Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-03227

Proposed Rule2026-03227

Maximum Line Speed Rates for Young Chicken and Turkey Establishments Operating Under the New Poultry Inspection System

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

February 19, 2026

Issuing agencies

Agriculture DepartmentFood Safety and Inspection Service

Abstract

FSIS is proposing to amend the regulations to: allow young chicken establishments operating under the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) to operate at line speeds up to 175 birds per minute (bpm); increase the maximum line speed prescribed for turkey establishments operating under the NPIS from 55 bpm to 60 bpm; define "maximum line speed" as the time it takes for an inspector to effectively perform online carcass inspection procedures; clarify when FSIS may direct establishments to operate at a reduced line speed; and remove requirements for NPIS establishments to submit to FSIS annual attestations on worker safety programs. The proposed amendments would allow poultry establishments to slaughter birds more efficiently while continuing to ensure food safety and effective online carcass inspection.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7926-7948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03227]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. FSIS-2025-0012]
RIN 0583-AE01

Maximum Line Speed Rates for Young Chicken and Turkey
Establishments Operating Under the New Poultry Inspection System

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: FSIS is proposing to amend the regulations to: allow young
chicken establishments operating under the New Poultry Inspection
System (NPIS) to operate at line speeds up to 175 birds per minute
(bpm); increase the maximum line speed prescribed for turkey
establishments operating under the NPIS from 55 bpm to 60 bpm; define
``maximum line speed'' as the time it takes for an inspector to
effectively perform online carcass inspection procedures; clarify when
FSIS may direct establishments to operate at a reduced line speed; and
remove requirements for NPIS establishments to submit to FSIS annual
attestations on worker safety programs. The proposed amendments would
allow poultry establishments to slaughter birds more efficiently while
continuing to ensure food safety and effective online carcass
inspection.

DATES: Comments 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:
<bullet> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for
submitting comments.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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-
2025-0012. Comments received in response to this docket will be made
available for public inspection and posted without change, including
any personal information, to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 for the Office of Policy and Program Development, at
(202) 205-0495 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#15717a767e7061767970677e55606671743b727a63">[email&#160;protected]</a> with a subject line of ``Docket
No. FSIS 2025-0012.'' 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-2025-0012 on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Current FSIS regulations allow NPIS young chicken slaughter
establishments to operate at a maximum line speed of 140 bpm (9 CFR
381.69(a)).
When FSIS issued the final NPIS rule in 2014, the Agency granted
regulatory waivers to allow 20 poultry establishments that participated
in the former Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)-Based
Inspection Models Project (HIMP) pilot study to continue to operate at
line speeds up to 175 bpm, because data from the HIMP pilot
demonstrated that they were capable of consistently producing safe,
wholesome, and unadulterated product and meeting pathogen reduction
performance standards \1\ (79 FR 49566, 49591).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Evaluation of HACCP Inspection Models Project (HIMP), August
2011, available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/compliance-
guidance/haccp/haccp-based-inspection-models-
project#:~:text=The%20HACCP-
Based%20Inspection%20Models,meat%20and%20poultry%20inspection%20syste
m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2018, FSIS began to consider requests for additional waivers
from NPIS young chicken establishments to operate at line speeds of up
to 175 bpm if these establishments met certain criteria (83 FR 49048).
A contracted,

[[Page 7927]]

peer-reviewed study \2\ (herein referred to as the Line Speed Study) of
data collected from 2018-2019 found that the presence of Salmonella on
young chicken carcasses and other indicators of problems with process
control,\3\ such as noncompliance records (NRs) for regulations
associated with process control and food safety, were not significantly
increased in establishments operating at higher line speeds under a
waiver, i.e., higher than 140 bpm and up to 175 bpm, compared to
establishments with lower line speeds that were not operating under
line speed waivers. Similarly, FSIS' ongoing verification of
establishments' Salmonella Initiative Program (SIP) data demonstrates
that NPIS establishments operating under line speed waivers are
consistently maintaining process control when operating at faster line
speeds. Under SIP, slaughter establishments test for microbial
pathogens and respond to the ongoing results by taking steps necessary
to maintain process control and minimize the presence of pathogens of
public health concern. Participating establishments share their testing
data with FSIS to verify ongoing control of food safety hazards while
operating under a line speed waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Cox Jr., L.A., 2021. Higher line speed in young chicken
slaughter establishments does not predict increased Salmonella
contamination risks. Poultry Science, 100(2), pp.635-642._https://
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.084">doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.084</a>.
\3\ An establishment is maintaining process control when their
food safety system is performing as intended to consistently control
hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FSIS stopped accepting new poultry line speed waiver requests in
March 2020 because, based on the waivers it had approved and the
additional waiver applications under review at that time, FSIS had
collected sufficient data from participating establishments to move
forward with rulemaking.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ FSIS No Longer Accepting Poultry Line Speed Waiver Requests,
FSIS Constituent Update, April 24, 2020: <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-april-24-2020">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-april-24-2020</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In July 2022, in response to litigation \5\ challenging FSIS'
issuance of line speed waivers to establishments participating in the
NPIS, FSIS modified the NPIS line speed waivers initiated in 2018 to
require that participating establishments submit monthly worker safety
data to facilitate a study on the effects of increased evisceration
line speeds on establishment worker safety (herein referred to as the
Worker Safety Study).\6\ In addition to submitting monthly worker
safety data, participating establishments were involved in extensive
research by the contracted study team, which included on-site visits,
surveys and interviews with establishment workers, and measurements of
ergonomic exposures. The study was completed on January 9, 2025, and
posted on the FSIS website on January 10, 2025.\7\ The study concluded
that increased evisceration line speeds are not associated with
increased risk of musculoskeletal disorder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. No. 227 v. United
States Dep't of Agric., No. 20-cv-02045 (D.D.C. 2023) (voluntary
dismissal after modification of line speed waivers).
\6\ FSIS Announces Study of Effect of Increased Poultry Line
Speeds on Worker Safety, FSIS Constituent Update, July 29, 2022:
<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-july-29-2022">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-july-29-2022</a>.
\7\ Poultry Processing Line Speed Evaluation Study available at:
<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/publications/poultry-processing-line-speed-evaluation-study-pulse">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/publications/poultry-processing-line-speed-evaluation-study-pulse</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After reviewing and evaluating the earlier peer-reviewed Line Speed
Study, FSIS' ongoing verification of establishments' SIP data, and the
Worker Safety Study, the Agency is proposing to amend the regulations
to allow NPIS young chicken establishments to operate at line speeds up
to 175 bpm. The amendments, if finalized, would reduce regulatory
burden and enable establishments to operate more efficiently without
compromising food safety. These changes would also continue to ensure
that FSIS inspectors are able to perform an effective online inspection
of each bird processed, as required by the Poultry Products Inspection
Act (PPIA).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ 21 U.S.C. 455(b); See also Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO
v. Glickman, 215 F.3d 7, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The maximum line speed for NPIS turkey establishments is 55 bpm.
There is currently one turkey establishment operating under a waiver to
operate at up to 60 bpm. FSIS is proposing to amend the regulations to
permit NPIS turkey establishments to operate at up to 60 bpm without
the need for a regulatory waiver. SIP data from this establishment
shows it can operate effectively without compromising food safety at 60
bpm and that other turkey slaughter establishments should also be able
to gain efficiency and maintain food safety at 60 bpm.
FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 381.69(a) to define ``maximum line
speed'' as the speed at which an inspector can effectively perform
online carcass inspection procedures to clarify that ``maximum line
speed'' refers to the point of FSIS inspection, consistent with FSIS'
longstanding practice of conducting line speed checks at the point of
inspection. FSIS is also proposing to clarify in 381.69(d) 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, required by the PPIA. FSIS is also proposing to remove 9
CFR 381.45, which requires that NPIS establishments submit an annual
attestation stating that they maintain a program to monitor and
document work-related conditions of establishment workers. Likewise,
FSIS is proposing to remove 9 CFR 381.46, which states that should a
court hold any provision of 9 CFR 381.45 to be invalid, the action will
be severable from (i.e., will not affect) any other provision of the
FSIS poultry inspection regulations. These actions are being proposed
because FSIS lacks statutory authority to regulate establishment worker
safety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the
Federal agency with statutory and regulatory authority to promote
workplace safety and health (see Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). FSIS' authority with respect to working
conditions in FSIS-regulated establishments extends only to Agency
inspection personnel.\9\ Removing the worker safety attestation
requirement would eliminate any confusion about FSIS' lack of statutory
authority over establishment worker safety. Regardless of the
attestation, establishments, of course, are required to comply with all
applicable Federal (e.g., OSHA-administered), state, and local worker
safety requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FSIS has also issued waivers to establishments that slaughter
poultry other than young chickens and turkeys, allowing them to operate
under NPIS (9 CFR 381.76(b)(1)(iv)) or the Streamlined Inspection
System (SIS) (9 CFR 381.76(b)(3)). The Agency intends to evaluate data
from these establishments operating under a waiver to determine whether
to pursue rulemaking, in a separate action, to expand NPIS or SIS to
additional classes of poultry.

Summary of Costs and Benefits

Table 1 presents the estimated costs, benefits, and net benefits of
the proposed rule. Later portions of the regulatory impact analysis
section contain an explanation of the assumptions, estimates,
alternative scenarios, and the number of NPIS establishments that FSIS
expects would

[[Page 7928]]

increase their line speeds over a range of potential changes.

Table 1--Summary of the Net Benefits
[Million $]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of establishments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper (85
Lower (23 est.) Mid (58 est.) est.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits................................ 223....................... 386....................... 534
Costs................................... 127....................... 202....................... 309
Net Benefits............................ 96........................ 184....................... 225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimates were for a mid-point (15 percent) increase in line speed changes and annualized assuming a 5-
year adoption period at a 7 percent discount rate over 10 years. Details and requests for comments about the
underlying analysis appear later in this publication.

Table of Contents

I. Background
A. History of Maximum Line Speeds for NPIS Young Chicken
Establishments
B. National Chicken Council Petition and Line Speed Waiver
C. Line Speed Study, FSIS Ongoing Verification, and Discontinued
Waiver Requests
D. Worker Safety Study
E. Proposed Elimination of Attestation Requirement
F. Proposed Changes to the NPIS Maximum Line Speed Rates
II. Environmental Impact
III. Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866, as Amended by 13563, and 14192
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VI. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
VII. E-Government Act
VIII. Executive Order 13175
IX. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement
X. Additional Public Notification
XI. Proposed Regulatory Amendments

I. Background

A. History of Maximum Line Speeds for NPIS Young Chicken Establishments

FSIS inspects and regulates the production of poultry prepared for
distribution in interstate commerce under the authority of the PPIA (21
U.S.C. 451 et seq.). The PPIA requires that ``[t]he Secretary [of
Agriculture], whenever processing operations are being conducted, shall
cause to be made by inspectors post mortem inspection of the carcass of
each bird processed . . .'' (21 U.S.C. 455(b)). The PPIA also provides
that the Secretary shall promulgate such other rules and regulations as
are necessary to carry out the provisions of the statute (21 U.S.C.
463(b)).
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
79 FR 49566, 49572 and 84 FR 52300, 52302).
Under HIMP, establishment personnel, rather than FSIS inspectors
(as is the case under all other poultry inspection systems \10\), were
responsible for sorting carcasses, disposing of carcasses affected with
conditions that would require that they be condemned, and conducting
any trimming and reprocessing that they believe necessary to correct
removable defects (79 FR 49566, 49572).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Poultry slaughter inspections systems other than the NPIS
include the SIS, New Line Speed Inspection System (NELS), NTI
System, and Traditional Inspection. The maximum line speed under SIS
is 35 bpm, under NELS it is 91 bpm, and under NTI, it is 55 bpm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FSIS' experience under the HIMP pilot showed that online inspectors
in HIMP young chicken establishments were able to conduct an effective
online post-mortem inspection of each carcass when operating line
speeds up to 175 bpm and that HIMP establishments were able to maintain
process control when operating at the line speeds authorized under HIMP
\11\ (79 FR 49566, 49567).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Evaluation of HACCP Inspection Models Project (HIMP),
August 2011, available at: <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-10/Evaluation_HACCP_HIMP.pdf">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-10/Evaluation_HACCP_HIMP.pdf</a>. <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/compliance-guidance/haccp/haccp-based-inspection-models-project">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/compliance-guidance/haccp/haccp-based-inspection-models-project</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS)
Based on its experience under and data from the HIMP pilot, on
August 21, 2014, FSIS published a final rule that established the NPIS
as an additional optional inspection system for young chicken and all
turkey slaughter establishments to ``facilitate pathogen reduction in
poultry products, improve the effectiveness of poultry slaughter
inspection, make better use of the Agency's resources, and remove
unnecessary regulatory obstacles to innovation'' (79 FR 49566). Prior
to the HIMP pilot study and the NPIS, FSIS online inspectors positioned
along the evisceration line were responsible for identifying
unacceptable carcasses and parts, examining carcasses for visual
defects, and directing establishment employees to take appropriate
corrective actions if the defects can be corrected through trimming and
reprocessing.\12\ Under the NPIS, establishment employees sort
carcasses and remove unacceptable carcasses and parts before the birds
are presented to an online inspector located at the end of the line
before the chiller. Because the online inspector under the NPIS is
presented with carcasses that have been sorted, washed, and trimmed by
establishment employees, and are thus more likely to pass inspection,
the inspector is able to conduct a more efficient online post-mortem
inspection of each carcass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ This is still the case for all other FSIS poultry
inspection systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Process Control
Under whichever inspection system establishments are operating,
establishments design and use process control procedures necessary for
the production of safe, wholesome, and unadulterated products as
required by the PPIA. The procedures typically include a means of
observing or measuring system performance,

[[Page 7929]]

analyzing the results generated to define a set of control criteria,
and taking action when necessary to ensure that the system continues to
perform within the control criteria. 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
jurisdiction that slaughter poultry other than ratites. Under the NPIS
final rule, all poultry slaughter establishments must develop,
implement, and maintain written procedures to ensure that carcasses
contaminated with visible fecal material do not enter the chiller, and
they must incorporate these procedures into their HACCP plans,
sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), or other prerequisite
programs. The NPIS final rule also requires that all poultry slaughter
establishments develop, implement, and maintain written procedures to
prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens and
fecal material throughout the entire slaughter and dressing operation,
and that they incorporate their procedures into their HACCP systems (79
FR 49566, 49568).
Maximum Line Speeds
The maximum line speeds authorized under poultry inspection systems
reflect the time it takes for an inspector to effectively perform the
online carcass inspection procedures required for the system. The
fastest line speed authorized for a non-NPIS young chicken inspection
system is 140 birds per minute (bpm) with four online inspectors, i.e.,
35 bpm per inspector under the Streamlined Inspection System (SIS) for
young chickens.
Based on FSIS' experience under HIMP, the Agency initially proposed
175 bpm as the maximum line speed for NPIS young chicken establishments
because online inspectors in HIMP young chicken establishments were
able to conduct an effective online inspection of each carcass when
operating at a line speed of up to 175 bpm and HIMP establishments were
able to maintain process control at the line speeds authorized under
HIMP (77 FR 4408, 4419). However, after considering the public comments
submitted on the proposed rule, FSIS concluded that it was important to
assess additional young chicken establishments' ability to maintain
process control as they implement changes to operate under the NPIS (79
FR 49566, 49591). Therefore, the final rule that established the NPIS
provided for a maximum line speed of 140 bpm for young chicken
establishments, instead of 175 bpm as was proposed, with an exception
for the 20 young chicken establishments that participated in the HIMP
pilot study.
In the preamble to the final rule, FSIS explained that it decided
to grant waivers to the 20 young chicken HIMP establishments,
permitting them to continue to operate at lines speeds of up to 175 bpm
after they converted to the NPIS, because data from the HIMP pilot
demonstrated that these establishments were capable of consistently
producing safe, wholesome, and unadulterated product and were able to
meet pathogen reduction and other performance standards when operating
under line speeds authorized under HIMP (79 FR 49566, 49591). The
establishments were required to participate in FSIS' SIP \13\ as a
condition of their waiver. The preamble to the final rule stated that
``[a]fter the NPIS has been fully implemented on a wide scale, and the
Agency has gained at least a year of experience under the new system,
FSIS intends to assess the impact of changes adopted by establishments
operating under the NPIS by evaluating the results of the Agency's
Salmonella and Campylobacter verification sampling, reviewing
documentation on establishments' [other consumer protection]
performance, and other relevant factors.'' (79 FR 49566, 49591). The
preamble also stated that, ``once the NPIS is fully implemented at most
establishments, data from these establishments can be used to compare
against data from the [former HIMP] young chicken establishments
operating under the [line speed] waivers.'' (79 FR 49566, 49591). Thus,
when FSIS published the final rule establishing the NPIS, it made clear
that the Agency would continue to consider line speeds at which
establishments are capable of: (1) maintaining process control to
prevent fecal and enteric pathogen contamination and (2) consistently
producing safe, wholesome, and unadulterated product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Under the SIP, FSIS grants establishments a waiver of
regulatory requirements with the condition that the establishment
collects and analyzes samples for microbial organisms, including
both Salmonella and indicator organisms, and shares the results with
FSIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. National Chicken Council Petition and Line Speed Waivers

On September 1, 2017, the National Chicken Council (NCC) petitioned
FSIS to implement a waiver system to exempt young chicken slaughter
establishments from the regulation that prescribes 140 bpm as the
maximum line speed under the NPIS (9 CFR 381.69(a)).\14\ The petition
requested that FSIS allow participating establishments to operate at
any line speed at which they can maintain process control. FSIS is
authorized to grant regulatory waivers under 9 CFR 381.3(b), which
provides that, ``[t]he Administrator may in specific classes of cases
waive for limited periods any provisions of the regulations . . . to
permit experimentation so that new procedures, equipment, and
processing techniques may be tested to facilitate definite
improvements: Provided, [t]hat such waivers . . . are not in conflict
with the purposes or provisions of the Act.'' Additionally, in the
October 13, 2017 Constituent Update, FSIS announced that the petition
was available for comment.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ NCC petition available at: <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register/petitions/petition-permit-waivers-maximum-line-speed-rates-poultry">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register/petitions/petition-permit-waivers-maximum-line-speed-rates-poultry</a>.
\15\ FSIS' October 13, 2017, Constituent Update available at:
<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/import/ConstiUpdate101317.pdf">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/import/ConstiUpdate101317.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 29, 2018, FSIS sent a response to the NCC denying the
petition.\16\ In its response, FSIS explained that because it already
has detailed procedures for the submission of new technology
notifications and protocols, as well as procedures for requests for
waivers from regulatory requirements under the SIP, the Agency
determined that it was unnecessary to establish a separate system to
provide line speed waivers to young chicken establishments. In addition
to denying the petition, the response noted that FSIS then had over a
year of documented process control history for many young chicken
establishments operating under the NPIS. The response explained that
based on this history, FSIS had decided to consider requests for
waivers from young chicken establishments, in addition to the 20 former
HIMP establishments, to operate at line speeds of up to 175 bpm. In the
February 23, 2018, Constituent Update, FSIS announced the criteria that
the Agency would use to consider requests from NPIS young chicken
slaughter establishments to operate at line speeds of up to 175 bpm and
outlined the waiver request submission requirements.\17\ FSIS published
a

[[Page 7930]]

Federal Register notice on September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49048), to respond
to comments on the NCC petition and further discussed criteria
applicable to line speed waivers for young chicken establishments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ FSIS' January 29, 2018, response to the petition is
available at: <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register/petitions/petition-permit-waivers-maximum-line-speed-rates-poultry">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register/petitions/petition-permit-waivers-maximum-line-speed-rates-poultry</a>.
\17\ FSIS' Criteria for Consideration of Waiver Requests for
Young Chicken Slaughter Establishments to Operate at Line Speeds up
to 175 bpm, FSIS, Constituent Update (February 23, 2018) available
at: <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-february-23-2018">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-february-23-2018</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the criteria announced in the September 2018 Federal Register
notice, to be eligible for a line speed waiver, a young chicken
establishment:
<bullet> Must have been operating under the NPIS for at least one
year, during which time it had been in compliance with all NPIS
requirements;
<bullet> Must have been in Salmonella performance standard category
1 or 2 for young chicken carcasses; \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Establishments in FSIS' Salmonella performance category 1
are achieving a Salmonella percent positive at least 50 percent
lower than the Agency's Salmonella performance standard.
Establishments in Salmonella performance category 2 are achieving a
Salmonella percent positive higher than those in category 1 but that
is at or below the Agency's Salmonella performance standard. FSIS
has also established Salmonella performance standards for raw
chicken parts and not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) comminuted chicken and
turkey products (81 FR 7285). The line speed waiver criteria require
that establishments meet the Salmonella performance categories for
young chicken carcasses because these standards reflect Salmonella
prevalence on carcasses at the end of slaughter operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Must have had a demonstrated history of regulatory
compliance. For purposes of the waiver, a history of regulatory
compliance meant that the establishment: (1) had not received a public
health regulation alert \19\ for the last 120 days; (2) had not had an
enforcement action as a result of a Food Safety Assessment (FSA)
conducted in the last 120 days; (3) had not been the subject of a
public health related enforcement action in the last 120 days; and (4)
had not had an NR for violation of good commercial practices (GCPs) (9
CFR 381.65(b)) in the last 120 days; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ This refers to a public health regulation (PHR) alert
issued through the Public Health Information System for non-
compliance with public health regulations (see FSIS Directive
5100.2, Public Health Regulations and FSIS Response to Elevated
Public Health Regulation Noncompliance Rates (September 25, 2019)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Must have been able to demonstrate that the new equipment,
technologies, or procedures that allowed the establishment to operate
at faster line speeds would maintain or improve food safety.
In addition to describing the criteria that establishments had to
meet to qualify for a line speed waiver, the September 2018 Federal
Register notice described the documentation that establishments needed
to include in their waiver request submissions. The notice also
explained that, because FSIS intended to use the data collected from
young chicken establishments operating under waivers to evaluate their
ability to maintain process control at faster line speeds, the Agency
would limit line speed waivers to establishments that had the ability
and intention to operate at line speeds higher than 140 bpm (83 FR
49048, 49051). Thus, as a condition for their waiver, establishments
had to routinely operate at least one line faster than 140 bpm and
agree to notify the FSIS inspector when operating at faster line
speeds.
The September 2018 Federal Register notice also explained that as a
condition of their waivers, consistent with other slaughter
establishments operating under waivers, NPIS young chicken
establishments were required to participate in the SIP (83 FR 49048,
49051). Under the SIP, FSIS granted an establishment a waiver of
regulatory requirements with the condition that the establishment
collected and analyzed samples for microbial organisms, including both
Salmonella and indicator organisms, and shared the results with FSIS.
NPIS young chicken establishments operating under line speed waivers
were required to conduct daily aerobic plate count (APC) testing, and
at least weekly testing for Salmonella. To promote the collection of
consistent data across establishments, FSIS developed a template that
establishments operating under line speed waivers used to report their
SIP data to FSIS. Under SIP, establishments take appropriate actions to
address increasing levels of Salmonella or indicator organisms. FSIS
continues to verify that establishments operating under line speed
waivers submit the SIP data and respond to it according to the terms of
their SIP letter on an ongoing basis. FSIS also monitors the results of
its Salmonella testing and establishments' regulatory compliance on an
ongoing basis to verify that establishments remain eligible for their
waivers and to verify that they are maintaining process control when
operating at faster line speeds.
To ensure that the data collected from all NPIS establishments with
line speed waivers would be comparable, FSIS issued new waiver letters
containing the eligibility criteria to the 20 former HIMP
establishments that had been operating under line speed waivers. The
Agency gave the former HIMP establishments 120 days from receipt of the
letter to meet the new waiver criteria. Eighteen of the 20 former HIMP
establishments met the criteria and were issued new line speed waivers.
In addition to participating in the SIP, young chicken
establishments that have been granted a line speed waiver had to
continue to meet the criteria described in the September 2018 Federal
Register notice to remain eligible for their waiver. FSIS continues to
follow the procedures in FSIS Directive 5020.1, Verification Activities
for the Use of New Technology in Meat and Poultry Establishments and
Egg Products Plants (October 6, 2016),\20\ to verify that
establishments granted waivers remain eligible for their waivers and
are following the process control procedures agreed to as a condition
for the waivers. If FSIS finds that an establishment that has been
granted a line speed waiver is unable to meet the conditions of its
waiver agreement, the Agency will consider whether to allow the
establishment to implement corrective actions and resume operating
under the waiver or whether the waiver needs to be revoked. If the
waiver is revoked, the establishment is required to comply with the 140
bpm maximum line speed for the NPIS (9 CFR 381.69(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Available at: <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-directives/5020.1">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-directives/5020.1</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FSIS posts a table of all young chicken establishments that have
line speed waivers on its website at:<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/inspection-programs/inspection-poultry-products/modernization-poultry-slaughter">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/inspection-programs/inspection-poultry-products/modernization-poultry-slaughter</a>.

C. Line Speed Study, FSIS Ongoing Verification, and Discontinued Waiver
Requests

Line Speed Study
As discussed in the September 2018 Federal Register notice, when
FSIS published the waiver criteria, the Agency intended to use the data
generated from young chicken establishments that were granted new line
speed waivers, along with the data generated from the former young
chicken HIMP establishments operating under updated line speed waivers,
to assess the ability of NPIS establishments to maintain process
control at higher line speeds and to inform future rulemaking, if
supported (83 FR 49048, 49052). FSIS collected information from 97
young chicken slaughter establishments (including those with line speed
waivers) operating under the NPIS from July 2, 2018, to July 12, 2019,
including routine verification data, the number of lines operating,
operation hours, and recorded line speeds for each line operating.\21\
A contracted, peer-

[[Page 7931]]

reviewed study \22\ of the data applied parametric and non-parametric
regressions and non-parametric machine learning methods to analyze
Salmonella carcass sample results and NRs for regulations related to
process control and food safety. The Line Speed Study compared the
relative frequency distributions of positive Salmonella carcass samples
and other indicators of process control, such as NRs for regulations
related to food safety and process control, among establishments
operating at different line speeds. All young chicken establishments
operating under the NPIS from July 2, 2018, to July 12, 2019, were
analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Available at: <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-directives/5020.1">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-directives/5020.1</a>.
\22\ Cox, L.A. (2021). Higher line speed in young chicken
slaughter establishments does not predict increased Salmonella
contamination risks. Poultry Science, 100(2), 635-642. https://
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.084">doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.084</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Line Speed Study analyzed the data collected by FSIS and found
that the presence of Salmonella on young chicken carcasses and other
indicators of issues with process control, such as NRs for regulations
associated with process control and food safety, are not significantly
increased in establishments operating under line speed waivers compared
to establishments with lower line speeds that were not operating under
line speed waivers.
Although they were permitted to do so, not all establishments
operating under line speed waivers (as a part of the Line Speed Study)
chose to operate at the maximum permitted line speed of 175 bpm. As a
condition of their waiver, they were, however, required to routinely
operate at least one line at line speeds higher than 140 bpm. Several
establishments with line speed waivers operated at line speeds between
140 bpm and 160 bpm. Establishments considered a number of factors to
determine their line speed, including their equipment and facilities,
bird size and flock condition, and their ability to maintain process
control when operating at a given line speed. In addition,
establishments operating under the NPIS considered the number of
employees who had been trained and were available to conduct carcass
sorting when determining line speed.
FSIS Ongoing Verification
As noted above, to ensure consistency in data collection and
analysis, establishments with line speed waivers are required to
conduct daily testing for aerobic count (AC) and weekly testing for
Salmonella, and to submit their results, along with the line speed they
were operating under when the data was collected, using a template
provided by FSIS. Since it began granting waivers under the new
criteria, FSIS has reviewed these SIP data submitted by all
establishments operating under line speed waivers on an ongoing basis
to verify their ability to maintain process control when operating at
line speeds faster than 140 bpm and up to 175 bpm. These SIP data were
submitted by establishments that were included in the Line Speed Study
described above. FSIS continues to review SIP data from establishments.
As described in the letters granting the line speed waivers, FSIS
verifies monthly SIP submissions to ensure that the establishment's
internal sampling is concordant with FSIS sampling data. If the
establishment's sampling shows that Salmonella percent positives in a
52-week moving window exceeds the performance standard for young
chicken carcasses, currently 9.8%,\23\ FSIS verifies that the
establishment investigated the underlying cause(s) and implemented
preventive and corrective actions detailed in the waiver letter to
restore process control. Additionally, FSIS verifies that the
establishment follows their written program for AC when identified by
the establishment as a data point to inform process control; this
includes verifying that the establishment investigated the underlying
cause(s) and took any applicable corrective action in response to test
results exceeding the establishment's specific control limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ 81 FR 7285, 7294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FSIS also reviews the results of its Salmonella sampling to verify
that establishments are maintaining process control and that they
continue to meet the performance standards for category 1 or 2 for
young chicken carcasses when operating at faster line speeds.
Additionally, FSIS reviews the results of the Agency's 10-bird offline
verification checks to verify that establishments are meeting the zero-
tolerance standard for visible fecal contamination and septicemia/
toxemia (9 CFR 381.65(f), 9 CFR 381.76(b)(6)(ii)(C), and 9 CFR 381.83)
and that they are not producing product with persistent unattended non-
food safety trim and processing defects when operating at higher line
speeds (9 CFR 381.69(c), 9 CFR 381.76(b)(6)(ii)(A), and 9 CFR 381.1).
FSIS verifies that establishments operating under line speed waivers
continue to meet the criteria for demonstrating regulatory compliance
on an ongoing basis, i.e., that they have not received a public health
alert, have not had an enforcement action as a result of an FSA, have
not been the subject of a public health related enforcement action, and
do not have NRs for GCP violations.
FSIS' ongoing verification of establishments' compliance with the
line speed waiver criteria and other information generated by
establishments that have been granted line speed waivers provide
further support for the Agency's conclusion that young chicken NPIS
establishments are able to consistently maintain process control at
line speeds faster than 140 bpm and up to 175 bpm.
Discontinued Review of New Waiver Requests
On March 20, 2020, FSIS stopped accepting additional requests for
line speed waivers because the Agency determined that, based on the
waivers it had approved and the additional waiver applications under
review at that time, enough establishments would be operating under
line speed waivers for FSIS to assess the effectiveness of its line
speed waiver eligibility criteria and to determine whether to move
forward with rulemaking. Waiver establishments produced 33 percent of
young chicken in 2024 and are representative of the establishments most
likely to increase their line speeds if this proposed rule is
finalized. These establishments are all large, high-volume operations
with production volumes and operational characteristics similar to
other NPIS 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.
FSIS announced its decision to stop accepting additional line speed
waiver requests in the April 24, 2020, Constituent Update.\24\ As
explained in that document, all waivers that FSIS responded to in April
2020 were received between August 8, 2019, and February 21, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ FSIS No Longer Accepting Poultry Line Speed Waivers, FSIS
Constituent Update (April 24, 2020) available at:<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-april-24-2020">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-april-24-2020</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Worker Safety Study

In July 2020, the United Food and Commercial Workers International
Union (UFCW) sued FSIS in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, challenging FSIS' issuance of the young chicken line speed
waivers.\25\ UFCW argued that the Agency's decision to grant the
poultry line speed waivers without considering establishment worker
safety was arbitrary and capricious and violated

[[Page 7932]]

the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment rulemaking
procedures (5 U.S.C. 553). The plaintiffs expressed concern about the
effects of higher line speeds on establishment workers, including
increased risk of acute physical injuries and musculoskeletal problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ United Food and Commercial Workers Union, et al. v. USDA,
No. 1:20-cv-02045 (D.D.C.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In January 2022, the Court in the UFCW case granted FSIS' motion
for a voluntary remand to allow the Agency to review the poultry line
speed waivers in light of the ``Time Limited Trials'' (TLTs) initiated
in New Swine Slaughter Inspection System (NSIS) establishments, whereby
a third-party contractor would be studying the potential effects of
line speed on workers in swine establishments.\26\ In July 2022, FSIS
modified the poultry line speed waiver process, to require that
establishments submit, in addition to the monthly SIP data, monthly
worker safety data to facilitate a third-party contracted study on the
effects of increased evisceration line speeds on establishment worker
safety.\27\ FSIS granted these modified waivers to 49 out of 50
establishments with existing waivers on March 31, 2023.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ FSIS contracted with a third-party after a decision in
which the U.S. District Court for the District in Minnesota
reimposed a cap on line speed under NSIS because the court
determined that FSIS specifically solicited worker safety comments
and then failed to address them, in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act. United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. No. 663 v.
United States Dep't of Agric., 532 F. Supp. 3d 741 (D. Minn. 2021).
However, as discussed later in this proposed rule, OSHA, not FSIS,
regulates worker safety. FSIS can consider worker safety (e.g., by
contracting experts), but cannot regulate worker safety.
Establishments, themselves, are responsible for complying with
occupational safety laws and providing and maintaining a safe
workplace environment.
\27\ FSIS Announces Study of Effect of Increased Poultry Line
Speeds on Worker Safety, FSIS Constituent Update, July 29, 2022:
<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-july-29-2022">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-july-29-2022</a>.
\28\ Once the establishments at issue in the lawsuit were
granted modified line speed waivers, the lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on April 27, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order for the contractors to complete their study, the modified
waivers were extended through January 15, 2025. On January 10, 2025,
the contracted Worker Safety Study, known as the Poultry Processing
Line Speed Evaluation (PULSE) Study, was posted on FSIS' website.\29\
As of March 17, 2025, FSIS no longer required establishments to submit
worker safety data as a condition of their waiver.\30\ Waivers will
remain in effect through the conclusion of this rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Poultry Processing Line Speed Evaluation Study (PULSE)
available at: <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/publications/poultry-processing-line-speed-evaluation-study-pulse">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/publications/poultry-processing-line-speed-evaluation-study-pulse</a>.
\30\ Secretary Rollins Takes Action to Streamline Pork and
Poultry Processing in the United States: <a href="https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/17/secretary-rollins-takes-action-streamline-us-pork-and-poultry-processing">https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/17/secretary-rollins-takes-action-streamline-us-pork-and-poultry-processing</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PULSE Study found that while 40 percent of workers across all
studied establishments reported work-related pain, such pain was not
reported more frequently at establishments operating at higher line
speeds. Further, the study showed that musculoskeletal disorder (MSD)
risk was more closely associated with the number of chicken parts
handled per minute by an establishment worker (``piece rate'') than
line speed. The study acknowledged that piece rates were similar across
all establishments regardless of evisceration line speed and that such
rates can be readily addressed by job-specific staffing. Thus,
establishments can maintain or even reduce piece rate by adding staff
or redistributing tasks, even as line speed increases.
In its report, the PULSE study team provided recommendations to
poultry processing establishments to reduce MSD risk and improve
overall worker safety in poultry processing establishments, aligned
with best practices published by OSHA on ergonomics, medical
management, and exposure control.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ Ergonomics Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking
Plants (DOL/OSHA 1993); Guidelines for Poultry Processing (DOL/OSHA
2004); Guidelines for Mitigating Ergonomic Risks in Meat and Poultry
Processing (DOL/OSHA 2013) at: <a href="https://www.osha.gov/meatpacking">https://www.osha.gov/meatpacking</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although, as discussed below, FSIS-does not have the statutory
authority to require that establishments adopt the study's
recommendations to assist them in adhering to applicable worker safety
requirements \32\ and mitigating MSD risk, FSIS encourages the
establishments to consider the report recommendations, including
evaluating staffing needs to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal
disorders, and resources available on OSHA's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ For example, under the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act,
establishments must keep their workplaces free from recognized
serious hazards, which includes ergonomic hazards (see 29 U.S.C.
654(a)(1), providing that each employer ``shall 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Proposed Elimination of Attestation Requirement

FSIS' regulations in 9 CFR 381.45 currently require that
establishments operating under the NPIS submit an annual attestation
stating that they maintain a program to monitor and document work-
related conditions of establishment workers. However, this
Administration has engaged in de novo review of FSIS' authority with
respect to working conditions of non-FSIS personnel in slaughter
establishments. FSIS' statutory authority with respect to working
conditions of non-FSIS personnel in inspected establishments is not
ambiguous: FSIS cannot regulate establishment worker safety.
FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of
the Secretary of Agriculture under the PPIA (7 CFR 2.18(a)(1)(ii)(A),
2.53(a)(2)(i)). The PPIA authorizes FSIS to administer and enforce laws
and regulations to protect consumers by verifying that poultry products
are safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and
packaged (21 U.S.C. 451). Congress's policy intentions are set forth in
Section 3 of the statute, which provides that the PPIA was enacted ``to
prevent the movement or sale in interstate or foreign commerce of, or
the burdening of such commerce by, poultry products which are
adulterated or misbranded'' (21 U.S.C. 452). Likewise, in Section 9,
aside from a provision concerning the protection of trade secrets,
Congress limited prohibited acts under the PPIA to those pertaining to
food safety (21 U.S.C. 458). The PPIA 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 employee workers.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (``OSH 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 an eTool
specific to the poultry processing industry that focuses on identifying
and mitigating hazards associated with most areas of the establishment,
including evisceration, cutting, and deboning. Consistent with the OSH
Act of 1970, poultry establishments are responsible for providing a
safe and healthful workplace for their employees and for finding and
correcting safety and health problems. OSHA, in turn, bears the
regulatory responsibility for ensuring that poultry establishments do
so. The Administrative Procedure Act

[[Page 7933]]

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.34 35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).
\35\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
establishments 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
similarly have 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' swine 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).
FSIS' legal authority with respect to regulating working conditions
extends only to FSIS inspection personnel.\36\ OSHA, not FSIS, is the
Federal agency responsible for establishment worker safety issues.\37\
Although FSIS does not have the statutory authority to require that
establishments adopt the PULSE study's recommendations, FSIS commends
the report's recommendations to its inspected establishments as well as
the resources available on OSHA's website.\38\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ 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).
\37\ 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 (<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FSIS-2025-0012">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FSIS-2025-0012</a>).
\38\ See, e.g., OSHA's Safety and Health Topics web page on
Meatpacking, Meatpacking--Overview [verbar] Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The
PULSE study found that evisceration line speed was not associated with
MSD risk. Rather, piece rate, a metric of job-specific line speed and
staffing level, was associated with MSD risk. The absence of an
association between evisceration line speed and job-specific MSD risk
was due in part to higher job-specific staffing levels, lower job-
specific line speed, or both, at establishments operating at higher
line speeds in comparison to those operating at lower evisceration line
speeds. Because line speeds do not meaningfully impact worker safety,
the proposed increase in poultry establishment line speeds should not
represent a marked change to establishment worker safety. The study's
findings provide no basis for USDA to decline to increase the limit on
NPIS establishment line speeds. FSIS is concerned with protecting the
public health of consumers and ensuring that the poultry 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
poultry 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.\39\ Because FSIS lacks
the statutory authority to regulate establishment worker safety and the
attestation relates to work-related conditions of establishment
workers, the Agency is proposing to remove 9 CFR 381.45 and 381.46.

F. Proposed Changes to the NPIS Maximum Line Speed Rates

All NPIS Establishments
The regulation that established the maximum line speed for the NPIS
does not specify where on the processing line this speed applies. FSIS
has referred at times to the line speed with reference to inspection,
at other times to the evisceration line speed, and at other times to
both. As a practical matter, FSIS generally has not specified the point
of measurement but instead assessed a singular maximum speed that can
be maintained while also maintaining process control. FSIS is now
requesting comment on its proposed clarification that ``maximum line
speed'' in 9 CFR 381.69(a) refers to the time it takes for an inspector
to effectively perform online carcass inspection procedures. The PPIA
does not limit the speed of processing operations; however, this change
aligns with the Act's requirement of a carcass-by-carcass inspection of
each bird to ensure compliance with the Act's food safety
objectives.\40\ It is also consistent with FSIS' longstanding practice
of conducting line speed checks at the point of inspection. FSIS
Directive 6500.1 \41\ does not expressly instruct the IIC to conduct
line speed checks at the point of inspection. Nonetheless, the IIC has
historically conducted line speed verification checks at the point of
inspection because the directive instructs the IIC to assess the
presentation of birds to online inspectors and verify line speed for
the purpose of ensuring the inspectors are able to conduct statutorily
mandated carcass-by-carcass inspections. If this proposed rule becomes
final, FSIS would also update its directive to clarify

[[Page 7934]]

its instructions for verifying maximum line speeds at the point of
inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ See 21 U.S.C. 455(b).
\41\ Available at: <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/6500.1.pdf">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/6500.1.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under FSIS Directive 6500.1,\42\ IICs may slow the line if the
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. FSIS is
proposing to clarify in 9 CFR 381.69(d) that the IIC may slow
establishment operations, 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 birds are presented to the online carcass inspector or the
health condition of the particular flock. FSIS is also proposing to
clarify that the Agency may reduce the rate of establishment operations
at any point in the slaughter operation if the IIC determines that the
establishment is not maintaining process control or Inspection Program
Personnel (IPP) are not able to perform the required inspections under
the PPIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ Available at: <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/6500.1.pdf">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/6500.1.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NPIS Young Chicken Establishments
FSIS reviewed and evaluated the findings of the Line Speed Study,
together with the Agency's ongoing verification activities for
establishments operating under poultry line speed waivers. FSIS also
reviewed the conclusions and recommendations in the PULSE study. FSIS
has determined that, in accordance with its statutory authority over
food safety, the available information supports moving forward with
rulemaking to permit NPIS young chicken establishments to operate at
line speeds faster than 140 bpm and up to 175 bpm.
FSIS is proposing to amend the regulation that prescribes maximum
line speeds under the NPIS to permit young chicken slaughter
establishments to operate at line speeds up to 175 bpm (proposed 9 CFR
381.69(b)). The Agency has determined that it is not necessary to
codify the waiver criteria previously applied to establishments seeking
to operate at this speed. As explained above, the criteria were
intended to help the Agency determine if establishments could maintain
process control at faster line speeds. They are now unnecessary because
FSIS has determined that establishments are able to maintain process
control at faster line speeds and inspectors have the authority to slow
the line if an individual establishment fails to maintain process
control.
All NPIS establishments must operate in a manner that prevents
adulteration and allows FSIS to conduct carcass-by-carcass inspection
as required by the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 455(b)). All NPIS establishments
must implement validated HACCP systems, maintain sanitation procedures,
and prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens
and fecal material throughout the entire slaughter and dressing process
(9 CFR part 416, 9 CFR part 417, and 9 CFR 381.65 and (g)). FSIS
inspectors are present in every NPIS establishment and verify
compliance with these requirements from the first day of operations
under NPIS. If an establishment fails to maintain process control, FSIS
may take immediate action, including reducing line speeds (see 9 CFR
381.69(c)). Thus, FSIS is also proposing to amend 9 CFR 381.69 to
clarify 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. For
example, under this proposed rule, the IIC would slow the line based on
recurring Salmonella positive results or repeated regulatory public
health enforcement actions. The proposed regulatory provision in 9 CFR
381.69(d) for slowing establishment operations is consistent with the
food safety objectives of the earlier line speed waiver criteria for
NPIS young chicken slaughter establishments. Accordingly, FSIS has
concluded that the existing statutory and regulatory requirements,
combined with the IIC's authority to reduce line speeds when necessary,
provide the appropriate safeguards to ensure food safety. Because FSIS'
regulatory requirements for maintaining process control apply from the
beginning of NPIS operations, a mandatory one-year waiting period is
unnecessary.
If this proposed rule is finalized, NPIS young chicken
establishments would no longer need to obtain a waiver and participate
in the SIP to operate at line speeds higher than 140 bpm and up to 175
bpm because participation in the SIP is limited to slaughter
establishments operating under waivers. Establishments that are
currently operating under line speed waivers would be allowed to
continue to operate at line speeds up to 175 bpm. All NPIS
establishments 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 381.65(g) to monitor their ability to
maintain process control. Operating at a higher line speed is a change
that could affect an establishment's hazard analysis or alter the HACCP
plan. Therefore, if an establishment decides to operate under NPIS at
line speeds faster than 140 bpm and up to 175 bpm, the establishment
would need to reassess its HACCP plan and make any necessary changes to
its HACCP system as required under 9 CFR 417.4(a)(3) before it begins
to increase its line speed. Establishments currently operating under
line speed waivers were required to address the inhibition or reduction
of Salmonella in their HACCP systems as a condition of their waivers
(83 FR 49048, 49050). Thus, establishments currently operating under
line speed waivers have already reassessed their HACCP plans to address
operating at line speeds faster than 140 bpm and up to 175 bpm and
would not need to reassess their HACCP systems again.
FSIS has demonstrated that it is able to conduct carcass-by-carcass
inspections, as required by the PPIA, at line speeds up to 175 bpm.
Establishments are also able to maintain process control at those
speeds. However, FSIS is also seeking comments on whether the Agency
should allow NPIS establishments to operate at line speeds above 175
bpm, as authorities in many other peer countries do not set specific
maximum line speed standards. For example, regulations in the European
Union (EU) only require that line speeds must be compatible with animal
welfare and food safety standards (EU Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009).
In the EU, veterinary authorities in each country assess whether
processing establishments can operate at higher speeds without
compromising animal welfare and food safety. Except for the
Netherlands, all EU countries have no fixed national line speed limit.
Instead, line speed is based on a regulated facility's ability to
maintain effective stunning and bleeding, proper inspection, compliance
with hygiene and animal welfare standards, and controlled and
verifiable food safety throughout the process. FSIS in interested in
receiving feedback on whether the EU model, which does not limit line
speeds, is a model worthy of adoption in the United States.
Proposed Change to the Maximum Line Speed for NPIS Turkey
Establishments
The maximum line speed for turkey slaughter establishments
operating under the NPIS is currently 55 bpm. This line speed was based
on FSIS' experience under HIMP and reflected the average maximum line
speed for

[[Page 7935]]

turkey establishments that had participated in the HIMP pilot. While
the turkey establishments that participated in the HIMP pilot operated
at an average maximum line speed of 55 bpm, at the time FSIS finalized
the rule that established the NPIS, two HIMP turkey establishments had
been operating at line speeds up to 60 bpm. Therefore, after FSIS
finalized the NPIS rule, the Agency granted these two turkey
establishments waivers to allow them to continue to operate at line
speeds up to 60 bpm. One of these establishments has since discontinued
operations but the other continues to operate under a line speed
waiver.
FSIS acknowledges that the SIP data is limited, but FSIS' ongoing
verification of the SIP data from the NPIS turkey establishment
operating under a line speed waiver shows it is operating effectively
while maintaining process control at 60 bpm and that other turkey
slaughter establishments should be able to gain efficiency and maintain
process control at 60 bpm. There are currently 22 turkey establishments
operating under NPIS. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR
381.69(b) to change the maximum line speed for NPIS turkey
establishments from 55 bpm to 60 bpm. This small increase would make
the regulations more consistent with the maximum line speeds turkey
establishments were operating under in the HIMP pilot and would allow
NPIS turkey establishments to operate at up to 60 bpm without the need
for a regulatory waiver. It is important to note that, under the
proposal, FSIS retains the authority to reduce line speeds if a
carcass-by-carcass inspection cannot be adequately performed within the
time available due to the manner in which the birds are presented to
the online carcass inspector, the health conditions of a particular
flock, or factors that may indicate a loss of process control (9 CFR
381.69(c)).

II. 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)). Accordingly, all FSIS actions are
categorically excluded from preparation of an EA or EIS unless the
Agency head determines that a particular action may have a significant
environmental effect.
Under the proposed rule, expected sales of poultry products, rather
than maximum line speed, would determine production levels in
establishments. Allowing 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.

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
FSIS is proposing to amend the poultry products inspection
regulations to permit NPIS young chicken and turkey establishments to
operate at faster line speeds. FSIS is also proposing to define
``maximum line speed'' as the time it takes for an inspector to
effectively perform online carcass inspection procedures and to clarify
when FSIS may direct establishments to operate at a reduced line speed.
FSIS is also proposing to amend the regulations to remove the
requirement that NPIS 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
production processes. This proposed rule is needed to eliminate
unnecessary barriers to innovation and efficiency while maintaining
food safety.
Baseline
Young Chicken Establishments
In 2024, there were 257 federally inspected establishments that
slaughtered just over 9.4 billion young chickens,\43\ with an estimated
retail value of over $114 billion and an average retail price of $2.43
per pound.\44\ Broiler production at federally inspected establishments
grew 1 percent annually from 2020-24. The majority of this production,
84 percent, was consumed domestically, and annual

[[Page 7936]]

consumption grew by 1.3 percent, on average, in that same period.\45\
Of the 257 young chicken slaughter establishments, 148 operated under
NPIS in 2024, which accounted for 94 percent of all young chicken
slaughtered in that year (Table 3a).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ FSIS, Public Health Information System (PHIS) database,
accessed March 2025.
\44\ FSIS calculated this value using the 2024 average retail
broiler composite price of $2.43 per pound and a 2024 U.S.
production estimate of 46,994 million pounds. Sources: USDA,
Economic Research Service (ERS), ``Meat Price Spreads, Retail prices
for beef, pork, poultry cuts, eggs, and dairy products (dataset),''
March 13, 2025, <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/meat-price-spreads/">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/meat-price-spreads/</a>; USDA, ``World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates
(WASDE), Historical WASDE Report Data,'' March 11, 2025, <a href="https://www.usda.gov/historical-wasde-report-data-3">https://www.usda.gov/historical-wasde-report-data-3</a>. Note: retail broiler
composite price is a value based on wholesale prices for whole birds
and chicken parts developed to estimate the average retail value of
all broiler production. Source: USDA, ERS, ``Meat Price Spreads--
Documentation'' March 13, 2025, <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/meat-price-spreads/documentation">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/meat-price-spreads/documentation</a>.
\45\ USDA, ERS, ``Livestock and Meat Domestic Data,'' All supply
and disappearance, Meat supply and disappearance tables, historical
(dataset), March 27, 2025 <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data/">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data/</a>; USDA, ERS, ``Agricultural Baseline
Database--Visualization: U.S. Agricultural Baseline Projections,''
<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-baseline-database/visualization-us-agricultural-baseline-projections">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-baseline-database/visualization-us-agricultural-baseline-projections</a>,
February 18, 2025.
\46\ FSIS, PHIS database, accessed March 2025.

Table 3a--Summary of Young Chicken Establishments, 2024 Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portion of
Number of Slaughtered young chicken
Poultry class establishments headcount slaughtered in
(millions) 2024 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Young Chicken................................................ 257 9,446 100
NPIS Young Chicken........................................... 148 8,884 94
NPIS Young Chicken--Waiver \1\........................... 44 3,082 33
Non--NPIS Young Chicken...................................... 109 562 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The waiver in this table refers to the line speed waiver.

In 2024, there were 44 NPIS establishments operating under line
speed waivers, which required the establishments to participate in the
Agency's SIP, meet certain other criteria, and allowed them to operate
at line speeds up to 175 bpm.\47\ On average, these 44 establishments
slaughtered 70 million birds in 2024 across all production lines and
shifts. FSIS also analyzed slaughter headcount on a per line and per
shift basis at these establishments to account for differences in
establishment composition. In 2024, the minimum annual slaughtered per
line per shift at these establishments was 13.3 million birds.
Additional establishments have shown interest in operating under a line
speed waiver; however, the Agency stopped granting line speed waivers
in 2020, suggesting additional establishments would operate at faster
line speeds if this rule were finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ In March 2023, FSIS granted waivers to 49 establishments
that applied for the modified waiver program. The number of
establishments operating with line speed waivers changed over time
due to waiver revocations or establishment closures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the purpose of this Proposed Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA),
the Agency assumed additional NPIS young chicken slaughter
establishments that do not currently have a line speed waiver, and had
slaughter volumes similar to NPIS waiver establishments, may choose to
operate at faster line speeds. When reviewing an NPIS non-waiver
establishment's production volume, FSIS considered an establishment's
total annual slaughtered headcount and per line per shift slaughter
headcount. For the lower bound, FSIS included 23 establishments with an
annual slaughtered headcount of at least 70 million birds in 2024. For
the mid-point estimate, FSIS included 58 establishments with an average
annual slaughtered headcount of over 13.3 million head per line per
shift. FSIS included an upper estimate of 85 establishments with an
average annual slaughtered headcount of at least 10 million head per
line per shift. Because of their volume, these establishments likely
operate near the current regulatory maximum line speed of 140 bpm and
are the most likely to increase their line speeds if the proposed rule
is finalized. NPIS young chicken establishments with an annual average
slaughtered headcount of less than 10 million birds per line per shift
are not likely to run at the current regulatory maximum line speed of
140 bpm, do not process enough young chicken to likely benefit from
operating above 140 bpm, and are not likely to increase their line
speeds in response to this rule. Table 3b shows the number of
establishments included in the PRIA and their market shares.

Table 3b--Summary of Young Chicken Establishments for PRIA, 2024 Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portion of
Range of NPIS young chicken establishments for PRIA (total Number of Slaughtered young chicken
annual slaughter headcount) establishments headcount slaughtered in
(millions) 2024 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower (>70 million heads).................................... 23 2,142 23
Mid (>13.3 million heads line/shift)......................... 58 3,641 39
Upper (>10 million heads line/shift)......................... 85 4,960 53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The range of NPIS establishments currently operating without a line
speed waiver would experience costs and benefits associated with
operating at line speeds up to 175 bpm if they choose to do so. The
Agency assumes these NPIS young chicken establishments would adopt
increased line speeds over five years if this rule is finalized, with
approximately 20 percent of establishments increasing their line speeds
each year.\48\ FSIS also assumed no additional establishments would
convert to NPIS to operate at higher line speeds, i.e., higher than 140
and up to 175 bpm. This is because young chicken establishments that
would not operate under NPIS are small

[[Page 7937]]

producers, representing 42 percent of all establishments but
contributing only 6 percent of total production (Table 3a). FSIS
incorporated these assumptions into the following costs and benefits
estimates. The Agency seeks comments on the estimated number of
establishments that would choose to increase their line speeds, as well
as their change in line speeds, and the costs and benefits associated
with this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ FSIS assumes NPIS young chicken establishments may need
time to begin operating at faster line speeds. For instance, some of
the NPIS establishments are currently operating below 140 bpm and
might not be able to quickly increase their line speeds to up to 175
bpm. In addition, the industry may need more time to adapt as more
establishments start operating at faster line speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turkey Establishments
In 2024, there were 110 federally inspected establishments that
slaughtered approximately 199 million turkeys,\49\ with an estimated
retail value of over $4.8 billion and an average retail price of $0.94
per pound (Table 3c).\50\ Turkey production declined at an average rate
of 2.9 percent annually from 2020-24. Most of U.S. turkey production
(91 percent) was consumed domestically, and annual consumption declined
by 3.2 percent, on average, from 2020-2024.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ FSIS, PHIS database, accessed March 2025.
\50\ FSIS calculated this value using a 2024 national price for
8-16-pound turkey hens of $0.94 per pound and a 2024 U.S. production
estimate of 5,121 million pounds. Sources: USDA, WASDE, ``Historical
WASDE Report Data,'' April 2025, <a href="https://www.usda.gov/historical-wasde-report-data-3">https://www.usda.gov/historical-wasde-report-data-3</a>.
\51\ USDA, ERS, ``Livestock and Meat Domestic Data,'' All supply
and disappearance, Meat supply and disappearance tables, historical
(dataset), March 27, 2025 <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data/">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data/</a>; USDA, WASDE, ``Historical WASDE
Report Data,'' April 2025, <a href="https://www.usda.gov/historical-wasde-report-data-3">https://www.usda.gov/historical-wasde-report-data-3</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were 22 turkey establishments operating under NPIS in 2024,
including one establishment with a line speed waiver.\52\ NPIS turkey
establishments accounted for approximately 79 percent of all turkey
slaughtered in that year. FSIS does not anticipate significant changes
in the turkey industry from allowing all NPIS turkey establishments to
operate at speeds up to 60 bpm. FSIS is seeking comments on the
potential number of NPIS turkey establishments that would operate above
55 bpm, comments on whether NPIS turkey establishments would increase
their line speeds, and comments on the costs and benefits associated
with this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ One turkey establishment previously operated under a line
speed waiver but withdrew from the program in 2019. FSIS, PHIS
database, accessed March 2025.

Table 3c--Summary of Turkey Establishments, 2024 Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slaughtered Share of turkey
Turkey establishments Number of headcount slaughtered in 2024
establishments (millions) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All NPIS Turkey........................................ 22 158 79
All Other.............................................. 88 41 21
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 110 199 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Cost of the Proposed Rule
Establishments that choose to operate at line speeds faster than
140 and up to 175 bpm, may incur costs associated with labor, training,
capital equipment, and HACCP plan reassessment. FSIS also estimated a
de minimis cost of $90 per firm for rule familiarization. FSIS used
input from industry, including ongoing SIP data, and Agency experts to
estimate the potential costs associated with NPIS establishments
voluntarily operating at line speeds of up to 175 bpm. FSIS anticipates
that certain young chicken establishments would operate at line speeds
faster than 140 and up to 175 bpm, if this rule were finalized.
Establishments currently operating under waivers (i.e., young chicken
and turkey NPIS establishments with a line speed waiver) would not
incur any additional quantifiable costs as a result of this proposed
rule.
Additional Labor Costs
The NPIS young chicken establishments without waivers that are
likely to choose to increase their line speeds may choose to hire up to
2 sorters, 1 to 32 other production employees, and up to 2 managers,
per line per shift, when operating at line speeds faster than 140 bpm
and up to 175 bpm. Based on industry input and Agency expertise, this
PRIA assumed establishments would hire one additional sorter, 11
additional production employees, and one additional manager per line
and per shift for its mid-cost estimate. The establishments' staffing
levels can vary based on the level of automation, product flow and
establishment design, among other factors. The Agency seeks comments on
the number and type of additional establishment employees an
establishment would need to hire when operating at faster line speeds.
Combined, the 58 establishments used in the mid-cost estimate may hire
an additional 225 to 8,100 employees as a result of the rule, with a
mid-estimate of 2,925 additional employees. The 23 establishments used
in the lower-bound may hire an additional 141 to 5,076 employees as a
result of the rule, with a mid-estimate of 1,833 additional employees,
and the 85 establishments used in the upper-bound estimate may hire an
additional 332 to 11,952 employees with a mid-estimate of 4,316
additional employees. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS), the estimated annual median wage for a sorter is $41,040; \53\
applying a benefits and overhead factor of two brings the total annual
labor cost per sorter to $82,080. Likewise, the total annual labor cost
per production worker is $78,720 and per manager is $235,900, in 2024
dollars. FSIS estimates the wages and benefits associated with the mid-
estimate of 58 establishments range from $13.30 to $532.92 million,
with a mid-estimate of $199.98 million, annualized assuming a 5-year
adoption period and discounted at a 7 percent rate over 10 years, Table
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ BLS Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2024. National
Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. NAICS
311600-Animal Slaughtering and Processing. Accessed on 04/2/2025
Occupation codes 11-3051, 51-3023, and 51-3022 were used for
managers, sorters, and production employees, respectively. <a href="https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600">https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600</a>, (accessed April 2025).

[[Page 7938]]

Table 4--Additional Labor Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of establishments
-----------------------------------------------
Line speed changes Lower (23 Mid-point (58 Upper (85
est.) est.) est.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower........................................................... 8.33 13.30 20.33
Mid............................................................. 125.32 199.98 305.69
Upper........................................................... 333.96 532.92 814.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates are annualized, assuming a 5-year adoption period and discounted at a 7 percent rate over 10 years.
Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Training Costs
Establishments are expected to incur costs associated with training
any new employees hired as a result of the proposed rule. This PRIA
assumes that the cost of initial training, continuing education, and
initial training due to turnover are similar to the cost of training
production employees in HACCP. The Agency seeks comments on the type
and cost of training associated with this proposed rule. FSIS estimates
the one-time cost associated with initially training the additional
sorters and production workers would range from $399 to $1,197 per new
employee, with a mid-point cost of $798 in 2024 dollars. The one-time
cost associated with initially training managers would range from
$1,571 to $4,712 per new manager, with a mid-point cost of $3,142 in
2024 dollars.\54\ The total one-time mid-point initial training cost
for the 58 establishments is approximately $0.33 million, with a range
from $0.01 to $1.32 million, assuming a 5-year adoption period and
annualized at the 7 percent discount rate over 10 years, Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ FSIS updated the wage estimate and HACCP training costs in
the ``Cost of Food Safety Investments'' using 2024 wages from the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 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, <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Costs_of_Food_Safety_Investments_FSIS-2022-0013.pdf">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Costs_of_Food_Safety_Investments_FSIS-2022-0013.pdf</a>; BLS
Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2024. National Industry-
Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. NAICS 311600-
Animal Slaughtering and Processing. Accessed on 04/2/2025 Occupation
codes 11-3051, 51-3023, and 51-3022 were used for managers, sorters,
and production employees, respectively. <a href="https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600">https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600</a>, (accessed April 2025).; U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA), ``Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross
Domestic Product,'' <a href="https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=13">https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=13</a> accessed April 11,
2025.

Table 5--Training Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of establishments
-----------------------------------------------
Training type Line speed changes Lower (23 Upper (85
est.) Mid (58 est.) est.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Training...................... Lower................... 0.01 0.01 0.02
Mid..................... 0.21 0.33 0.49
Upper................... 0.83 1.32 1.94
Continuing Education Training......... Lower................... 0.002 0.003 0.005
Mid..................... 0.06 0.10 0.15
Upper................... 0.26 0.41 0.61
Training Due to Turnover.............. Lower................... 0.01 0.02 0.03
Mid..................... 0.42 0.67 0.99
Upper................... 1.64 2.62 3.89
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. Lower................... 0.02 0.03 0.05
Mid..................... 0.69 1.10 1.63
Upper................... 2.73 4.35 6.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates are annualized, assuming a 5-year adoption period and discounted at a 7 percent rate over 10 years.
Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

This analysis assumes annual continuing education costs to be
similar to annual HACCP refresher training costs, which range from $39
to $116 per sorter and production employee, with a mid-point of $77,
and range from $101 to $303 per manager, with a mid-point of $202, in
2024 dollars.\55\ Using a retention rate of 63.3 percent,\56\ the mid-
point estimate for the 58 establishments for annual continuing
education cost is $0.10 million, with a range from $0.003 to $0.41
million, Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ FSIS updated the wage estimate in the ``Cost of Food Safety
Investments'' using 2024 wages from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. 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, <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Costs_of_Food_Safety_Investments_FSIS-2022-0013.pdf">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Costs_of_Food_Safety_Investments_FSIS-2022-0013.pdf</a>; BLS,
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 2024: 51-3023
Slaughterers and Meat Packers, in Industry Animal Slaughtering and
Processing, May 2024, <a href="https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600">https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600</a>,
accessed April 2025.
\56\ The BLS reported that the nondurable goods manufacturing
industry had a separation rate of 36.7 percent in 2024. The total
separation rate is the sum of the 12 months of rates in 2024. The
retention rate is thus 63.3 percent (100 percent-36.7 percent). BLS,
``Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, not seasonally adjusted
(2024),'' (JTU340000000000000TSR), accessed April 11, 2025. Data can
be accessed at <a href="https://data.bls.gov/series-report">https://data.bls.gov/series-report</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annual training due to turnover is equal to initial training cost.
Using a

[[Page 7939]]

turnover rate of 36.7 percent,\57\ the mid-point estimate for the 58
establishments for annual training cost due to turnover is $0.67
million, and ranges from $0.02 to $2.62 million, Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ The BLS reported that the nondurable goods manufacturing
industry had a separation rate of 36.7 percent in 2024. The total
separation rate is the sum of the 12 months of rates in 2024.
BLS, ``Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, not seasonally
adjusted (2024),'' (JTU340000000000000TSR), accessed April 11, 2025.
Data can be accessed at <a href="https://data.bls.gov/series-report">https://data.bls.gov/series-report</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capital Equipment
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 line speeds faster than 140 bpm and
up to 175 bpm and will not incur any additional capital costs. Some
establishments may incur minor costs to modify their current equipment,
such as adding a washer or window to their inside-outside bird washer
or adding a nozzle or spray bar to their line. This PRIA assumes the
cost of modifying equipment at some establishments is similar to the
cost of adding a post-chill spray bar. Based on the Research Triangle
Institute's (RTI) Costs of Food Safety Investments report,\58\ the
combined mid-point annual cost of purchasing, installing, and utilities
and maintenance of a post-chill spray bar at a large establishment is
$0.05 million per establishment, with a range of $0.03 to $0.08 million
in 2024 dollars. As a mid-point estimate, FSIS assumed 29
establishments would incur this cost, or approximately half of the 58
establishments. FSIS assumed the same for the upper and lower bound,
with 12 and 43 establishments, respectively, incurring this capital
equipment cost. The total estimated annual equipment cost for the mid-
estimate ranges from $0.63 to $1.73 million, with a mid-point estimate
of $1.18 million, 2024 dollars, Table 6. The Agency is seeking comments
on the types of capital expenses establishments would incur due to this
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ FSIS updated the post-chill spray bar estimate in the
``Cost of Food Safety Investments'' using the 2024 Implicit Price
Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. RTI, (2015), Costs of Food
Safety Investments (Table 4-8), Contract No. AG-3A94-B-13-0003).
Prepared by Catherine L. Viator, Mary K. Muth, Jenna E. Brophy,
<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Costs_of_Food_Safety_Investments_FSIS-2022-0013.pdf">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Costs_of_Food_Safety_Investments_FSIS-2022-0013.pdf</a>; BEA, ``Table
1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product,''
accessed April 11, 2025.

Table 6--Capital Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of establishments
-----------------------------------------------
Line speed changes Lower (23 Mid-point (58 Upper (85
est.) est.) est.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower........................................................... 0.26 0.63 0.93
Mid............................................................. 0.49 1.18 1.73
Upper........................................................... 0.71 1.73 2.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates are annualized, assuming a 5-year adoption period and discounted at a 7 percent rate over 10 years.
Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

HACCP Plan Reassessment Cost
Under the proposed rule, if an NPIS young chicken establishment
decides to operate at line speeds faster than 140 bpm and up to 175
bpm, the establishment would need to reassess its HACCP plan and make
any necessary changes before it begins to increase its line speed.
Assuming this work is completed by a production worker with an hourly
labor cost of $38.62,\59\ a HACCP plan reassessment cost per
establishment ranges from $1,159 \60\ to $3,476, with a mid-point of
$2,317. This represents a one-time cost to all 58 establishments
ranging from $0.004 to $0.012 million, with a mid-point of $0.008
million, annualized, assuming the 5-year adoption period and discounted
at the 7 percent discount rate over 10 years, Table 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ RTI, 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, <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Costs_of_Food_Safety_Investments_FSIS-2022-0013.pdf">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Costs_of_Food_Safety_Investments_FSIS-2022-0013.pdf</a>.
\60\ 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, <a href="https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600">https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600</a>.

Table 7--HACCP Plan Reassessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of establishments
-----------------------------------------------
Line speed changes Lower (23 Mid-point (58 Upper (85
est.) est.) est.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower........................................................... 0.002 0.004 0.006
Mid............................................................. 0.003 0.008 0.011
Upper........................................................... 0.005 0.012 0.017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates are annualized, assuming a 5-year adoption period and discounted at a 7 percent rate over 10 years.
Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Summary of Costs of the Proposed Rule
Table 8 summarizes the total industry costs for the proposed rule.
Labor represents approximately 99 percent of the costs for NPIS young
chicken establishments if they voluntarily choose to increase their
line speeds. The mid-point of all costs for the mid-estimate of 58
establishments is roughly

[[Page 7940]]

$202.27 million annualized, assuming the 5-year adoption period and
discounted at the 7 percent rate over 10 years. The upper-bound
annualized cost estimate for the 85 establishments is $823.63 million,
and the lower-bound annualized cost estimate for the 23 establishments
is roughly $9 million at the 7 percent discount rate over 10 years,
assuming a 5-year adoption period. FSIS, however, estimates a
relatively likely scenario results in cost savings that falls between
$13.97 to $539.01 million which is based on the lower and upper range
of line speeds for the mid-bound 58 establishments, discounted at 7
percent over 10 years, assuming a 5-year adoption period.

Table 8--Total Industry Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of establishments
--------------------------------------------------
Types of costs Mid-point (58 Upper (85
Lower (23 est.) est.) est.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiring Additional Employees.................................. 8.33 199.98 814.64
Initial Training............................................. 0.01 0.33 1.94
Annual Continuing Education.................................. 0.00 0.10 0.61
Annual Training Due to Turnover.............................. 0.01 0.67 3.89
New Equipment................................................ 0.26 1.18 2.53
HACCP Plan Reassessment...................................... 0.00 0.01 0.02
--------------------------------------------------
Total Annualized Costs Over 10 Years: 7 Percent Discount 8.62 202.27 823.63
Rate....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Lower-bound cost estimates are for both the lower-bound costs and the lower-bound estimate of
establishments (23). Upper-bound cost estimates are for both the upper-bound cost estimates and the upper-
bound estimate of establishments (85). The mid-cost estimates are for both the mid-costs and the mid-estimate
of establishments (58). Estimates are annualized, assuming a 5-year adoption period and discounted at a 7
percent rate over 10 years. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Estimated Benefits of the Proposed Rule
Changes in Production Efficiency
If the proposed rule were finalized, the 44 NPIS establishments
operating with a line speed waiver would benefit from the regulatory
certainty of being able to operate at line speeds up to 175 bpm and
would no longer have to submit SIP data under the waiver. FSIS assumes
a range of NPIS establishments between 23 and 85 with a midpoint of 58
NPIS establishments currently operating without a waiver would likely
operate at an increased line speed above the current 140 bpm limit. At
the midpoint, establishments that may increase their line speeds in
response to this proposal accounted for 38.5 percent of young chicken
slaughtered in 2024, ranging from 22.7 to 52.7 percent at the lower and
upper estimates, respectively.
For this analysis, FSIS estimated a range in line speed increases
based on the average line speeds from the 44 NPIS young chicken
establishments with waivers. Average line speed increases from these
establishments ranged from 4.3 to 25.0 percent faster than the 140 bpm
maximum line speed, with an average of 15.0 percent.\61\ However,
because industry would need time to modify their operations in response
to the proposed rule, the Agency assumed these NPIS establishments
would adopt increased line speeds over five years, with approximately
20 percent of establishments increasing their line speeds each year.
Table 9 shows the estimated increases in efficiency for the mid-point
58-establishment adoption scenario. For example, in year one, industry
could experience an increase in efficiency of 1.16 percent (15.0
percent x 7.71 percent), ranging from 0.33 percent (4.3 percent x 7.71
percent) to 1.93 percent (25.0 percent x 7.71 percent). FSIS estimates
the 58 establishments would reach full efficiency beginning in year
five, with the mid-point estimate of 5.78 percent, ranging from 1.65 to
9.64 percent. If the lower-bound estimate of 23 establishments were to
increase their line speeds by 4.3, 15.0, or 25.0 percent, this could
result in an increase in efficiency of 0.97, 3.40, or 5.67 percent,
respectively. Likewise, if the upper-bound estimate of 85
establishments were to increase their line speeds by 4.3, 15.0, or 25.0
percent, this could result in an increase in efficiency of 2.25, 7.88,
or 13.13 percent, respectively. FSIS is asking for comments on the
number of establishments that would increase their line speeds, as well
as on the expected increased line speed rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ Under SIP, FSIS collected average line speed information
from the 44 NPIS young chicken establishments with line speed
waivers. For the lower-bound estimate, FSIS calculated the average
line speed increase of the bottom 25 percent of establishments,
while for the upper-bound estimate the Agency used the top 25
percent.

Table 9--Change in Production Efficiency Over 10 Years for the 58 Establishments in the Mid-Point Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portion of 2024 Production efficiency gain (%)
young chicken -----------------------------------------------
Year slaughtered
headcounts (%) Low (4.3%) Mid (15.0%) High (25.0%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................ 7.71 0.33 1.16 1.93
2............................................ 15.42 0.66 2.31 3.85
3............................................ 23.13 0.99 3.47 5.78
4............................................ 30.83 1.32 4.63 7.71
5............................................ 38.54 1.65 5.78 9.64
6............................................ 38.54 1.65 5.78 9.64

[[Page 7941]]

7............................................ 38.54 1.65 5.78 9.64
8............................................ 38.54 1.65 5.78 9.64
9............................................ 38.54 1.65 5.78 9.64
10........................................... 38.54 1.65 5.78 9.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The change in line speed assumes an increase from 140 bpm and production efficiency gain for the 58
establishments is calculated by multiplying the share of young chicken slaughtered headcount by the estimated
line speed increases of 4.3, 15.0, and 25.0 percent for low, mid, and high production efficiency gain,
respectively. Establishments would reach full efficiency, as presented in this table, starting in year five.
Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Cost Savings From Production Efficiency Gains
NPIS young chicken slaughter establishments may obtain the
efficiency gains from increasing their maximum line speed through
multiple ways. For example, establishments may choose to process more
birds per minute while reducing their hours of operation. This
flexibility would allow establishments to optimize their productivity
and potentially lower production costs. Further, operating the line
speed up to 175 bpm 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 \62\ and publicly available data to
illustrate estimated benefits associated with authorizing NPIS
establishments to operate at line speeds of up to 175 bpm.\63\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ In this linear model, P = ab-(1/b) Qd represents the
poultry products inverse market demand equation, while P = c/d + (1/
d) Qs represents the poultry products inverse market supply
equation, keeping all other factors affecting both 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.
\63\ FSIS used the values of -0.43 for the elasticity of demand
(e[supcaret]d) and 0.215 for the elasticity of supply
(e[supcaret]s). These elasticities were, respectively, adapted from
Meekhof, Ronald L., Mary K. Muth, Robert H. Beach, Shawn A. Karns,
Justin L. Taylor, and Catherine L. Viator. ``Poultry Slaughter and
Processing Sector Facility-Level Model.'' Research Triangle
Institute, North Carolina, United States (2006). Contract No. 53-
3A94-0-12, Delivery Order 10 April 2006, <a href="https://www.rti.org/sites/default/files/resources/poultry_slaughter.pdf">https://www.rti.org/sites/default/files/resources/poultry_slaughter.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FSIS established the initial equilibrium condition using the 2024
poultry products total supply of 47 billion pounds, Qo, and the average
2024 ERS retail broiler composite price of roughly $2.43 per pound,
Po.\64\ FSIS assumed that increases in production efficiency, ef, can
be represented by increasing the market supply (Table 9). The Agency
estimated that, everything else constant, with a 5.78 percent mid-point
increase in production efficiency in years 5 through 10,\65\ the new
equilibrium price for poultry products would be $2.26 per pound, or
approximately a 7 percent decrease [(($2.26-$2.43)/$2.43) x 100] (Table
10), and the new equilibrium quantity of poultry products would be
approximately 48.4 billion pounds.\66\ A decrease from $2.43 to $2.26
per pound is a reduction of over 7 percent, the Agency seeks comment on
how a smaller in magnitude efficiency gain of 5.78 percent could prompt
such a decrease in price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ FSIS obtained the 2024 quantity of young chicken products
of approximately 47 billion pounds from USDA, ``World Agricultural
Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), Historical WASDE Report Data,''
March 11, 2025, <a href="https://www.usda.gov/historical-wasde-report-data-3">https://www.usda.gov/historical-wasde-report-data-3</a>.
The 2024 retail broiler composite price of approximately $2.43 per
pound is from USDA, ERS, ``Meat Price Spreads, Historical monthly
price spread data for beef, pork, broilers (dataset),'' March 13,
2025, <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/meat-price-spreads/">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/meat-price-spreads/</a>.
\65\ NPIS establishments are assumed to reach the full
production efficiency in five years if this rule is finalized (Table
9). Hence, the production efficiency gain will remain the same for
years 5 through 10.
\66\ First, FSIS calculated the coefficients of these models
using the data and elasticities: where b = -e[supcaret]d x Qo/Po =
0.43 x 47/2.43 = 8.3, a = Qo + bPo = 47 + 8.3 x 2.43 = 67.2, d =
e[supcaret]s x Qo/Po = 0.215 x 47/2.43 = 4.2 and c = -Qo + dPo= -47
+ 4.2 x 2.43 = -36.9. The coefficient a is the level of demand for
poultry products as the broiler composite retail price is set to
zero, while the coefficient c/d is interpreted as the price level of
poultry products that is needed to cover all the fixed costs for the
young chicken industry. The parameter ef represents the estimated
efficiency gains across the industry at the 10-year adoption period
of 5.78 percent at the mid-point (Table 9). While keeping the
elasticity of supply constant, the Agency estimated the new
equilibrium composite retail price using the identity P[supcaret]new
= (a + c(1 + ef)) / (b + d) then P[supcaret]new = (67.2-(36.9 x (1 +
5.78%))) / (8.3 + 4.2) which would be approximately $2.26 per pound
and quantity of poultry products as Q[supcaret]new = a-
bP[supcaret]new = [67.2-(8.3 x 2.27)] billion pounds which would be
approximately 48.4 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 th is 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 cost savings
associated with this rule. Allowing establishments to increase their
line speeds could reduce their production costs, such as their average
per unit labor costs as establishments process more young chickens per
hour. FSIS estimated these reduced costs as industry cost savings
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.\67\ For example, FSIS estimated the pre-
implementation TVC in year 5 to be approximately $12.28 billion, and
the post-implementation TVC to be

[[Page 7942]]

approximately $11.76 billion.68 69 FSIS used the estimated
increases in production efficiency, as outlined in Table 9, to estimate
the post-implementation TVC. Hence, starting in year five and assuming
the 58 NPIS establishments increase their line speeds by 15.0 percent,
the poultry industry could save approximately $518 million ($11.76-
$12.28 billion) in production costs. The combined mid-point annual cost
savings are $386 million, annualized assuming the 5-year adoption
period and a 7 percent discount rate over 10 years,\70\ with a range of
$107 to $662 million (Table 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ In a simplified competitive market assumption, the
additional cost to produce additional pounds of poultry 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 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
poultry products as TVC = \1/2\ x P x (Q-c), where P and Q are the
established equilibrium composite retail price and quantity of
poultry products in the market, respectively, and c is as defined
above.
\68\ TVC[supcaret](per) would be approximately $12.28 billion,
\1/2\ x $2.43 per pound x (47-36.9) billion pounds, where c is
approximately 36.9 billion pounds, which is the amount of production
calculated by setting P = 0 in Qs = 36.9 + 4.2P. Note that numbers
may not sum due to rounding.
\69\ TVC[supcaret](post) would be approximately $11.76 billion,
\1/2\ x $2.26 per pound x (48.4-38) billion pounds, where
c[supcaret]new is approximately 38 billion pounds which is
calculated using the new equilibrium and market supply equation but
keeping price elasticity of supply constant (0.215), 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.
\70\ 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 young chicken industry associated with this proposed
rule at $2,712 million, or $386 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)) = $2,712 million/((1-(1 +
7%)[supcaret](-10)) / (7%)) = $386 million. This can also be
calculated using Microsoft Excel's PMT function = PMT (7%, 10, 2712
x -1) = $386 million. Note that numbers may not sum due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the same model for the range of estimates (lower-bound
estimate of 23 establishments with a 4.3 percent line-speed increase
and upper-bound estimate of 85 establishments with a 25 percent line-
speed increase), potential industry benefits from cost savings would
range from approximately $62 to $926 million, annualized assuming a 5-
year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate over 10 years. With
the same specification, the retail price would potentially decrease by
a range of 1.18 to 15.98 percent. FSIS, however, estimates that the
range of benefits from cost savings would likely fall within the lower-
and upper-bounds of line speeds increases for the midpoint estimate of
58 establishments, $107 to $662 million, annualized assuming a 5-year
adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate over 10 years, Table 10.
This benefit could be translated into an average cost saving of $4.10
per 100 head of young chickens ($386 million/9.4 billion young chickens
x 100).

Table 10--Estimated Benefits of the Proposed Rule: Benefits from Increased Industrial Efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of establishments
-----------------------------------------------
Line speed changes Lower (23 Mid-point (58 Upper (85
est.) est.) est.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower........................................................... 62 107 146
Mid............................................................. 223 386 534
Upper........................................................... 378 662 926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Change in Retail Price (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower........................................................... -1.18 -2.01 -2.74
Mid............................................................. -4.14 -7.04 -9.59
Upper........................................................... -6.90 -11.73 -15.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates were annualized assuming a 5-year adoption period and discounted at the 7 percent rate over 10 years.
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 are the result of establishments
reducing their production costs by using resources more efficiently and
optimizing their production processes, which could lead to more
industry profits and lower consumer prices. 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 young chicken prices,
establishment hours of operation, consumer prices, and export volumes.
Cost Savings for Removing Attestation of Work-Related Conditions
Establishments operating under the NPIS 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 seven hours for the industry, are $441.28
annually.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ FSIS used the time estimate included in 79 FR 49620 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, <a href="https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600">https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/311600</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net Benefits of the Proposed Rule
Allowing NPIS young chicken establishments the flexibility to
operate at line speeds up to 175 bpm reduces regulatory burden and
promotes innovation while not compromising food safety. Since it would
be voluntary to increase line speeds, 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 allowing NPIS young chicken establishments the
flexibility to operate at line speeds up to 175 bpm.
If this proposed rule is finalized, the mid-cost estimate for the
range of establishments is approximately $202 million, with a range of
$127 to $309 million, annualized assuming a 5-year adoption period at a
7 percent discount rate over 10 years (Table 11). Most of this cost is
associated with additional labor to voluntarily increase line speeds.
The proposed rule's mid benefits from cost savings estimate for the
range of establishments is approximately $386 million, with a range of
$223 to $534 million, annualized assuming a 5-year adoption period at a
7 percent discount rate over 10 years. The mid net benefit estimate for
the range of establishments

[[Page 7943]]

is approximately $184 million, with a range of $96 to $225 million,
annualized assuming a 5-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount
rate over 10 years (Table 11). The mid net benefit estimate for the
range of establishments is approximately $191 million, with a range of
$100 to $241 million, annualized assuming a 5-year adoption period and
a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years (Table 12). Overall, this rule
is net beneficial for the range of line speed increases FSIS analyzed.

Table 11--Net Benefits at 7 Percent Discount Rate, Over 10 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of establishments
-----------------------------------------------
Line speed changes Lower (23 Mid-point (58 Upper (85
est.) est.) est.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
Lower....................................................... 9 14 21
Mid......................................................... 127 202 309
Upper....................................................... 337 539 824
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
Lower....................................................... 62 107 146
Mid......................................................... 223 386 534
Upper....................................................... 378 662 926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits:
Lower....................................................... 54 93 125
Mid......................................................... 96 184 225
Upper....................................................... 41 123 102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates were annualized at a 7 percent discount rate over 10 years, assuming the 5-year adoption period.
Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 12--Net Benefits at 3 Percent Discount Rate Over 10 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of establishments
-----------------------------------------------
Line speed changes Lower (23 Mid-point (58 Upper (85
est.) est.) est.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
Lower....................................................... 9 14 22
Mid......................................................... 131 210 314
Upper....................................................... 350 559 836
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
Lower....................................................... 65 111 152
>Mid........................................................ 231 401 555
Upper....................................................... 393 688 962
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits:
Lower....................................................... 56 96 130
Mid......................................................... 100 191 241
Upper....................................................... 43 129 126
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates are annualized at a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years, assuming the 5-year adoption period.
Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

In addition to the quantified benefits for establishments that
increase their line speeds, the remaining NPIS young chicken
establishments may benefit from an increase in regulatory flexibility
if this proposed rule is finalized. Additionally, FSIS' proposal to
change the maximum line speed for turkey establishments operating under
the NPIS could benefit the 22 NPIS turkey establishments by allowing
them to use their resources more efficiently and optimizing their
production process.
Alternatives
A--Taking No Action and Ending the Line Speed Waivers
FSIS considered taking no further regulatory action and ending the
line speed waivers. This would result in all

[[Page 7944]]

NPIS young chicken slaughter establishments being required to operate
at the current maximum line speed of 140 bpm. 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. The Agency anticipates these costs would be substantial.
Further, establishments with waivers for faster line speeds would forgo
benefits that they have accrued through improved efficiency. The
estimated mid-point forgone industry benefit from cost savings is
approximately $348 million, annualized assuming a 7 percent discount
rate over 10 years (Table 12). The Agency rejects this alternative
because it would forgo the benefits provided from allowing NPIS
establishments to operate at a maximum line speed of up to 175 bpm
under the proposed rule.
B--The Proposed Rule
Allowing NPIS young chicken establishments the flexibility to
operate at line speeds up to 175 bpm would reduce regulatory burden and
promote production efficiency. Since it would be voluntary to increase
line speeds, establishments would only choose to operate at faster line
speeds if the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. This could
increase the number of establishments that would be permitted to
operate at faster line speeds. The mid-point estimated cost associated
with this proposed rule is approximately $202 million, annualized
assuming a 5-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate over 10
years. The benefit estimate from cost savings is approximately $386
million, annualized assuming a 5-year adoption period and a 7 percent
discount rate over 10 years. The estimated net benefits would be $184
million, annualized assuming a 5-year adoption period and a 7 percent
discount rate over 10 years. The proposed rule would result in the
highest net benefits among the other alternatives. Therefore, the
Agency supports this alternative and selects it.
Additionally, FSIS' proposal to change the maximum line speed for
turkey establishments operating under the NPIS could benefit the 22
NPIS turkey establishments as they could make more efficient use of
their resources and optimize their production process.
C--Require Establishments Be in Salmonella Performance Category 1 or 2
For this alternative, the Agency considered requiring all NPIS
establishments operating at line speeds up to 175 bpm to be in FSIS'
Salmonella performance category 1 or 2 for young chicken carcasses.
Under this alternative, the number of establishments likely to run at
higher line speeds is reduced to 53 establishments with total annual
production of approximately 3.3 billion birds, or 35.42 percent of
young chicken slaughtered.\72\ The mid-point estimated cost is
approximately $187 million, annualized assuming a 5-year adoption
period and a 7 percent discount rate over 10 years. Most of this cost
is associated with additional labor at the establishments that may
voluntarily increase their line speeds. This alternative's benefit
estimate from cost savings is approximately $353 million, annualized
assuming a 5-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount rate over 10
years. The alternative would have an estimated net benefit of $166
million, annualized assuming a 5-year adoption period and a 7 percent
discount rate over 10 years. This alternative is found to be
unnecessarily restrictive and reduce the number of establishments that
would be permitted to operate at faster line speeds and results in
lower net benefits compared to the proposed rule. Therefore, the Agency
rejects it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ These 53 establishments included NPIS young chicken
establishments in Salmonella category 1 or 2 with an average minimum
production of 13.3 million birds per line per shift. The 53
establishments had a total of 208 line-shifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D--Require Establishments Be in Salmonella Performance Category 1
The Agency considered requiring all establishments operating at
line speeds above 140 bpm and up to 175 bpm to be in FSIS' Salmonella
performance category 1 for young chicken carcasses. Under this
alternative, the number of establishments likely to run at higher line
speeds is reduced to 27 establishments with annual production of
approximately 1.7 billion birds, or 18 percent of young chicken
slaughtered.\73\ These establishments would likely incur additional
labor and capital costs associated with meeting this food safety
criteria. The mid-point estimated cost associated with this alternative
is approximately $92 million, annualized assuming a 5-year adoption
period and a 7 percent discount rate over 10 years. This alternative's
benefit estimate from cost savings is approximately $176 million,
annualized assuming a 5-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount
rate over 10 years. The estimated net benefits would be $84 million,
annualized assuming a 5-year adoption period and a 7 percent discount
rate over 10 years. This represents a 54 percent reduction in net
benefits compared to the proposed rule. Further, the line speed
analysis used to support this proposed rule found no significant
increase in the Salmonella prevalence of young chicken carcasses
operating under waiver conditions, which included being in either
category 1 or 2, at line speeds above 140 bpm up to 175 bpm compared to
establishments operating at line speeds not exceeding 140 bpm. As such,
this alternative is rejected because it would increase industry costs
with minor additional benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ These 27 establishments included NPIS young chicken
establishments in Salmonella category 1 with an average minimum
production of 13.3 million birds per line per shift. The 27
establishments had a total of 102 line-shifts.

Table 12--Alternative Policy Options \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives Benefits Costs Net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Taking No Action and Ending the No benefit............. Poultry establishments This alternative is not
Line Speed Waivers. would lose their line net beneficial
speed waivers, compared to the
reducing their proposed rule.
productivity and
likely incurring costs
associated with
adjusting their
production processes.
The mid-point forgone
benefit from cost
savings is
approximately $348
million.
B. The Proposed Rule................. The proposed rule would As a result of the Industry could gain
increase regulatory proposed rule, the mid- $184 million net
flexibility and could point cost is benefits.
generate $386 million approximately $202
in benefits from cost million.
savings.

[[Page 7945]]

C. Requiring Establishments to be in The mid-point benefit The industry could Compared to the
Salmonella Performance Category 1 from cost savings is incur $187 million in proposed rule, the
and 2. approximately $353 costs. industry would gain
million. lower net benefits of
$166 million.
D. Requiring Establishments to be in The mid-point benefit This alternative would Compared to the
Salmonella Performance Category 1. from cost savings is increase industry proposed rule, this
approximately $176 costs associated with alternative has 54
million. meeting food safety percent lower net
criteria. The mid- benefits.
point cost is
approximately $92
million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimates are annualized at a 7 percent discount rate over 10 years, assuming the 5-year adoption period.
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 quantitative estimates.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment

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 amend the regulations to: allow young chicken
establishments operating under the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS)
to operate at line speeds up to 175 birds per minute (bpm); increase
the maximum line speed prescribed for turkey establishments operating
under the NPIS from 55 bpm to 60 bpm; define ``maximum line speed'' as
the time it takes for an inspector to effectively perform online
carcass inspection procedures; clarify when FSIS may direct
establishments to operate at a reduced line speed; and remove
requirements for NPIS establishments to submit to FSIS annual
attestations on worker safety programs.

How many small entities are impacted by the proposed rule?

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard for
small businesses in this sector is 1,250 employees or less.\74\ Poultry
slaughter establishments are classified in the 311615 Poultry
Processing sector of the North American Industry Classification System.
This U.S. industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in
(1) slaughtering poultry and small game and/or (2) preparing processed
poultry and small game meat and meat byproducts.75 76 Based
on U.S. Census Bureau Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) data,\77\
approximately 260 firms (88 percent) in the Poultry Processing sector
are small and approximately 35 firms (12 percent) in this industry are
large (Table 13).\78\ The 102 slaughter establishments likely impacted
by this rule are associated with approximately 26 firms, of which 24
have at least 1,250 employees. Therefore, FSIS estimates that two of
the 260 small firms may voluntarily adopt faster line speeds and be
impacted by the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), March, 17, 2023,
Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American
Industry Classification System Codes. Available at <a href="https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf">https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf</a>.
\75\ U.S. Census Bureau North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). Available online at <a href="https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=31&chart=2022&details=311615">https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=31&chart=2022&details=311615</a> (last accessed in April 2025).
\76\ 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
<a href="https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf">https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf</a>.
\77\ U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). 2022 SUSB Annual Data Tables by
Establishment Industry: U.S. and states, NAICS detailed employment,
[Data file]. April 2025. <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/econ/susb/2022-susb-annual.html">https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/econ/susb/2022-susb-annual.html</a>.
\78\ SUSB employment data are reported in ranges rather than at
the exact SBA size standard of 1,250 employees. To provide a
conservative estimate, FSIS classified firms with 1,499 or fewer
employees as small.

Table 13--Small Entity by Firm Size and Receipts, SUSB Data, 311615
Poultry Processing Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receipts (million
Enterprise size Number of firms $)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 5 employees........... 71................ 78
5-9 employees................... 37................ 93
10-14 employees................. 14................ 71
15-19 employees................. 13................ 146
20 to 500 employees............. 95................ 4,877
500-749 employees............... 10................ 2,351
750-999 employees............... 10................ 2,439
1,000-1,499 employees........... 10................ 4,362
---------------------------------------
Total....................... 260............... 14,418
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 revenues. FSIS would consider 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 the 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 $3.5 million, annualized at a 7% discount rate. FSIS
has estimated that, on

[[Page 7946]]

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 $3.1 million.\79\ The ``substantial number'' criterion of 30
percent of small entities results in a total of 78 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 $3.1 million on at least 78 small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ The two small entities that FSIS assumed would voluntarily
increase their line speed in response to this proposed rule likely
have between 500 and 1,499 employees. FSIS estimated revenue for
firms in the Poultry Processing sector having between 500 and 1,499
employees at $305 million, thus a firm's average threshold for
significant impact is $3.1 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. <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/econ/susb/2022-susb-annual.html">https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/econ/susb/2022-susb-annual.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FSIS estimates the impact on the two small entities that may
voluntarily adopt faster line speeds at 1.1 percent of the estimated
revenue. These small entities represent less than 1 percent (2/260) of
the total number of small entities and do not amount to a substantial
number of small entities that may experience a significant impact from
this proposed rule. 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 71 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 and removes the need to obtain waivers and
participate in SIP to operate at faster line speeds. Small entities are
permitted to operate at line speeds of up to 175 bpm if they choose to
operate under NPIS. FSIS assumes most would not 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.\80\ The proposed rule, if finalized, is not expected
to directly impact these local niche markets or the entities that
participate in them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ 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 Poultry Inspection System.
OMB Number: 0583-0156.
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
Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.). This
statute mandates that FSIS protect the public by verifying that poultry
and poultry products are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled.
The currently approved burden estimate for this collection is
191,204 hours. This burden estimate includes the collection of
information to ensure that all official poultry slaughter
establishments, other than establishments that slaughter ratites,
maintain as part of their HACCP plan, sanitation SOP, or other
prerequisite program, written procedures addressing: (1) the prevention
throughout the entire slaughter and dressing operation of contamination
of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens (e.g., Salmonella and
Campylobacter) and by fecal material, including microbial test results;
and (2) the prevention of carcasses and parts contaminated by visible
fecal material from entering the chiller. The collection further
provides for recordkeeping to ensure that establishments operating
under NPIS maintain written procedures to prevent carcasses presenting
with septicemia and toxemia from entering the chiller, as well as
records that document that the products resulting from slaughter
operations meet the definition of ready-to-cook poultry.
As part of this proposed rule, FSIS requests to eliminate the
current requirement for each establishment operating under the NPIS to
submit on an annual basis an attestation to the management member of
the local FSIS circuit safety committee stating that 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 seven hours for a revised
total of 191,197 hours. The current approval for this information
collection will expire on August 31, 2026.
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information
collection assessment:
Respondents: Official poultry establishments.
Estimated No. of Respondents: 289.
Estimated No. of Annual Responses per Respondent: 5,292.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 191,197 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.
Information collection 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 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.

[[Page 7947]]

VI. 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.

VII. 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 items,
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.

VIII. Executive Order 13175

This proposed 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.
The USDA's Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) has assessed the impact
of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this
proposed rule currently does not require tribal consultation at this
time. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSIS will work with the OTR to
ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and
modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

IX. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights
regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and
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 State or
local Agency that administers the program or contact USDA through the
Telecommunications Relay Service at 711 (voice and TTY). 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 Agriculture, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop
9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7202001d1500131f5c1b1c0613191732070116135c151d04">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

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:
<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register</a>. FSIS also will make copies
of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update,
which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies,
procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public
meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be
of interest to 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: <a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe">http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe</a>. 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. Proposed Regulatory Amendments

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 381

Meat inspection, Poultry and poultry products.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend
9 CFR part 381 as follows:

Part 381--POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as follows:

2. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 1633; 21 U.S.C. 451-472; 7 CFR 2.7,
2.18, 2.53.

0
3. Remove and reserve subpart H, consisting of Sec. Sec. 381.45 and
381.46.
0
4. Revise section 381.69 as follows:

Sec. 381.69 Maximum line speed rates under the New Poultry Inspection
System.

(a) The maximum line speed authorized under the New Poultry
Inspection System (NPIS) reflects the time it takes for an inspector to
effectively perform the online carcass inspection procedures required
for the NPIS.
(b) The maximum line speed for young chicken slaughter
establishments that operate under the NPIS is 175 birds per minute
(bpm).
(c) The maximum line speed for turkey slaughter establishments that
operate under the NPIS is 60 bpm.
(d) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
establishments that operate under the NPIS must slow operations as
directed by inspectors-in-charge (IICs). 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 way birds are presented to the online
carcass inspector or the health condition of the flock.
(e) Establishments operating under the line speed limits authorized
in this section shall comply with all other applicable requirements of
the laws, including, but not limited to, 29 U.S.C. 654(a).
(f) Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any provision of
this section to be invalid, such action shall not affect any other
provision of this section.
* * * * *

[[Page 7948]]

Done at Washington, DC.
Justin Ransom,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-03227 Filed 2-18-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on February 19, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.