Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-05035/USCOURTS-caDC-01-05035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 11, 2002 Decided March 29, 2002

No. 01-5035

American Federation of Government Employees,

AFL-CIO, et al.,

Appellants

v.

Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of the U.S. Department

of Agriculture, et al.,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(98cv00893)

Anne M. Wagner argued the cause and filed the briefs for

appellants. With her on the briefs was Mark Roth.

Charles W. Scarborough, Attorney, U.S. Department of

Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the

briefs were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Mark B.

USCA Case #01-5035 Document #668297 Filed: 03/29/2002 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Stern and Colette G. Matzzie, Attorneys, U.S. Department of

Justice. Barbara C. Biddle, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, entered an appearance.

Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, Randolph and Tatel,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.

Randolph, Circuit Judge: This case returns to us after

proceedings on remand from Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees

v. Glickman, 215 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("AFGE I"). The

United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") had attempted to test a new inspection model at several hog and

poultry processing plants. AFGE I held that, as implemented, the model program violated the Federal Meat Inspection

Act ("FMIA"), 21 U.S.C. s 604, and the Poultry Products

Inspection Act ("PPIA"), 21 U.S.C. s 455. While the case

was on remand in the district court, the USDA modified its

model program. The question now is whether the revised

model program complies with these statutes.

Both statutes seek to ensure that all meat and poultry

products processed for human consumption are wholesome

and unadulterated. See 21 U.S.C. s 602; 21 U.S.C. s 451.

The FMIA requires USDA inspectors to conduct a postmortem "examination and inspection of the carcasses and

parts thereof of all cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules

and other equines." 21 U.S.C. s 604. The PPIA requires

USDA inspectors to conduct a "post mortem inspection of the

carcass of each bird processed." 21 U.S.C. s 455(b).

The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service ("FSIS")

traditionally assigned federal inspectors to processing lines

where they conducted "organoleptic" inspections of carcasses,

relying on sight, touch and smell in examining the head,

viscera, and exterior of the carcasses to detect signs of

adulteration, such as tumors, parasites and other diseases.

See AFGE I, 215 F.3d at 8, 10. In "the mid-1990s, FSIS

embarked on a comprehensive food safety initiative targeting

the agency's resources at what it perceived as a serious

health risk--foodborne pathogens, such as salmonella and

USCA Case #01-5035 Document #668297 Filed: 03/29/2002 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

E. coli, which cannot be detected by organoleptic inspection.

At the same time it determined to make changes in the

current inspection process to combat these microbial causes

of foodborne illness, FSIS addressed what it considered to be

another failure of the present regulatory system--that it

provides processing plants with little incentive to detect and

eliminate unacceptable carcasses before presenting them for

inspection." AFGE I, 215 F.3d at 9.

"In July 1996, FSIS took the first step in implementing its

new initiative by promulgating the Pathogen Reduction/

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points ('HACCP') final

rule. See 61 Fed. Reg. 38,806 (1996)." 215 F.3d at 9. The

rule required meat and poultry plants to develop and install a

system of preventive controls to ensure the safety of their

products. See 61 Fed. Reg. 38,814; see also 9 C.F.R.

s 417.2(a). Because the HACCP rule gave processing plants

greater control over production decisions, FSIS determined

that changes in its traditional organoleptic inspection methods

would be necessary to realign the roles of federal inspectors

with the new HACCP philosophy. See 61 Fed. Reg. 38,818.

Accordingly, in 1997 FSIS published a notice in the Federal

Register explaining that as a result of the HACCP final rule,

"[e]very aspect of traditional FSIS methods of inspection for

slaughter and processing needs to be reconsidered." 62 Fed.

Reg. 31,553. The notice said the agency was launching the

Inspection Models Development Project (the "Models Project"), through which it would design and test various new

inspection models in a series of trials in volunteer meat and

poultry slaughter establishments. See 62 Fed. Reg. 31,558.

If--after gathering data on the various test models and

preparing a final report analyzing the different models--the

FSIS decided that its traditional inspection methods needed

to be changed, then it pledged to initiate rulemaking to alter

existing inspection procedures. 62 Fed. Reg. 31,558.

The first new inspection approach, tested at several volunteer processing plants under the Models Project, gave industry personnel the task of separating normal from abnormal

carcasses and parts. Federal inspectors had two limited

roles: oversight and verification. Oversight inspectors obUSCA Case #01-5035 Document #668297 Filed: 03/29/2002 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

served establishment personnel as they processed carcasses

and removed unacceptable products from the food supply;

verification inspectors randomly sampled carcasses to determine if the plant was complying with relevant performance

standards. See AFGE I, 215 F.3d at 10.

In 1998, the plaintiffs in this action sought to enjoin implementation of the new inspection model, arguing that it violated the FMIA and PPIA because federal inspectors were not

personally inspecting each carcass. The district court, finding the program in compliance with the statutes, granted

summary judgment for the government. We reversed and

remanded. See AFGE I, 215 F.3d at 7. Because the model

program had federal employees "inspecting people not carcasses," the USDA was not fulfilling its statutory duty to

conduct post-mortem inspections of carcasses. See id. at 11.

On remand, plaintiffs moved for entry of an order consistent with AFGE I declaring that the USDA's inspection

model violated the FMIA and PPIA. The government opposed the motion and moved for a declaratory judgment,

arguing that it had modified its Models Project in response to

the AFGE I decision. Only the declaration of Michael Grasso, the project manager of the FSIS's inspection program,

offered a comprehensive written description of the modification, which was accomplished without a new rulemaking.

Grasso's declaration explained that in the eleven poultry

establishments voluntarily participating in the Models Project, the new program called for federal inspectors to play

two roles: (1) "carcass inspectors" stationed at the end of

slaughter lines would examine each poultry carcass for adulteration after the carcasses were eviscerated, sorted, washed

and trimmed by establishment employees but before the

carcasses were put into the chiller; and (2) "verification

inspectors" would oversee the poultry establishment's inspection efforts. See Grasso Declaration at 5. In the three

participating hog plants, the modified program called for

federal carcass inspectors located at up to three fixed locations along the slaughter lines: in the area where the carcass

and head were separated; where the carcass and viscera

were separated; and at the pre-wash verification location.

USCA Case #01-5035 Document #668297 Filed: 03/29/2002 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

See id. at 8.* These inspectors would be responsible for

examining the carcass, head, and viscera of all hogs. See id.

Other inspectors would also be assigned to hog plants to

verify the effectiveness of the plant's process control systems.

The USDA told the district court that it would begin

implementing the modified inspection system in two of the

eleven poultry plants on September 18, 2000, and that it

would complete implementation in all fourteen participating

plants no later than November 6, 2000. Plaintiffs objected on

the grounds that the modified program violated the FMIA,

PPIA, and conflicted with AFGE I because it did not require

federal inspectors to subject each carcass to a close and

critical appraisal. The government defended on the basis

that the main error in the prior program had been remedied

because federal inspectors would be directly observing each

carcass to determine whether or not it was adulterated.

The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for a remedial

order, declaring that the first model program violated the

FMIA and PPIA. See Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v.

Glickman, 127 F. Supp. 2d 243 (D.D.C. 2001). As to the

modified program, the court determined that Congress had

not unambiguously expressed its intent about how much

"inspection" is required by the statutes. Relying on Chevron,

U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984),

the court concluded that the modified program reflected

USDA's reasonable interpretation of the statutes.

In the first appeal in this case, we were faced with the issue

"whether the statutes permit federal inspectors to step back

from the processing lines and perform their inspection duties

by overseeing inspections conducted by plant employees."

215 F.3d at 8. Both the FMIA and PPIA yielded a certain

__________

* Due to the physical configuration of the slaughter line in some

hog establishments, fewer than three inspectors may be used

because "it may be possible for one inspector to inspect both the

head and viscera or the viscera and carcass." Grasso Declaration at

8 (explaining that, for example, "the chain that carries the head may

be adjacent to the viscera pans, which may enable one inspector to

examine both the head and viscera").

USCA Case #01-5035 Document #668297 Filed: 03/29/2002 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

solution: the statutes require federal inspectors to inspect

animal carcasses not people. The issue in this second appeal

is of a different sort. Federal inspectors are now examining

carcasses, but are they properly performing "inspections," as

the statutes require?

Courts pronouncing on the meaning of a word or phrase in

a statute often declare generally that the meaning is "plain"

or that it is "ambiguous." Such declarations may mask a

critical analytical step. A statute can be clear or unclear

depending on what question we want it to answer. We may

borrow H.L.A. Hart's famous hypothetical to illustrate the

point. Imagine the following law: "No vehicle may be taken

into the park." H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law 125 (1961).

If one asks whether this prohibits taking baseballs into the

park, the answer is clearly no. If one asks whether this

forbids driving automobiles through the park, the answer is

clearly yes. But if the question is whether the law prohibits

riding a bicycle or a skateboard in the park or pushing a baby

carriage there, uncertainties arise.

So it is with the FMIA and PPIA. Both statutes delineate

what must be inspected and by whom, see AFGE I, 215 F.3d

at 10-11, but neither statute tells the reader exactly what an

"inspection" entails. The district court, citing Chevron, therefore deferred to the USDA's view of "inspection" as reflected

in the modified program. The parties, following the district

court's lead, assume Chevron applies. But it would be plain

error for us to rely on the case. United States v. Mead

Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27 (2001), decided after the district

court ruled, held that Chevron applies only when "Congress

delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules

carrying the force of law, and ... the agency interpretation

claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that

authority." The modified program described in the Grasso

declaration was not the product of a statutorily-created

decision-making process, such as formal adjudication or

notice-and-comment rulemaking. Nor does the modified program itself contain any indication that the USDA "ever set

out with a lawmaking pretense in mind," Mead, 533 U.S. at

233. The USDA announced that the Models Project would

USCA Case #01-5035 Document #668297 Filed: 03/29/2002 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

serve as a temporary test project rather than as its final say

on the matter. See 62 Fed. Reg. 31,558 (explaining that after

testing various inspection models, the agency will write a final

report and "initiate rulemaking, as appropriate, to change

existing inspection procedures"). Because the USDA did not

intend to act with the force of law when it promulgated the

modified program, the program has no more status than

opinion letters, policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which are undeserving of Chevron

deference. See Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576,

587 (2000); Mead, 533 U.S. at 234. Still, as the reasoned

judgment of the federal agency charged with administering

our federal meat and poultry inspection laws, the USDA's

view about the scope of inspection required by the FMIA and

PPIA constitutes "a body of experience and informed judgment" to which we may properly resort for guidance. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).

The USDA determined that its modified inspection program, which calls for one carcass and one verification inspector per slaughter line at poultry plants, and one verification

inspector and up to three carcass inspectors at hog plants,

would be sufficient to allow its employees to detect adulterated meat and poultry. With admirable candor, plaintiffs concede that the statutes do not require organoleptic inspections.

They believe the modified program is nevertheless flawed

because federal inspectors examine poultry carcasses only

after industry employees have eviscerated, sorted, trimmed

and rinsed the carcasses. As to the statute, the PPIA states

that federal inspectors must conduct a "post mortem inspection of the carcass of each bird processed." 21 U.S.C.

s 455(b). Another subsection states that "[a]ll poultry carcasses and parts thereof ... found to be adulterated shall be

condemned," 21 U.S.C. s 455(c). Plaintiffs wonder how federal inspectors can fulfill their duty to condemn adulterated

"parts" if all they are checking for adulteration are poultry

carcasses. The USDA has a ready response, one we find

convincing. Inspection of the viscera "is not necessary to

determine whether a poultry carcass is adulterated." Brief

USCA Case #01-5035 Document #668297 Filed: 03/29/2002 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

for Appellees at 23. With only one exception, all generalized

poultry diseases and conditions can be readily discerned by

inspecting the carcasses alone and therefore are adequately

addressed by the practice, incorporated in the modified program, of condemning all viscera that correspond to carcasses

found to be adulterated. The one disease that cannot be

detected by inspecting the carcasses alone--avian visceral

leukosis--is adequately dealt with under the modified program by having an FSIS inspector examine the viscera from

the initial 300 birds slaughtered from each flock. If avian

visceral leukosis is present, it will be present throughout the

flock and therefore will be detected.

Plaintiffs also assert that the line speeds used in the

modified program at both hog and poultry plants are too fast

to allow federal inspectors to make a critical appraisal of each

carcass. But as the USDA points out, higher line speeds are

appropriate. Fewer adulterated poultry carcasses and hog

parts and carcasses will be presented for federal inspection

under the modified program because employees of the processing plants will sort out carcasses before they reach

federal inspectors. Neither the PPIA nor the FMIA prohibits establishment employees from paring down the overall

number of carcasses by removing some adulterated carcasses

before they get to FSIS inspectors. Furthermore, as the

USDA tests its models project, it plans to monitor whether a

second inspector is necessary in establishments operating at

high line speeds. See Grasso Declaration at 6.

We therefore hold that the USDA's current modified inspection model, as described in the Grasso declaration, does

not violate the FMIA or the PPIA. Because the modified

program calls for federal inspectors in participating poultry

plants to personally examine each poultry carcass leaving the

slaughter line, the USDA is complying with the PPIA's

requirement that "the carcass of each bird processed" be

inspected for adulteration. 21 U.S.C. s 455. The modified

program also satisfies the FMIA because the program calls

for federal inspectors in participating hog plants to inspect all

hog carcasses, heads and viscera, as the statute demands.

See 21 U.S.C. s 604.

USCA Case #01-5035 Document #668297 Filed: 03/29/2002 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

We have reviewed only the USDA's implementation of its

current, modified inspection model. This is a test program, a

temporary measure intended as an experiment. If the USDA

undertakes a rulemaking to adopt as a permanent change

something along the lines of the modified program, experience with the program's operation and its effectiveness will

doubtless play a significant role. For this and other reasons,

our opinion today may not necessarily foreshadow the outcome of judicial review of such future regulations.

Judgment affirmed.

USCA Case #01-5035 Document #668297 Filed: 03/29/2002 Page 9 of 9