Meyer Glitzenstein & Eubanks LLP 

------------=---------~~--

4115 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 210 

Washington, D.C. 20016 

Telephone (202) 588-5206 

Fax (202) 588-5049 

,, @meyerglitz.com --~==:: :e_:=:_::_:::_::::,___--

P au l Kiecker 

Acting Administrator 

USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Paul.kiecker@fsis.usda.gov 

Carmen Rottenberg 

Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety 

USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Carmen.rottenberg@fsis.usda.gov 

Freedom of Information Act Officer 

USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service 

Room 2168 South Building 

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Fsis.foia@usda.gov 

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 

2601 S. Lemay Ave., #7-240 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

Telephone (970) 703-6060 

Fax (202) 588-5049 

@meyerglitz.com 

Received in U50A/FSIS 

MAY 1 6 2018 

FOIAOfflce .:1ll ... , .... :,~4 • ·. 

RE: Request for Records, and for Proactive Disclosure of Records, Relating to 

Implementation of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act 

On behalf of our clients, the Animal Welfare Institute ("A WI") and Farm Sanctuary 

("FS") (collectively "our clients"), we are writing to request that the United States Department of 

Agriculture ("USDA") and the Food Safety and Inspection Service ("FSIS") comply with the 

affirmative disclosure mandates of the Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(2), by providing to our clients and posting online certain records relating to the FSIS's 

oversight of slaughter practices under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act ("HMSA") and the 

Poultry Products Inspection Act ("PPIA"), that have been frequently requested by our clients and 

others, and that have already been released pursuant to FOIA requests under 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(3). 

recy-cied pap!!r 

(b) (6) (b) (6)
Additionally, because the subject matter of the categories of documents described in this 

request is such that all records in these categories will be the subject of subsequent requests, id. § 

552(a)(2)(D)(ii)(I), we further request that the USDA and FSIS comply with FOIA's affirmative 

disclosure mandate by proactively posting all such records online without waiting for our clients 

or others to submit individual requests pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). 

We further request that the USDA/FSIS produce directly to our clients and post online a 

complete index of all frequently requested records relating to the HMSA and PPIA, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(E). 

Finally, we request that the USDA/FSIS comply with the congressional mandate to "issue 

regulations on procedures for the disclosure of records" in accordance with the FOIA 

Improvement Act of 2016. Pub. L. 114-185 § 3(a). 1 

In particular, this request applies to the following categories of documents: 

( 1) all noncompliance records and memoranda of interview, under the Humane 

Methods of Slaughter Act ("HMSA"), including any supporting records relating 

to their issuance pursuant to humane slaughter regulations under 9 C.F.R. § 313; 

(2) all records of violations of Good Commercial Practices for the humane handling 

of birds at slaughter under the Poultry Products Inspection Act ("PPIA"), 

including: 

a. all inspection records for non-compliance related to the treatment of poultry 

under the PPIA, including noncompliance records and memoranda of 

interview; 

b. any other records relating to humane treatment of poultry under the PPIA, 

including memoranda of information, letters of concern, or letters of cause; 

and 

c. all records of "Good Commercial Practices" under the PPIA. 

1 To be clear, we request that the USDA and FSIS process this request under both sections (a)(2) 

and (a)(3) of FOIA. Thus, we request that the agencies produce responsive records directly to 

our clients under section (a)(3), and that they post all such responsive records, including existing 

records and any similar records generated in the future, online pursuant to section (a)(2). If the 

agencies agree to post all responsive existing and future records online under section (a)(2), we 

will consider that a complete response and there will be no need to produce the documents 

directly to our clients. On the other hand, we will not consider merely releasing existing records 

to our clients under (a)(3) a complete response to this request, because such a release will not 

satisfy the agencies' obligations under section (a)(2). 

2 
We request that FSIS process this request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) by producing 

to our clients requested records from January 2018 until the receipt of this request. We further 

request that FSIS process this request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2) by posting requested 

records on line, beginning with records from January 2018 until the receipt of this request, and by 

proactively disclosing such records in the future, without waiting for further FOIA requests, 

within 14 days of the generation of such records, as FSIS does for certain other records under the 

HMSA.2 

Statutory Background 

1. The Freedom of Information Act's Affirmative Disclosure Mandate 

Congress enacted FOIA "to clarify and protect the right of the public to information." S. 

Rep. 1219 (July 22, 1964 ). In 1996, Congress clarified that "the purpose of the Freedom of 

Information Act is to require agencies of the Federal Government to make certain agency 

information available for public inspection and copying and to establish and enable enforcement 

of the right of any person to obtain access to the records of such agencies." S. Rep. 104-272. To 

that end, Congress in 1996 amended FOIA to require agencies to "make available for public 

inspection in an electronic format" certain records, including "copies of all records, regard less of 

form or format," which have been "released to any person," and which "because of the nature of 

their subject matter ... are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially 

the same records." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(D). 

In 2016, Congress again amended FOIA to clarify that this category of frequently 

requested records includes any records that have been released and "requested 3 or more times." 

Id. Congress also required agencies to issue regulations within 180 days to implement this 

affirmative disclosure requirement. Pub. L. 114-185 § 3(a). Thus, FOIA 's affirmative disclosure 

mandate requires agencies to make available for public inspection in an electronic format - i.e. 

by posting on the internet - frequently requested records. Similarly, FOIA also requires agencies 

to post online a "general index" of such frequently requested records. Id. § 552(a)(2)(E). 

The congressional intent behind FOIA's affirmative electronic disclosure mandate was 

"to encourage on-line access to Government information" so that "the public can more directly 

obtain and use Government information." H. Rep. No. 104-795, at 11 (1996). Accordingly, 

Congress acted "to prompt agencies to make information available affirmatively on their own 

initiative in order to meet anticipated public demand for it." S. Rep. No. 104-272, at 13 (1996). 

Congress also intended for FOIA's affirmative disclosure mandate to aid in reducing the 

need for individual FOIA requests by making material available online. Indeed, finding that 

agency delays in responding to individual requests "continue as one of the most significant FOIA 

problems," H. Rep. No. 104-795, at 13 (1996), Congress explained that"[ w ]ith more affirmative 

disclosure, agencies can better use their resources," allowing them to "more efficiently use their 

2 See htlps :! /o ri 2-i n-www. fai s. uscla .gov !wps/porlalffsi s/topics/regulatorv-compl ianeciregu lalorv: 

cnforccrncnt/humanc-handling-cnforccmcnt-actinns (listing dates of posting records within approximately 14 days 

of the creation of records). 

3 
limited resources to complete requests on time," id. at 12-13. As Senator Patrick Leahy, one of 

the sponsors of the 1996 POIA amendments, explained, "as more information is made available 

online, the labor intensive task of physically searching and producing documents should be 

reduced," and "[t]he net result should be increased efficiency in satisfying agency POIA 

obligations, reduced paperwork burdens, reduced errors and better service to the public." 142 

Cong. Rec. S 10, 894 (daily ed. Sept. 18, 1996). Thus, Congress envisioned that improved online access to information would also "result in fewer POIA requests, thus enabling POIA 

resources to be more efficiently used in responding to complex requests." H. Rep. No. 104-795, 

at 11. 

2. Legal Requirements for Humane Treatment of Animals Slaughtered for Human 

Consumption. 

Congress first enacted the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act in 1958, requiring that any 

meat sold to the U.S. government be slaughtered humanely. In 1978, Congress expanded the 

HMSA to require that livestock imported into the U.S. for meat be slaughtered humanely. In 

particular, the HMSA requires that livestock must be "rendered insensible to pain" before 

slaughter. 7 U.S.C. § l 902(a). However, the USDA failed to meaningfully enforce the HMSA 

for many years. Consequently, in 2002 Congress called on the Secretary of Agriculture to "fully 

enforce" the HMSA to "prevent needless suffering" of animals, and reaffirmed that "[i]t is the 

policy of the United States that the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of livestock in 

connection with slaughter shall be carried out only by humane methods." Public Law 107-171 § 

10305. PSIS gathers and maintains records relating to regulated entities' compliance with the 

HMSA. 

Congress enacted the Poultry Products Inspection Act in 1957, finding that "[i]t is 

essential in the public interest that the health and welfare of consumers be protected by assuring 

that poultry products distributed to them are ... not adulterated." 21 U.S.C. § 451. To that end, 

the PPIA requires poultry processing facilities to "be operated in accordance with such sanitary 

practices" as will prevent adulterated products, id. § 456, and requires PSIS to inspect poultry 

processing facilities and processed poultry, id. § 455. To achieve the PPIA's goals, PSIS 

requires that facilities that slaughter poultry operate "in accordance with good commercial 

practices." 9 C.P.R. § 381.65. The PPIA prohibits any person from slaughtering or processing 

poultry in violation of relevant statutory or regulatory provisions, 21 U.S.C. § 458, and requires 

facilities to maintain records ofcompliance with the statute and regulations. Id. § 460(b )(1 ). 

PSIS gathers and maintains records relating to regulated entities' compliance with the PPIA. 

Discussion 

1. The USDA and FSIS Must Affirmatively Disclose Frequently Requested Records 

Under the HMSA and PPIA. 

Because the records that PSIS gathers and maintains under the HMSA and PPIA are 

important indicators of the humane ( or inhumane) treatment of animals slaughtered for human 

consumption, our clients and others have regularly requested these records for years. As to the 

records requested related to the HMSA, our clients have been requesting such records since at 

4 
least 2004; as to the records requested concerning the PPIA, our clients have been requesting 

such records since at least 2012. Typically, every three months our clients submit FOIA requests 

under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) for records under the HMSA and/or the PPIA. Additionally, these 

same records are regularly the subject ofrequests from other entities, as FSIS's FOIA Request 

Reports Archive illustrates. 3 

Although our clients have routinely had to wait far more than the 20 working days that . 

FOIA provides for agencies to produce documents in response to FOIA requests, 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(6), in the past the USDA and FSIS have released records in response to FOIA requests for 

such records submitted by our clients and others. Accordingly, it is clear that the records 

described in this request have been frequently requested-far more than three times-and have 

also been regularly "released" pursuant to requests made under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). Moreover, 

and as this request history illustrates, because of the nature of the subject matter in these records, 

these categories of records will continue to be the subject of subsequent requests for substantially 

the same records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(D)(ii)(I). 

Our clients and others use these records to monitor the USDA and FSIS's enforcement of 

the humane handling provisions of the HMSA and the PPIA, to disseminate information about 

the enforcement of these provisions to the press and the public, and to advocate for better 

enforcement of these provisions and more humane treatment of animals. In particular, our 

clients use these records to write reports concerning the USDA's and FSIS's exercise of their 

enforcement authorities (or lack thereof), which our clients disseminate to the press, other 

advocates, and the public. Our clients also inform the press and the public about particularly 

egregious violations of humane handling provisions of the HMSA and PPIA-efforts that are 

hampered by the significant delays in the USDA's and FSIS's responses to FOIA requests. 

Further, our clients use these records to advocate for more effective enforcement of the HMSA 

and PPIA, including by petitioning the USDA and FSIS to issue more protective regulations, by 

commenting on agency proceedings, and by requesting that the USDA, FSIS, and state 

authorities effectively enforce humane handling standards with respect to those regulated entities 

responsible for egregious violations. 

FSIS recognizes that it has legal obligations under FOIA's affirmative disclosure 

mandate. Indeed, FSIS's "FOIA Electronic Reading Room" states that FOIA "requires agencies 

to make certain types of records ... available electronically," including "records that are 

frequently requested/of interest."4 However, while FSIS maintains a website that includes 

"Records Frequently Requested/Oflnterest," that website falls far short of fulfilling the agency's 

obligations under FOIA's affirmative disclosure mandate, because it does not include all 

frequently requested records, including those that are the subject of this request. The USDA and 

3 https :/ /www. fsi s. usda. gov /wps/portal/footer/po Ii ci es-and-I inks/freedom-o f-i nformation-act/fsi s-el ectroni c-read ingroom/fo ia-req uest-reports-arch i ve 4 https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/footer/policies-and-links/freedom-of-information-act/fsis-electronic-readingroom/fsis-electronic-reading-room 

5 
FSIS's failure to post these records runs counter to FSIS's own prior acknowledgment that these 

records "are frequently requested through the Freedom oflnformation Act." See FSIS Notice 

07-15, Instructions for Writing Poultry Good Commercial Practices Noncompliance Records 

and Memorandum of Interview Letters for Poultry Mistreatment (January 21, 2015). 

As the USDA and FSIS are aware, based in part on our clients' and others' history of 

regularly submitting FOIA requests for these records, as well as our clients' intent to continue 

regularly requesting these records (unless the USDA and FSIS agree to post them proactively 

online), that these records, "because of the nature of their subject matter" will be "the subject of 

subsequent requests for substantially the same records." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(D). Indeed, our 

clients' FOIA requests have informed FSIS of the intent to routinely request these records and 

have encouraged FSIS to make these documents available online pursuant to FOIA's proactive 

disclosure mandate. In fact, the USDA and FSIS recently described the requested records as the 

two most commonly requested types of records for FSIS, specifically describing "Humane 

Handling Enforcement Actions" as "Frequently Requested Records," and describing "Humane 

Handling," "Good Commercial Practices," and "Non-Compliance Records" as "Commonly 

Requested Records." See Attachment. Thus, it is clear that the records requested here will be 

"the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records." 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(2)(D).5 

Complying with FOIA's affirmative disclosure mandate by posting these records online 

would not only effectuate the congressional intent of the 1996 and 2016 amendments to FOIA, 

but would also serve the interests of the USDA and FSIS by drastically reducing the agencies' 

FOIA backlogs. As Congress explained, "as more information is made available online, the 

labor intensive task of physically searching and producing documents should be reduced," and 

"[t]he net result should be increased efficiency in satisfying agency FOIA obligations, reduced 

paperwork burdens, reduced errors and better service to the public." 142 Cong. Rec. Sl0, 894. 

2. The USDA Must Issue Regulations For Implementing FOIA's Affirmative 

Disclosure Mandate. 

As described above, Congress stated in 2016 that all agencies "shall issue regulations on 

the procedures for the disclosure of records" under FOIA's affirmative disclosure mandate "[n]ot 

later than 180 days after the date of enactment" of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. Pub. L. 

114-185 § 3(a). Because the FOIA Improvement Act of2016 was enacted on June 30, 2016, the 

deadline for agencies to issue implementing regulations was December 27, 2016 - more than a 

year ago. However, the USDA has not issued any such regulations, or even any notice of 

proposed rulemaking. To comply with the congressional deadline in the FOIA Improvement Act 

of 2016, the USDA must issue regulations establishing procedures for the disclosure of records 

pursuant to FOIA's affirmative disclosure mandate. 

5 To the extent that the USDA and FSIS believe they have not "determine[d]" that these records "have become or 

are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records," 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(D), 

we hereby request that the agencies make this determination. 

6 
These regulations must clarify the procedure individuals should use to request affirmative 

disclosure of records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2), as well as the procedure the agency will 

follow in responding to such requests. Indeed, we note that in similar contexts, the USDA has 

insisted that entities that wish to compel the agency's compliance with FOIA's affirmative 

disclosure mandate must first file a request for affirmative disclosure of records pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)-but when the agency received such requests, it has informed requesters that, 

in the USDA's view, these are not "proper" requests under FOIA. See, e.g., Letter from Tonya 

Woods, Director, Freedom oflnformation & Privacy Acts, USDA, to Delcianna Winders, Final 

Response to Request No. 2018-APHIS-02370-F (March 5, 2018) (stating that a request for 

proactive disclosure of documents "is not a proper request under FOIA"). This inconsistent 

approach to this issue requires clarification. Consequently, the agency's mandated implementing 

regulations must establish a reasonable mechanism by which individuals can seek to enforce the 

affirmative disclosure requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2), as well as specify the agency's 

procedures for responding to any requests for affirmative disclosures under FOIA. 

Fee Waiver Request 

We request that you waive all fees in connection with this request as provided by 5 

U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and section 6(a)(l) of 7 C.F.R. Part 1, Appendix A. FOIA provides 

that agencies "shall" provide records "without any charge" or at a reduced rate where "disclosure 

of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public 

understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the 

commercial interest of the requester." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). This statutory standard, and 

the agency's guidelines, are easily met here. 

1. Disclosure is Likely to Contribute Significantly to Public Understanding of 

Government Operations or Activities. 

As an initial matter, the requested records all concern the implementation of the HMSA 

and PPIA by the USDA and FSIS. Because these records concern the agencies' implementation 

of federal law, they unquestionably concern the operations or activities of the government. 

Furthermore, disclosure of the requested records will contribute significantly to the 

public's understanding of the government's operations or activities. The public has a strong 

interest in the USDA's and FSIS's implementation of the HMSA and PPIA - both in terms of 

public concern for the welfare of animals slaughtered for human consumption and the public 

interest in food safety. Disclosure of the requested records will serve the public interest in 

understanding the manner in which the USDA and FSIS implement the HMSA and PPIA, the 

agencies' record of enforcement ( or lack of enforcement) regarding instances of non-compliance 

with these statutes, and whether regulatory or statutory amendments may be necessary to more 

fully effectuate the purposes behind the HMSA and PPIA. 

7 
Additionally, the general public's understanding of the USDA's and FSIS's 

implementation of the HMSA and PPIA will be significantly enhanced by disclosure of the 

requested records. Most notably, if the agency complies with this request under 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(2) by making the requested records publicly available on the internet, the general public's 

understanding will be well-served because records that were previously only available through 

the time-consuming process of individual FOIA requests would be accessible more easily online. 

Accordingly, complying with this request under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2) would unquestionably 

further the general public's understanding of the USDA's and FSIS's implementation of the 

HMSA and PPIA. Additionally, even if the agencies instead release records solely to A WI and 

FS pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3), the general public's understanding would still be wellserved because A WI and FS have a proven ability and strong track record of disseminating such 

information to the public. 

A WI has 20,000 members, many of whom are interested in the well-being of farm 

animals raised for human consumption. A WI routinely posts information it receives via FOIA 

requests on its website, which is a frequently trafficked page of A WI's site by both the public 

and media outlets. In fact, A WI's page on inhumane practices on factory farms is among the 

most trafficked pages on its website. A WI also disseminates information from these records by 

writing reports describing the enforcement of the HMSA and the PPIA. For example, A WI has 

written four reports in recent years about the welfare of livestock and poultry at slaughter.6 A WI 

also uses these records to advocate for improved treatment of animals directly to the regulating 

body and to inform the public about violations. In particular, a recent string of humane handling 

violations at Vermont Packinghouse led A WI to contact both the USDA and the Vermont 

Agency of Agriculture and media coverage of the issue. 7 A WI also uses these records for 

advocacy purposes during regulatory rulemaking. Recently, A WI has used records collected 

from pig and poultry plants to advocate against unlimited line speeds at slaughter, educate the 

public about the potential negative welfare impacts of FSIS's proposed rules, and rally 

participation in commenting periods. 8 

Farm Sanctuary is the nation's largest and most effective farm animal rescue and 

protection organization with more than 500,000 members and supporters. Farm Sanctuary uses 

6 E.g. A WI Report, The We(fare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States, 2017 Update, 

https://awion Ii nc.or2/sitcs/dcfault/fi lcs/u ploads/documcnts/F A-A Wl-W clforc-o f-B i rds-at-S laughtcr-U pd ate .pelt; 

A WI Report, Humane Slaughter Update: Federal and State Oversight of the Welfare of Farm Animals at Slaughter, 

ht!ps://awionljn_<;,qrg(~iJq,5/dcf'ault/filcs/products/F 1\-l l umancSl,JughtcrRcpon-20 I 7 .pdf. 

A Slaughterhouse in Vermont Violates Humane Handling Laws, A WI Quarterly (Fall 2017) 

htlps://awionl ine.org/uwi-quartcrlv/fall-1 0 I 7 /slau2htcrhousc-vcrmont-violatcs-humane-handling-hn,vs (reporting to 

our members that A WI contacted USDA and Vermont Agency of Agriculture regarding humane handling violations 

at Vermont Packinghouse and encouraging the removal of the slaughterhouse's grant of inspection); Huffington 

Post, It Isn't Easy Being a 'Humane' Slaughterhouse, https://vvww.huffingtonngst.com/cntrv/transparcntslaughterhouse-usda-violations us 590a 1 5b8e4b0bb2d087-+8aa 1; Vermont Journal, "Three strikes you 're out" does 

not apply, (May 20, 2017) http://vcrrnontjournal.com/fcaturcd-articlcs/thrcc-strikcs-yourc-not-applv. 8 Animal Welfare Institute, Tell the USDA: Speeding up Pig Slaughter Jeopardizes Animal Welfare, Animal Wei fare 

Institute, Say No to Faster Chicken Slaughter, https://awionlinc.or2/action-calcrts/tcll-usda-spccdi1rn.-pi2-slaughtcrj eopa rd izl~S-a n i m al-we I Care; https :/ / awi on! ine .org/ action-ea! erts/say-no-faster-chicken-slaughter. 

8 
the information it receives from FOIA requests about HMSA and PPIA to educate members of 

the public about risks in our food system and to advocate for the enforcement of food safety and 

animal protection laws and regulations. Farm Sanctuary distributes this information on its 

website,9 in news articles 10 and scholarly papers 11 written by Farm Sanctuary staff, and by 

contributing information for articles written by others on these issues. 12 Farm Sanctuary has also 

used HMSA and PPIA enforcement records in connection with petitions for regulatory 

rulemaking urging better enforcement of the HMSA 13 and PPIA, 14 and to encourage members of 

the public to participate in the rulemaking process. 15 

2. Disclosure of the Requested Information is Not Primarily in the Commercial 

Interest of the Requesters. 

Neither A WI nor FS has any commercial interest in the requested information. Both 

A WI and FS are nonprofit organizations that do not make commercial use of information 

obtained through FOIA requests. 

9 E.g. Farm Sanctuary website, The Truth behind "Humane" Labels, hllps://www.farmsanct\H!D:,91'g/karn/l~iclPTY: 

farm i ng/lhc-truth-bchi nd-hurnanc-labcl s/ 10 E.g. Bruce Friedrich, The cruelty behind your ballpark hot dog, LA Times, Sept. 18, 2015, 

hllp://www.latimes.com/opin i on/op-ed/la-oe- friedri ch-humane-slaughter-20 I 5091 0-story .ht rn I; Bruce Friedrich, 

Time to ban slaughter of sick, injured animals: Column, USA Today, Aug. 14, 2014, 

hl!ps://www.usatoday.com/slorv/opinion/2014/08/ I 4/usda-si<:k-animal-ban-column/135(l9 IO l/; Bruce Friedrich, A 

mad-cow loophole you could drive a truck through, Feb. 5, 2015, 

htlp://ww\v.chicagotribunc.com/ncws/opinion/commcntarv/ct-mad-co\v-discasc-usda-humanc-slaughtcr-pcrspcc0206-i rn-20 I 50205-storv .html; Bruce Friedrich, Sad about swans? Think about chickens, Feb. 12, 2014, 

http://wv,w.nvdailyncvvs.com/opinion/sad-swans-chickcns-articlc-1.1610298; 

11 Bruce Friedrich, When the Regulators Refuse to Regulate: Pervasive USDA Underenforcement of the Humane 

Slaughter Act, 104 Geo L.J. 197 (2015), )Jttps://geon.!etownlawiournal.org/articles/28/when-regulators-refuse-to/pclf; 

Bruce Friedrich, Still In The Jungle: Pou/fly Slaughter and the USDA ,_23.2 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 247 (2015) 

https://www.nyueli.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Friedrich readv for the website I .pelf 12 E.g. Dylan Matthews, "The cow was lying in a large pool of blood": the horrifying animal abuses the feds ignore, 

Vox, Sept. 3, 2015 https://www.vox.com/2015/9/3/9257181/usda-humanc-slaw.?.htcr-mcat 13 Petition, Farm Sanctuary, Petition calling for regulations under the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act 

and Federal Meat Inspection Act that will decrease cruelty to farm animals at slaughter (Sept. 1, 2015), 

https://wvvw. lsis.usda.gov/v,ms/wcm/connectia49c9039-50(,0-4bf4-b3 7b- l 67 302b7bc6e/l :arrn-Santuarv-11 MS/\-

Enforccmcnt-09012015.pclt?i'vlOD=AJPERES; Petition, Farm Sanctuary, Petition requesting that FSIS amend the 

ante-mortem inspection regulations to ban the slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled pigs (June 23, 2014), 

bJtp;:;:_//1vww. fsis.q~sJq,g9y/\\'p$/.1vGn:1/~·Q11nccJi5 faarn60-3 I cd-412 8-996a-98ca90971?Q)J/Pctition-l 'arrn Santuarv: 

0603 14.pdt?MOD=AJPERES 14 Petition, Farm Sanctuary, Petition requesting that FSIS use its authority under the PPIA to promulgate regulations 

for the humane handling of poultry (Dec. 17,2013), https://www. f'sis.usda.g.,\wlwps/wcrnlconnect/e I 38fe l a-d380-

42b2-88b7-t24a 11 cd7cl7f!Pctition-A \Vl-PPIA-121713.pclt?MOD=AJPERES 15Farm Sanctuary, Speak Out Against Cruelty to Sick and Injured Farm 

Animals; https://secure2.convio.net/L~i/site/ /\clvocacv:isessionid 8CD21 •:9B5973 I Ml~IB7/\9 J 7? 5298C6175.app20 

I a?cmd=displav&pagc=UscrAction&id=255; Farm Sanctuary, Stop the Slaughter of Sick and Injured Birds, 

https://sccure2.convio.nct/fsi/sitc/ Advocacv'?crnd··displav&pugc 1Jsgr/\ction&id 4 7 3; Farm Sanctuary, Coalition 

to USDA: Step Up Enforcement for Farm Animals, Farm Sanctuary Blog, Sept. 23, 2015, 

https://blog, farrnsancluarv .orn./20 15/09/pct ition-usda-slau ghtcrhousc/ 

9 
A WI is a nonprofit organization comprised of supporters dedicated to eliminating the 

pain and suffering of animals caused by humans. One focus of A WI's work is farm animal 

welfare, in which the organization works with farmers, retailers, consumers, and the government 

to improve the lives of animals raised for food. A WI's ability to access information about how 

FSIS is implementing the HMSA and PPIA is critical to this work. Consequently, A WI 

routinely requests records from the USDA and FSIS regarding implementation of these statutes. 

Farm Sanctuary is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to protect farm animals 

from cruelty and to inspire change in the way society views and treats farm animals. In addition 

to rescuing farm animals from inhumane conditions and caring for them at sanctuaries, Farm 

Sanctuary also educates the public about the inhumane conditions that many farm animals 

endure and about the implementation of the HMSA and PPIA, as well as advocating for laws and 

policies that will more effectively prevent animal suffering. Farm Sanctuary regularly requests 

records from the USDA and FSIS regarding implementation of the HMSA and PPIA, and uses 

these records in its education and advocacy work. 

Because A WI and FS are non-profit organizations with no commercial interest in the 

disclosure of the requested information, disclosure is clearly not primarily in the commercial 

interest of the requesters. Instead, disclosure is in the public interest, which will be well-served 

by A WI and FS disseminating this information to the public. 

CONCLUSION 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Consistent with FOIA's statutory 

deadlines, we expect a response to this request within 20 working days, see 5 U.S.C. 

§552(a)(6)(A), which must "indicate within the relevant time period the scope of documents [the 

agency] will produce." Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Fed Election 

Comm'n, 711 F.3d 180, 182-83 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

10 

Sincerely, 

William N. Lawton 

Katherine A. Meyer 

Meyer Glitzenstein & Eubanks LLP 

4115 Wisconsin Ave. N.W. Suite 210 

Washington, D.C. 20016 

(q)meyergl itz.com 

r@mcycrglitz.com 

(

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)