer need to obtain a waiver and participate in the SIP in order to
operate at increased line speeds.
How many small entities are impacted by the proposed rule?
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines the size
standard for small businesses for swine slaughter establishments as
having 1,150 employees or less.\83\ Swine slaughter establishments are
in the 311611-Animal (except Poultry) Slaughter sector of the North
American Industry Classification System.\84\ Based on U.S. Census
Bureau Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) data,\85\ approximately
1,208 firms (98 percent) in the Animal (except Poultry) Slaughter
sector are small and approximately 22 firms (2 percent) in this
industry are large (Table 15).\86\ FSIS estimates that one of the 1,208
small firms may voluntarily adopt faster line speeds and be impacted by
the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ United States Small Business Administration (SBA), Table of
Small Business Standards Matched to North American Industry
Classification System Codes. Effective January 1, 2022. Available at
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
\84\ This category includes firms engaging in other than swine
slaughtering activities, such as cattle slaughtering. U.S. Census
Bureau North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Available online at https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=31&chart=2022&details=311611 (last accessed in April 2025).
\85\ U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). 2022 SUSB Annual Data Tables by
Establishment Industry: U.S. and states, NAICS detailed employment,
[Data file]. April 2025. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/econ/susb/2022-susb-annual.html.
\86\ SUSB employment data are reported in ranges rather than at
the exact SBA size standard of 1,150 employees. To provide a
conservative estimate, FSIS classified firms with 1,499 or fewer
employees as small.
Table 15--Small Entity by Firm Size and Receipts, SUSB Data, 311611-
Animal (Except Poultry) Slaughter Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Receipts
Enterprise size firms (million $)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 5 employees................... 399 326
5-9 employees........................... 310 583
10-14 employees......................... 165 412
15-19 employees......................... 79 343
20 to 500 employees..................... 235 9,507
500-749 employees....................... 7 1,888
750-999 employees....................... 9 4,168
1,000-1,499 employees................... 4 1,772
-------------------------------
Total............................... 1,208 18,999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7924]]
What are the criteria for ``significant impact'' and ``substantial
number of small entities''?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Agency to analyze
whether the proposed rule, if finalized, would have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. FSIS defines a
significant economic impact as one that is greater than 1 percent of
small entities' annual receipts. FSIS considers a regulation to have an
impact on a substantial number of small entities if it affects over 30
percent of the small entities identified in this analysis.
What are the economic impact and compliance costs per firm?
In the Regulatory Impact Analysis of this proposed rule, FSIS
estimated the costs associated with this proposed rule if an entity
chooses to operate at faster line speeds. On average, the approximate
cost per entity is $0.43 million, annualized at a 7% discount rate.
FSIS has estimated that, on aggregate, this proposed rule would be net
beneficial and noted that entities would only choose to operate at
faster line speeds if the benefits outweigh costs for their operations.
FSIS also estimated a one-time cost of $90 to account for the time
needed for a small entity to become familiarized with this proposed
rule.
Does the proposed rule have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities?
Using SUSB data, FSIS estimated that the 1 percent ``significant
impact'' criterion for the small entities impacted by this proposed
rule is $3.9 million. The ``substantial number'' criterion of 30
percent of small entities results in a total of 363 small entities.
This means that this proposed rule would have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities if it has an estimated impact of
over $3.9 million on at least 363 small entities. FSIS estimates the
impact to the single small entity that may voluntarily adopt faster
line speeds at 0.11 percent of the estimated revenue.\87\ This small
entity represents less than 1 percent of the total number of small
firms (1/1,208) and does not amount to a substantial number of small
entities that may experience a significant impact from this proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ The small entity that FSIS assumed would voluntarily
increase their line speed in response to this proposed rule likely
has between 500 and 1,499 employees. FSIS estimated revenue for
firms in the Animal (except Poultry) Slaughter sector having between
500 and 1,499 employees at $391 million, thus a firm's average
threshold for significant impact is $3.9 million. U.S. Census
Bureau. (2022). 2022 SUSB Annual Data Tables by Establishment
Industry: U.S. and states, NAICS detailed employment, 2022 [Data
file]. April 2025. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/econ/susb/2022-susb-annual.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated one-time cost of $90 for a firm to familiarize
themselves with the proposed rule would amount to less than 1 percent
of annual receipts for all entities. The $90 familiarization cost for
399 firms with less than 5 employees is 0.01 percent of their average
annual receipts.
What are the direct and indirect impacts?
FSIS does not anticipate direct costs or benefits to a substantial
number of small entities, because the proposed rule does not impose
additional requirements on industry and removes the need to obtain
waivers and participate in SIP to operate at faster line speeds. Small
entities are permitted to operate at increased line speeds if they
choose to operate under NSIS. FSIS assumes most small entities would
not choose to do so due to economic constraints.
Small and very small entities generally operate in local niche
markets, in which they source inputs from small producers and sell
products to consumers who have shown an increased demand for locally
produced products.\88\ The proposed rule, if finalized, is not expected
to directly impact these local niche markets or the entities that
participate in them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Johnson, R., Marti, D. and Gwin, L. (2012). Slaughter and
Processing Options and Issues for Locally Sourced Meat. Washington,
DC: USDA Economic Research Service, LDP-M-216-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification
FSIS preliminarily certifies that this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
in the United States. FSIS invites comments on the assumptions, data,
potential unidentified direct or indirect costs, methodologies, and
conclusions in this analysis.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with subsection 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection and
recordkeeping requirements included in this notice have been submitted
by the Agency to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval.
Title: New Swine Slaughter Inspection System.
OMB Number: 0583-0171.
Type of Request: Request to revise an approved information
collection.
Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the
functions of the Secretary (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53), as specified in the
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). This
statute mandates that FSIS protect the public by verifying that meat
products are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled.
The currently approved burden estimate for this collection is 4,348
hours based on 84 respondents. This burden estimate includes the
collection of information to ensure that all establishments operating
under NSIS monitor their systems through microbial testing and record
keeping and that they maintain records to document the total number of
animals and carcasses sorted and removed per day and the reasons for
their removal. As part of this proposed rule, FSIS requests to
eliminate the current requirement for each establishment operating
under the NSIS to submit on an annual basis an attestation to the
management member of the local FSIS circuit safety committee stating
that it maintains a program to monitor and document any work-related
conditions of establishment workers The elimination of this attestation
requirement would reduce the total burden estimate by one hour for a
revised total of 4,347 hours. The current approval for this information
collection will expire on February 28, 2026.
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information
collection assessment.
Respondents: Official swine slaughter establishments.
Estimated No. of Respondents: 84.
Estimated No. of Annual Responses per Respondent: 91,078.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 4,347 hours.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained
from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety
and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop
3758, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; 202-720-5046.
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS' functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the
accuracy of FSIS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the method and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information, including through the use of appropriate
[[Page 7925]]
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be
sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk
Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20253. To be most
effective, comments should be sent within 60 days of the publication
date of this proposed rule.
VI. E-Government Act
FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-
Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) by, among other things,
promoting the use of the internet and other information technologies
and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
VII. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. Under this rule: (1) All State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2)
no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) no
administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file
suit in court challenging this rule.
VIII. Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of
E.O. 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.'' E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies
that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or
actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
FSIS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and
determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal
implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a
tribe requests consultation, FSIS will work with the Office of Tribal
Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes,
additions, and modifications identified herein are not expressly
mandated by Congress.
IX. Environmental Impact
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,
et seq.) (NEPA), Federal agencies fulfill their NEPA obligation to
study the effects of major Federal actions in one of three ways. For a
major Federal action that will have significant environmental effects,
the agency prepares a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (42
U.S.C. 4336(b)(1)). If it is unclear whether the proposal will have
significant effects, the agency may prepare a brief Environmental
Assessment (EA) (42 U.S.C. 4336(b)(2)). Finally, categorical exclusions
are classes of actions that normally do not have significant effects on
the environment and do not require an EA or an EIS absent extraordinary
circumstances (42 U.S.C. 4336(b)(2)). USDA's NEPA implementing
regulations establish a categorical exclusion for specified categories
of actions and the actions of certain USDA agencies and agency units (7
CFR 1b.3, 1b.4). USDA has determined that the listed agencies,
including FSIS (7 CFR 1b.4(b)(6)), ``conduct programs and activities
that have been found to have no individual or cumulative effect on the
human environment'' (7 CFR 1b.4(a)). The action thus is categorically
excluded unless FSIS anticipates that extraordinary circumstances from
this rule may have a significant environmental effect.
Under the proposed rule, expected sales of pork products derived
from market hogs, rather than maximum line speed, would determine
production levels in establishments. Allowing NSIS establishments to
operate at faster line speeds may allow establishments to slaughter
more efficiently but would not affect consumer demand for the
establishments' products. Moreover, all establishments, regardless of
line speed, are required to meet all local, state, and Federal
environmental requirements. FSIS does not anticipate that increasing
the line speed may have a significant environmental effect (7 CFR
1b.4(a)). Accordingly, this action is appropriately subject to the
categorical exclusion from the preparation of an EA or an EIS as
authorized under 7 CFR 1b.4 of the USDA regulations.
X. Additional Public Notification
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy
development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal
Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS will also announce and
provide a link 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 our
constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on
the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide
information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS
offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and
customized access to selected food safety news and information. This
service is available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options
range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and
notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have
the option to password protect their accounts.
XI. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its
Agencies, offices, employees, and institutions participating in or
administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on
race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital
status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance
program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil
rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA
(not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing
deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of
communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible
Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or
contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Additionally, program information may be made available in languages
other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA
Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to
File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write
a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the
information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint
form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA
by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of
[[Page 7926]]
Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-
7442; or (3) email: [email protected].
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Proposed Regulatory Amendments
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 310
Animal diseases, Blood, Meat inspection.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to
amend 9 CFR chapter III as follows:
PART 310--POST-MORTEM INSPECTION
0
1. The authority citation for part 310 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
0
2. Republish and amend paragraph (c) of Sec. 310.26 to read as
follows:
(c) Line speed limits. The line speed limits in Sec. 310.1 do not
apply to the establishment, provided it is able to maintain effective
process control and prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by
enteric pathogens and visible fecal material, ingesta, and milk.
Establishments operating under the NSIS must slow operations as
directed by the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC). IICs are authorized to
require establishments to reduce the rate of establishment operations
at any point in the slaughter process when, in their judgment, there is
a loss of process control or when carcass-by-carcass inspection cannot
be adequately performed due to the manner of presentation or the
condition of the animals.
0
3. Remove Sec. 310.27.
0
4. Remove Sec. 310.28.
Done in Washington, DC.
Justin Ransom,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-03228 Filed 2-18-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P