`UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
`WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 227, et al.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`AGRICULTURE,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-02045
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 1 of 32
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Defendant United States Department of Agriculture, by and through undersigned counsel,
`
`hereby moves for dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of this motion, Defendant submits the accompanying
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities and proposed Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated this 9th day of October, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`
`ERIC R. WOMACK
`Assistant Branch Director
`
`/s/ Cormac A. Early
`CORMAC A. EARLY
`D.C. Bar No. 1033835
`Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice
`Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
`1100 L Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Tel.: (202) 616-7420
`cormac.a.early@usdoj.gov
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 3 of 32
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
`WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 227, et al.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-02045
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`AGRICULTURE,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 4 of 32
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3
`
`I. FSIS’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW POULTRY INSPECTION
`SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`II. FSIS’S 2018 LINE-SPEED WAIVER CRITERIA AND ISSUANCE OF
`WAIVERS ............................................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 9
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 11
`
`I. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
`JURISDICTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING .................................... 11
`
`A. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Cannot Support Associational Standing ................................. 12
`
`1. Plaintiffs’ Failure to Identify an Individual Member Requires Dismissal .................. 12
`
`2. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Fail to Demonstrate a Substantial Likelihood of Injury ......... 13
`
`
`
`B. Plaintiff’s Allegations Cannot Support Organizational Standing .............................. 18
`
`
`II. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED INJURIES FALL OUTSIDE THE PPIA’S
`ZONE OF INTERESTS ....................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 5 of 32
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Am. Chemistry Council v. Dep’t of Transp.,
`468 F.3d 810 (D.C. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................................. 2, 12
`
`
`Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Empls., AFL-CIO v. Veneman,
`284 F.3d 125 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................ 4, 5
`
`
`Am. Federation of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Vilsack,
` 672 Fed. Appx. 36, 38 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Am. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entm’t, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`California v. Trump,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 1643858 (D.D.C. Apr. 2, 2020) .................................................. 19
`
`
`Chamber of Comm. of U.S. v. EPA,
`642 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
`861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................. 19
`
`
`EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School,
`117 F.3d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`Equal Rights Ctr. v. Post Props, Inc.,
`633 F.3d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 18
`
`
`Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack,
`808 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................................... 2, 6, 15
`
`
`Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman,
`455 U.S. 363 (1982) .................................................................................................................. 19
`
`
`Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. Thomas,
`885 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................................ 21, 23
`
`
`Herbert v. Nat’l Acad. of Scis.,
`974 F.2d 192 (D.C. Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert Comm’n,
`432 U.S. 333 (1977) ............................................................................................................ 11, 12
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 118 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 21
`
`
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ...................................................................................................... 11, 14, 18
`
`
`Match-E-Be-Nash-She Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak,
`567 U.S. 209 (2012) .................................................................................................................. 21
`
`
`Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. United States,
`101 F.3d 1423 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................ 19
`
`
`People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. USDA,
`797 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................................... 11, 18
`
`
`Public Citizen, Inc. v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin,
`489 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`
`Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump,
`297 F. Supp. 3d 6 (D.D.C. 2018) ........................................................................................ 11, 12
`
`
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
`523 U.S. 83 (1998) .................................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,
`555 U.S. 488 (2009) .................................................................................................................. 19
`
`
`Swanson Grp. Mfg. LLC v. Jewell,
`790 F.3d 235 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 19
`
`
`Twin Rivers Paper Co. LLC v. SEC,
`934 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................... 21, 22, 23
`
`
`Whitmore v. Arkansas,
`495 U.S. 149 (1990) .................................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`Zukerman v. USPS,
`961 F.3d 431 (D.C. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`21 U.S.C. § 451 ......................................................................................................................... 3, 22
`
`21 U.S.C. § 452 ............................................................................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 7 of 32
`
`21 U.S.C. § 453 ............................................................................................................................... 3
`
`21 U.S.C. § 455 ......................................................................................................................... 3, 22
`
`21 U.S.C. § 456 ............................................................................................................................... 3
`
`21 U.S.C. § 457 ............................................................................................................................... 3
`
`29 U.S.C. § 651 ............................................................................................................................. 22
`
`REGULATIONS
`
` 7
`
` 9
`
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 4,408 (Jan. 27, 2012) ............................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`79 Fed. Reg. 49,566 (Aug. 21, 2014) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 49,048 (Sept. 28, 2018) .................................................................................. 5, 6, 7, 8
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .............................................................................................................. 10, 22, 23
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`FSIS Constituent Update, FSIS No Longer Accepting Poultry Line Speed Waivers (Apr. 24,
`2020) ........................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`FSIS, Constituent Update, FSIS’ Criteria for Consideration of Waiver Requests from Young
`Chicken Slaughter Establishments to Operate at Line Speeds Up to 175 Birds Per Minute
`(Feb. 23, 2018) ............................................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
` C.F.R. § 2.53 ................................................................................................................................ 3
`
` C.F.R. § 381.3 .............................................................................................................................. 6
`
` C.F.R. § 381.4 ............................................................................................................................ 21
`
` C.F.R. § 381.69 ............................................................................................................................ 6
`
` 9
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 8 of 32
`
`Letter from Michael J. Brown, President, National Chicken Council to Carmen Rottenberg,
`Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, FSIS (Sept. 1, 2017)
`
`..................................................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Letter from John Howard, Director, NIOSH, to Alfred V. Almanza, Administrator, FSIS (Apr. 7,
`2014) ......................................................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Human Rights Watch, When We’re Dead and Buried, Our Bones Will Keep Hurting: Workers’
`Rights Under Threat in Meat and Poultry Plants ..................................................................... 17
`
`
`Memo from Thomas Galsassi, Director Directorate of Enforcement Programs, Occupational
`Health and Safety Admin. (Oct. 28, 2015) ............................................................................... 16
`
`
`OSHA Regional Instruction, Region IV, Directive No. CPL-2 02-02-030A (October 1, 2019) .. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 9 of 32
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”), an agency of the Defendant U.S.
`
`Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), is charged with protecting consumer health and welfare by
`
`ensuring that poultry food products sold to consumers are safe and unadulterated. To that end,
`
`FSIS inspectors monitor poultry slaughterhouse operations, including the use of automated
`
`evisceration systems that process poultry at particular line speeds. In the mid-1990s, FSIS began
`
`an initiative to modernize its inspection systems by focusing agency resources on increased
`
`inspection verification activities of the establishment’s food safety systems to reduce or prevent
`
`foodborne pathogens from reaching poultry processing
`
`lines and allowing volunteer
`
`slaughterhouses to take an active role in identifying and removing carcasses with food safety
`
`concerns before the FSIS post-mortem inspection, and the production of unadulterated poultry at
`
`faster line speeds. After the D.C. Circuit upheld this initiative, FSIS established the New Poultry
`
`Inspection System (“NPIS”). The NPIS is optional and sets the maximum processing line speed
`
`for participating poultry facilities at 140 birds per minute (“bpm”).
`
`In 2018, FSIS invoked that authority and issued instructions to its regulated community
`
`explaining the criteria and process under which it would consider applications from NPIS facilities
`
`for waivers from the 140 bpm limit (the “Waiver Criteria”). Facilities receiving waivers would be
`
`permitted to operate up to 175 bpm so that FSIS could collect data to assess the ability of these
`
`facilities to produce safe poultry products at higher line speeds to inform a possible future
`
`rulemaking, if supported. Starting in October, 2018, FSIS issued 53 waivers before announcing in
`
`March, 2020, that it would have sufficient data from those establishments and had stopped
`
`accepting new waiver applications.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 10 of 32
`
`Plaintiffs are five local labor unions and their affiliated international labor union
`
`representing workers at seven establishments that received waivers from FSIS allowing lines to
`
`operate at 175 bpm. Plaintiffs assert three claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”),
`
`alleging that the Waiver Criteria (1) should have been issued using APA notice-and-comment
`
`rulemaking procedures, (2) do not comply with FSIS’s waiver regulation, and (3) are arbitrary and
`
`capricious.
`
`Although Defendant believes that these claims lack merit, this Court need not reach them
`
`because Plaintiffs lack Article III standing. Plaintiffs allege that the Waiver Criteria, and the grants
`
`of waivers at the individual plants where their members work, increase the risk of injury to workers
`
`on poultry processing lines. In so alleging, Plaintiffs assert standing under the theory of an
`
`increased risk of injury, rather than any actual or imminent injury. This is not the first time that
`
`organizations have sought to challenge USDA’s actions under the NPIS system based on an
`
`increased risk theory. In 2015, a group of plaintiffs sought to challenge the regulatory scheme
`
`based upon a theory that the inspection system created an increased risk of illness, supported by
`
`studies that supposedly showed such a causal connection. But the D.C. Circuit held that Plaintiffs
`
`had not met the high bar required for such a showing, which requires “both (i) a substantially
`
`increased risk of harm and (ii) a substantial probability of harm with that increase taken into
`
`account.” Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 914 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“FWW”).
`
`Plaintiffs have similarly failed to properly allege either element of that standard here. As
`
`an initial matter, Plaintiffs have not even attempted to identify a member of their organization that
`
`has allegedly been injured by USDA’s issuance of waivers, which is a fundamental requirement
`
`in this Circuit. See, e.g., Am. Chemistry Council v. Dep’t of Transp., 468 F.3d 810, 815 (D.C. Cir.
`
`2006). The reason for that requirement is demonstrated by this very case, where Plaintiffs allege
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 11 of 32
`
`that the risk of injury that they fear concerns workers “on the line.” Dkt. 1 at 5, Compl. ¶ 19. But
`
`Plaintiffs have not identified any such members in their Complaint.
`
`Even beyond the failure to identify a specific members, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the twin
`
`requirements of alleging a substantial increase in the risk of injury and a substantial overall risk
`
`from increasing line speeds by 35 bpm. Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that the speed increment
`
`at issue leads to any appreciable increase in risk, let alone a substantial one, and the documents
`
`they cite are either silent on the question or undermine Plaintiffs’ position.
`
`In the event this Court determines that Plaintiffs have established standing, it should
`
`nonetheless dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state a claim, because Plaintiffs are
`
`attempting to shoehorn their worker-safety claims into a statute concerned with the safety of food
`
`to consumers. The interest in worker safety they seek to vindicate in this suit is the province of the
`
`separate statutory and regulatory apparatus of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
`
`(“OSHA”), andfalls outside the zone of interests of the statute governing FSIS’s inspections of
`
`poultry slaughter plants.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`FSIS’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW POULTRY INSPECTION SYSTEM
`
`FSIS administers the Poultry Products Inspection Act (“PPIA”), 7 C.F.R. § 2.53(a)(2)(i),
`
`which was enacted in 1957 to protect consumers “by assuring that poultry products distributed to
`
`them are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.” 21 U.S.C. §
`
`451. To that end, the PPIA requires, among other things, that USDA inspectors conduct a “post
`
`mortem inspection of the carcass of each bird processed” at slaughterhouses. Id. § 455(b).
`
`Establishments that slaughter or process poultry must be operated in accordance with the USDA’s
`
`regulations setting forth sanitary practices and labeling requirements. 21 U.S.C. §§ 453(h), 456-
`
`57.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 12 of 32
`
`Most poultry slaughterhouses operate using an “automated evisceration system” that
`
`allows them to process poultry at a faster slaughter “line speed” than is possible when poultry is
`
`eviscerated by hand. Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection, 77 Fed. Reg. 4,408, 4,410
`
`(Jan. 27, 2012). FSIS had traditionally assigned its inspectors to slaughterhouse evisceration lines
`
`where they would physically inspect carcasses to detect signs of adulteration. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t
`
`Empls., AFL-CIO v. Veneman, 284 F.3d 125, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“AFGE II”). But this approach
`
`of visually detecting animal diseases is not capable of detecting pathogens causing foodborne
`
`human illness that can be present in animals but not showing signs of a disease and thus cannot be
`
`detected visually. 77 Fed. Reg. at 4,411. As a result, in the mid-1990s, FSIS started a
`
`comprehensive food safety initiative that shifted the agency’s resources to focus on preventing
`
`invisible foodborne pathogens, such as Salmonella. AFGE II, 284 F.3d at 127. The initiative also
`
`sought to create incentives for plants to detect and eliminate adulterated carcasses before they reach
`
`an FSIS inspector. Id.
`
`As part of this initiative, FSIS started a pilot study called the “Hazard Analysis and Critical
`
`Control Point-Based Inspection Models Project” (“HIMP”), through which it designed and tested
`
`new inspection models using trials in volunteer poultry slaughter plants. AFGE II, 284 F.3d at 127;
`
`see also Petition to Permit Waivers of Maximum Line Speeds, 83 Fed. Reg. 49,048, 49,408 (Sept.
`
`28, 2018). Under HIMP, industry personnel were given primary responsibility for sorting normal
`
`from abnormal poultry carcasses on the evisceration line before the carcasses are presented for
`
`inspection, while one FSIS inspector was stationed at the end of the line to inspect each bird
`
`processed and another offline inspector oversaw the plant’s implementation of its food safety
`
`system. AFGE II, 284 F.3d at 127-28. In addition, because the carcasses presented to the online
`
`inspector had been sorted prior to inspection, participating young chicken HIMP plants were
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 13 of 32
`
`permitted to operate at a line speed of up to 175 bpm. 77 Fed. Reg. at 4,411. The 20 young chicken
`
`plants that participated in HIMP demonstrated to FSIS that they could produce safe poultry while
`
`operating at the line speeds authorized under HIMP. Id.
`
`In 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the HIMP
`
`did not violate the PPIA’s requirement that FSIS inspect “the carcass of each bird processed.”
`
`AFGE II, 284 F.3d at 130. Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit rejected the argument “that the line speeds
`
`used” by HIMP plants “are too fast,” and instead found that they “are appropriate,” given that
`
`“[f]ewer adulterated poultry carcasses . . . will be presented for federal inspection under the
`
`modified program . . . .” Id.
`
`In 2014, based on data it collected from the 20 HIMP plants, FSIS established the New
`
`Poultry Inspection System, an optional inspection system for young chicken and all turkey
`
`slaughter establishments, modeled on HIMP. See Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection,
`
`79 Fed. Reg. 49,566 (Aug. 21, 2014). Under the NPIS, establishment personnel are primarily
`
`responsible for the online identification of abnormal carcasses. 79 Fed. Reg. at 49,567. This has
`
`allowed FSIS to “shift[] Agency resources to conduct more offline inspection activities that are
`
`more effective in ensuring food safety.” Id. While one FSIS inspector remains at the end of each
`
`poultry line to inspect carcasses, “additional offline verification inspectors . . . check to see [] that
`
`inspection protocols are being followed and conduct pathogen testing.” Food & Water Watch, Inc.
`
`v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 916 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing 77 Fed. Reg. at 4,422).
`
`As for the maximum line speed for young chicken facilities using NPIS, FSIS originally
`
`proposed 175 bpm, but ultimately decided to retain 140 bpm (except for the 20 former HIMP
`
`facilities, who were allowed to continue using 175 bpm) so that FSIS could assess facilities’ ability
`
`to maintain process control as they transitioned to NPIS. 83 Fed. Reg. at 49,048; see 9 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 14 of 32
`
`381.69(a). In its notice of final rulemaking, FSIS explained that after the implementation of the
`
`NPIS on a wide scale for at least a year, the agency would consider line speeds at which NPIS
`
`facilities are capable of consistently producing safe poultry. 83 Fed. Reg. at 49,049.
`
`USDA’s actions with respect to poultry inspections were again challenged in federal court
`
`by a group of plaintiffs who asserted that the NPIS would substantially increase the risk of
`
`foodborne illness by decreasing inspections. FWW, 808 F.3d at 914. The D.C. Circuit ultimately
`
`held that those plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not adequately alleged “that the NPIS
`
`substantially increases the risk of contracting foodborne illness compared to the existing inspection
`
`methods.” Id. (emphasis added).1
`
`II.
`
`FSIS’s 2018 LINE-SPEED WAIVER CRITERIA AND ISSUANCE OF WAIVERS
`
`In 2017, FSIS received a petition from the National Chicken Council asking the agency to
`
`use its authority under 9 C.F.R. § 381.3(b) to implement a new waiver system that would allow
`
`poultry facilities to apply to waive the 140 bpm limit and operate without any maximum line speed
`
`(“Petition”). 83 Fed. Reg. at 49,049. Under section 381.3(b), FSIS’s Administrator has the
`
`authority to “waive . . . any provisions of the [poultry inspection] regulations in order . . . to permit
`
`experimentation so that new procedures, equipment, and processing techniques may be tested to
`
`facilitate definite improvements,” so long as such waivers “are not in conflict with the purposes or
`
`provisions of the [PPIA].” FSIS posted the Petition on its website,2 announced the availability of
`
`
`1 In 2016, the D.C. Circuit summarily affirmed the dismissal of a separate challenge to NPIS,
`
`holding that “Food & Water Watch forecloses this appeal.” Am. Federation of Gov’t Employees,
`
`AFL-CIO v. Vilsack, 672 Fed. Appx. 36, 38 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016).
`
`2 See Letter from Michael J. Brown, President, National Chicken Council to Carmen Rottenberg,
`
`Acting
`
`Deputy
`
`Under
`
`Secretary
`
`for
`
`Food
`
`Safety,
`
`FSIS
`
`(Sept.
`
`1,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 15 of 32
`
`the Petition in an October 13, 2017 Constituent Update, solicited comments from the public, and
`
`accepted such comments until December 13, 2017. 83 Fed. Reg. at 49,049.
`
`After considering all timely comments, FSIS issued its response to the Petition on January
`
`29, 2018. 83 Fed. Reg. at 49,049. In that response, FSIS denied the Petition’s requests that the
`
`agency establish a new, separate waiver-request system to provide line-speed waivers and that the
`
`agency allow facilities to operate without a maximum line speed. Id. The response added, however,
`
`that “in the near future” FSIS would consider, under its already existing waiver procedures,
`
`requests for waivers to operate at line speeds of up to 175 bpm from facilities that could meet
`
`certain criteria. Id. at 49,049-50.
`
`A month later, on February 23, 2018, FSIS issued a “Constituent Update” (“2018
`
`Constituent Update”) announcing those criteria, including the requirement that a facility must have
`
`been operating under the NPIS for at least one year to receive a waiver.3 83 Fed. Reg. at 49,050.
`
`FSIS also explained that because it would be “evaluat[ing] the establishment’s ability to maintain
`
`process control” at speeds in excess of 140 bpm, facilities receiving waivers must consistently
`
`utilize the higher speeds. Id. at 49,051. The 2018 Constituent Update concluded by stating that
`
`
`2017),https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/7734f5cf-05d9-4f89-a7eb-6d85037ad2a7/17-
`
`05-Petition-National-Chicken-Council-09012017.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
`
`3 FSIS, Constituent Update, FSIS’ Criteria for Consideration of Waiver Requests from Young
`
`Chicken Slaughter Establishments to Operate at Line Speeds Up to 175 Birds Per Minute (Feb. 23,
`
`2018), https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/ee977696-7f87-4b87-8717-15a824ce0a81/
`
`ConstiUpdate022318.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=ee977696-7f87-
`
`4b87-8717-15a824ce0a81
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 16 of 32
`
`FSIS would provide additional information in a future Federal Register notice, which FSIS issued
`
`on September 28, 2018 (“2018 Notice”). Id. at 49,048. Among other things, the 2018 Notice stated
`
`that FSIS would use the data collected from establishments receiving waivers along with data from
`
`the 20 HIMP facilities “to assess the ability of NPIS establishments to maintain process control at
`
`higher line speeds and to inform future rulemaking, if supported.” Id. at 49,052.
`
`The 2018 Notice also responded in detail to issues raised by the more than 100,000
`
`comments FSIS received in response to the Petition. 83 Fed. Reg. at 49,052-60. FSIS received
`
`comments from an array of groups, including Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
`
`International Union (“UFCW”). See Dkt. 1 at 10, Compl. ¶ 43. UFCW’s comment argued that
`
`eliminating line-speed restrictions would “put hard-working poultry workers at greater risk of
`
`being injured.” Id. Other commenters “argued that FSIS could not grant the NCC Petition under
`
`existing regulations, that the petition was inconsistent with the agency’s stated position on line
`
`speed in the Final Rule, and that the maximum line speed could not be changed without
`
`undertaking notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA. Id. at 11, ¶ 44.
`
`In October 2018, FSIS started issuing line-speed waivers. See FSIS Constituent Update,
`
`FSIS No Longer Accepting Poultry Line Speed Waivers (Apr. 24, 2020). 4 By the end of 2018,
`
`there were 23 facilities that were allowed to operate up to 175 bpm, and by the end of April 2020,
`
`FSIS had granted a total of 53 waivers. Id. On April 22, 2020, FSIS issued a Constituent Update
`
`stating that the agency had stopped accepting new waiver requests on March 20, 2020, because,
`
`
`4Available at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/meetings/newsletters/
`
`constituent-updates/archive/2020/ConstUpdate042420
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 17 of 32
`
`“[b]ased on the waivers FSIS has approved, the agency will have enough data from establishments
`
`to assess and determine whether to move forward with rulemaking.”
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs are the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and five of its
`
`affiliated local labor unions whose members work at poultry plants that have received waivers
`
`allowing line speeds of up to 175 bpm. Dkt. 1 at 1, 4; Compl. ¶¶ 14. On July 28, 2020, they filed
`
`their Complaint, alleging that the 2018 Constituent Update and the 2018 Notice (which Plaintiffs
`
`collectively call the “2018 Waiver Program” but which Defendants call the “Waiver Criteria”), as
`
`well as individual waivers granted by FSIS to poultry plants at which Plaintiffs’ members work,
`
`are invalid under the APA.5 Plaintiffs’ first cause of action alleges that the Waiver Criteria
`
`constitute a legislative rule that should have been issued using the APA’s notice-and-comment
`
`rulemaking procedures. Id. at 15–16, ¶¶ 76–78. Their second cause of action contends that the
`
`Waiver Criteria and the individual waivers are inconsistent with FSIS’s regulation allowing it to
`
`
`5 Plaintiffs state that they are seeking to challenge “seven waivers granted by FSIS to poultry plants
`
`at which Plaintiffs’ members work.” Dkt. 1 at 1, Compl. ¶ 1. However, the Complaint appears to
`
`list waivers at ten plants at which Plaintiffs represent workers: Tyson Foods plants in Robards,
`
`Kentucky; Corydon, Indiana; Dardanelle, Arkansas; Noel, Missouri; and Forest Mississippi (FSIS
`
`Establishment Nos. P-19514, P-1241, P-72, P-1362, and P-164); and Wayne Farms plants in
`
`Laurel, Mississippi; Albertville, Alabama; Danville, Arkansas; Jack, Alabama; and Decatur,
`
`Alabama (FSIS Establishment Nos. P-519, P-1317, P-1009, P-7485, and P-1235). See id. at 2–4,
`
`¶¶ 9-13. In any event, Plaintiffs do not raise any individualized challenges to any particular waiver;
`
`rather, they challenge the Waiver Criteria and the waivers granted under those criteria as a whole.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02045-TJK Document 9 Filed 10/09/20 Page 18 of 32
`
`grant waivers, a