Food Safety and Inspection Service 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Inspection Methods 

Student Study Guide 

3 of 3 (Workshops + PHIS) 

Only this provided printed Student Study Guide may be used 

during the test. Handwritten notes and highlights are allowed on 

the provided pages. No additional pages, sticky notes, paper 

clips, or anything else added to the study guide is allowed. 

Revised October 2023 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Professionalism Scenarios................................................................................5 

07 SPS Workshops............................................................................................7 

08 SSOP Workshops...................................................................................... 13 

09 Sanitation Scenarios ..................................................................................19 

10 Noncompliance Record Association Workshop.......................................21 

11 Common Hazards for Raw Product Workshop..........................................27 

12 HACCP 7 Principles Workshop ..................................................................28 

13 HACCP Regulatory Process Workshop.....................................................29 

14 HAV Task Workshop...................................................................................31 

15 HACCP Verification Task Workshop .........................................................40 

25 Lethality, Stabilization, and Multiple Hurdles Workshop..............................52 

29 Listeria monocytogenes Regulations Workshop.........................................53 

31 HACCP Systems and Recall Verification Workshop....................................55 

Workshop #1 – SPS, SSOP, HACCP .................................................................62 

Workshop #2 – Noncompliance........................................................................67 

Workshop #3 – Sampling and Process Control ................................................71 

PHIS Introduction to the Public Health Information System (PHIS)................... 74 

PHIS 1 – Establishment Profile................................................................................ 78 

PHIS 2 – Task List / Task Calendar ......................................................................... 82 

PHIS 3 – Inspection Documentation, NRs, MOI, Notes, Meeting Agenda ......... 86 

PHIS 4 – Sample Management................................................................................. 94 

PHIS 5 – Animal Disposition Reporting.................................................................. 97 

PHIS Simulations....................................................................................................... 98 

Case Study Scenarios............................................................................................. 114 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROFESSIONALISM SCENARIOS 

Please read the case study and answer the questions that pertain to your case study. 

1. Romantic Relationships 

An FSIS employee has been seeing an establishment employee outside of work and this has 

evolved into a romantic relationship. USDA inspector says: “Hey it was great seeing you the other 

night! What are you up to on Friday?” Establishment employee says: “Nothing really.” The USDA 

inspector says: “Would you like to get dinner and see a movie?” The Establishment employee 

says: “Sure that sounds great!” The USDA inspector says: “I'll pick you up at 7 pm. It's a date!” 

• Is this professional behavior? Why or why not? 

• How does this behavior compare to the definition of Professionalism? 

• What is the potential impact for food safety/biosecurity? 

• What impact does it have on the Agency’s credibility? 

• What might be the outcome of this situation? 

• How could this behavior be prevented or avoided (by supervisor or employees)? 

• How would you demonstrate your professionalism in this situation? 

005
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Attitude, Initiative, and Communications 

The FSIS Food Inspector is on the poultry line when the establishment evisceration Supervisor 

walks up. The establishment evisceration supervisor starts asking questions of the food inspector 

in a harsh manner. The Food Inspector slams the red button and stops the line as an argument 

ensues. At this point, the CSI comes upon the situation and approaches the two individuals. The 

CSI asks: “What's the problem?” The evisceration supervisor asks: “Why are you condemning so 

many birds?” The Food Inspector says: “Why are you questioning my judgement?” The CSI says: 

“I'll take care of the problem” and asks the Food Inspector to please go back to the line. Then the 

CSI tells the Evisceration Supervisor: “I will take the problem up with the IIC, please leave the 

immediate area.” The CSI promptly reports the incident to the IIC. 

• Which one of the FSIS inspectors exhibited professionalism? Why? 

• How does this behavior compare to the definition of Professionalism? 

• What is potential impact for food safety/biosecurity? 

• What impact does it have on the Agency’s credibility? 

• What might be the outcome if the floor inspector had not taken action? 

• How could this behavior be prevented or avoided? 

• How would you demonstrate your professionalism in this situation if you were the Food 

Inspector in this scenario? 

006
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

07 SPS REGULATIONS Workshop #1 

Circle the letter in front of the correct answer for each question. 

1. The SPS requirements are found in 9 CFR Part: 

a. 301. 

b. 319. 

c. 416. 

d. 417. 

2. Which statement best describes SPS regulations? 

a. They contain highly prescriptive sanitation requirements. 

b. They prescribe the step-by-step methods or means of achieving defined sanitation requirements. 

c. They provide the establishment with minimum flexibility to be innovative in sanitary facility design, 

construction, and operations. 

d. They define the expected sanitation results, but do not prescribe the methods or means to achieve 

those sanitation results. 

3. The SPS regulations: 

a. Require establishments to develop, implement, and maintain written procedures it conducts daily, 

before, and during operations, to prevent product from direct contamination and adulteration. 

b. Address conditions in and around the establishment that may result in insanitary conditions that 

could lead to the adulteration of product. 

c. Cover the scheduled, daily pre-operational and operational cleaning and sanitation of equipment 

and surfaces that directly contact product. 

4. The grounds and pest control performance standard requires the establishment to: 

a. Store useful materials and equipment in an orderly manner on elevated racks at least 12 inches 

high outside the establishment. 

b. Have a pest management program in place to prevent the harborage and breeding of pests on the 

grounds and within the establishment. 

c. Provide concrete paving extending at least 20 feet from the building, at loading docks, livestock 

chutes, or other areas where vehicles or loaded and unloaded. 

007
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Which of the following statements regarding the grounds and pest control performance standard is 

true? 

a. The establishment does not have to prevent potential sources of product contamination or 

adulteration if the source originates from conditions outside the official premises of the 

establishment. 

b. The establishment’s pest management program must be a written document. 

c. Documents supporting the safe and effective use of a pest control substance must be available 

for FSIS review. 

d. Pest control substances used on the official premises must be approved by FSIS prior to use. 

6. Which of the following statements is not found in the performance standard for construction? 

a. Doors and doorjambs that may contact product must be clad with a rust-resistant metal, e.g., 

stainless steel, with tightly soldered or welded seams, and the juncture of the doorjamb sealed 

with an effective sealing compound. 

b. Establishment buildings, including their structures, rooms, and compartments, must be of 

sound construction and in good repair. 

c. Walls, floors, ceilings, doors, windows, and other outside openings must be constructed and 

maintained to prevent the entrance of vermin. 

d. Walls, floors, and ceilings within establishments must be built of durable materials impervious 

to moisture. 

7. The lighting performance standard requires the establishment to: 

a. Provide a minimum of 50 foot-candles of shadow-free light in areas where food is processed, 

handled, stored, and examined. 

b. Cover light bulbs, fixtures, skylights, or other glass suspended over exposed food in any stage 

of preparation with a non-shattering protective shield or provide safety-type light bulbs. 

c. Provide lighting intense enough to allow both establishment and inspection personnel to 

determine if sanitary conditions are maintained and that product is not adulterated in areas 

where food is processed, handled, stored, and examined. 

d. Provide a minimum of 30 foot-candles of shadow-free light in areas where food is processed, 

handled, stored, and examined so that both establishment and inspection personnel can 

determine if sanitary conditions are maintained, and that product is not adulterated. 

008
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

07 SPS REGULATIONS WORKSHOP #2 

Multiple Choice Questions 

1. The ventilation performance standard requires the establishment to: 

a. Prevent all odors and vapors in production areas. 

b. Control odors, vapors, and condensation to prevent product adulteration. 

c. Prevent the formation of any condensation inside the establishment. 

2. Which statement is not found in the performance standard for plumbing? 

a. The establishment’s plumbing system must provide adequate floor drainage in all areas where 

floors are subject to flooding-type cleaning. 

b. The establishment’s plumbing system must prevent sewer gases from entering the 

establishment. 

c. Hot and cold water outlets must be equipped with functioning mechanical anti-backflow 

devices. 

d. The establishment’s plumbing system must properly convey sewage and liquid disposable 

waste from the establishment. 

3. According to the performance standard for dressing rooms, lavatories, and toilets, lavatories 

(handwash sinks) must be: 

a. Equipped with hot and cold running water, a supply of soap and towels, and located near toilet 

and urinal rooms and other places in the establishment as needed to ensure cleanliness of 

employees handling product. 

b. Conveniently located and equipped with hot and cold running water delivered through a mixing 

faucet with an outlet 12 inches from the rim of the bowl, to ensure employees wash their arms 

as well as hands. 

c. Equipped with hot and cold running water, a supply of soap and towels, and operated by a 

means other than with the hand, e.g., the knee or foot. 

4. How often must an establishment using a municipal water supply renew the water potability certificate? 

a. There is no mandatory renewal period. 

b. Every year. 

c. Twice a year. 

009
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. How often must an establishment using a private well as its water supply renew the water potability 

certificate? 

a. At least semi-annually. 

b. Every year. 

c. Twice a year. 

6. Establishments can reuse water or solutions if: 

a. The establishment has a written water and solution reuse program on file. 

b. The establishment’s water and solution reuse program is approved by FSIS. 

c. The pipes carrying the reuse water or solution are clearly identified by name, colored tape, or other 

method acceptable to the IPP. 

d. The reuse of the water or solution does not adulterate product or create insanitary conditions. 

7. Equipment and utensils used for processing or otherwise handling edible product or ingredients must: 

a. Be made of stainless steel (series 300). 

b. Have their design and construction approved by FSIS or a third (outside) party before being used 

in the establishment. 

c. Be made of materials and constructed in a manner that facilitates thorough cleaning. 

8. Which of the following statements regarding the sanitation performance standards is true? 

a. All chemicals used in the food-processing environment must be approved by a Federal Agency. 

b. Documentation substantiating the safety of a chemical's use in a food-processing environment 

must be available to FSIS for review. 

c. Extended cleanup procedures must have prior approval by FSIS. 

010
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. According to the sanitary operations performance standard, food-contact surfaces of equipment and 

utensils must be cleaned and sanitized: 

a. At a frequency that prevents the creation of insanitary conditions and the adulteration of product. 

b. Every four hours to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and the adulteration of product. 

c. Daily to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and the adulteration of product. 

d. Before operations begin and at mid-shift to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and the 

adulteration of product. 

10. Food-contact surfaces of equipment and utensils must be: 

a. Periodically cleaned and sanitized with 180°F water. 

b. Maintained in a sanitary condition using any effective cleaning and sanitizing method. 

c. Maintained in a sanitary condition using cleanup water that is at least 140°F and FSIS-approved 

disinfectants. 

11. Outer clothing (e.g., aprons, frocks, smocks, and garments) worn by employees who handle product 

must be: 

a. Changed every four hours to prevent insanitary conditions. 

b. Made of disposable materials or readily cleaned. 

c. White in color so soilage can be easily detected. 

12. All persons working in contact with product, food-contact surfaces, and product packaging materials 

must: 

a. Wear disposable plastic or rubber gloves to prevent their hands from directly contaminating 

product. 

b. Wear cleanable caps or hats to prevent dislodged hair from falling into the product or ending up in 

product. 

c. Adhere to hygienic practices while on duty to prevent adulteration of product. 

011
 

 

 

 

 

13. Which of the following statements is not listed in the regulations for employee hygiene? 

a. Employees working in contact with product must clean their hands and exposed forearms with a 

cleaning compound by vigorously rubbing the surfaces of their lathered hands and arms for at least 

20 seconds. 

b. Clean garments must be worn at the start of each working day. 

c. Any person who has an open lesion such as a boil must be excluded from any operations that 

could result in product adulteration (if the lesion is uncovered). 

d. Garments must be changed during the day as often as necessary to prevent adulteration. 

012
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

07 SPS REGULATIONS WORKSHOP #3 

Match the noncompliance in the left column with the appropriate sanitation performance standard in the 

right column. The SPS can be used more than once. 

The establishment is applying a pesticide in a manner 

that is different than the documented uses. 

Odor coming from the condemned/inedible product 

rendering area is spreading to the slaughter floor. 

The establishment is reusing a brine solution to chill 

ready-to-eat products but has no documentation or 

other evidence that the reused brine is free of 

pathogens. 

A chute connecting an edible product department to 

an inedible product department does not have an 

access point or opening for sanitary inspection. 

There are round holes in several drop ceiling panels 

where pipes and electrical conduits have been 

removed. 

A commode in the men’s restroom is backed up and 

has overflowed onto the floor. 

An employee working with exposed product 

scratched his head with his fingers and did not clean 

them before continuing his work duties. 

A U.S. condemned barrel is leaking fluids from the 

bottom and there is an accumulation of poultry parts 

and whole birds on the floor. 

There is beaded condensation forming on the vent 

hood above the wiener casing peeler. 

A. Sanitary Operations 

B. Employee Hygiene 

C. Sewage Disposal 

D. Construction 

E. Grounds and Pest Control 

F. Plumbing 

G. Ventilation 

H. Dressing Rooms, Lavatories, 

and Toilets 

I. Equipment and Utensils 

J. Water Supply and Reuse 

K. Lighting 

013
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

07 SPS REGULATIONS WORKSHOP #4 

1. The verification task for verifying compliance with the SPS regulations has two parts. Which of the 

following is not one of those parts? 

a. Interviewing establishment production line employees. 

b. Reviewing specific establishment documentation. 

c. Directly observing conditions in the establishment. 

2. The establishment must generate and maintain daily records sufficient to document compliance with 

the SPS regulations. 

a. True. 

b. False. 

3. When IPP perform the routine SPS verification task, he or she should verify: 

a. That all the requirements in the SPS regulations are met in the establishment. 

b. That the requirements in at least five of SPS regulations are met in the establishment. 

c. That the requirements for the selected SPS regulations are met in one or more areas of the 

establishment. 

014
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

08 SSOP Workshop #1: Identifying the Basic Elements 

Objective: Carefully read the sample Sanitation SOP below. Evaluate the Sanitation SOP 

for compliance with §416.11 and §416.12. After you have evaluated the Sanitation SOP, 

answer the questions listed on the next page. 

BEEF SLAUGHTER ESTABLISHMENT M41777—Sanitation SOP 

Owner – Joe Green 

This Sanitation SOP is for Beef Slaughter Establishment M41777 and becomes 

effective on January 28, 2021 

Pre-operational 

All food contact surfaces of the facility, equipment, and utensils on the kill floor will be 

cleaned daily after production by rinsing, soaping, and sanitizing. 

All cleaning will be monitored daily by Joe Green before production begins the next 

day. Records will be kept on Form Pre-Op I by Joe Green. 

Operational 

Every day all equipment and surfaces on the kill floor will be kept as sanitary as 

necessary by cleaning and sanitizing, if necessary, to prevent contamination or 

adulteration of the carcasses. 

Every day all employees will follow hygienic practices to keep themselves from 

contaminating or adulterating carcasses. These actions will be monitored by Joe 

Green once each day. Records of this monitoring will be kept on Form Ops I by Joe 

Green. 

Corrective actions taken during pre-operational sanitation inspection or during 

operations will be written on the back of the Form Pre-Op I or Form Ops I as 

necessary. 

(Signature and date of 1/25/21) Joe Green 

Modification Log 

1. (signature and date of Joe Green, 12/11/2021) 

2. (signature and date of Joe Green, 6/17/2022) 

015
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective: Verification of compliance with the basic development of SSOPs 

(For Training Purposes Only) 

PHIS Task: Pre-Operational & Operational SSOP Record Review task 

Relevant Regulatory Question Yes No Comments 

Does the establishment have written Sanitation 

SOP’s that describe the procedures the 

establishment conducts daily to prevent direct 

contamination or adulteration of product(s)? 

[§416.12 (a)] 

Do the establishment’s SSOPs identify which of the 

procedures are pre-operational procedures? 

[§416.12 (c)] 

Do the establishment’s pre-operational SSOP 

procedures address (at a minimum) the cleaning of 

food contact surfaces of facilities, equipment, and 

utensils? [§416.12 (c)] 

Do the establishment’s SSOPs specify the 

frequency with which the establishment will 

conduct each procedure? [§416.12(d)] 

Do the establishment’s SSOPs identify the 

establishment employee or employees responsible 

for implementing and maintaining specified 

procedures? 

[§416.12 (d)] 

Does the establishment have records that identify 

the documentation and the implementation and 

monitoring of the SSOPs on a daily basis and any 

corrective actions taken? [§416.16 (a)] 

Did the individual with overall authority on- site or a 

higher-level official of the establishment sign and 

date the Sanitation SOP's 

(1) Upon initial implementation, or 

(2) Upon modification [§416.12 (b)] 

Are there any failures to comply? 

016
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

08 SSOP Workshop #2: Implementation and Monitoring 

A CSI is performing a Pre-Operational SSOP Review and Observation task. The CSI observes 

the monitor, Ms. Jones (Sanitation Manager), performing her pre-operational inspection. Ms. 

Jones walks down the aisle between lines 1 and 2 and down the aisle between lines 3 and 4. 

Ms. Jones inspects the visible portion of the band saw blade. The CSI notices that Ms. Jones 

does not open the door to the band saw cabinet. After she releases the area for operation, the 

CSI performs the review portion of the SSOP task by going back to the band saw and opening 

the door to the cabinet. The CSI observes meat, fat particles, and bone dust adhering to the 

direct and indirect food contact surfaces. 

1. Based on the CSI’s observations, what should the CSI do? 

A. Take a regulatory control action 

B. Not sure, currently 

C. Do not take a regulatory control action 

2. What actions should the CSI take? More than one could apply. 

A. Take a regulatory control action, using a U.S. Rejected tag 

B. Ensure that Ms. Jones observes the CSI’s findings 

C. Document noncompliance on a noncompliance record 

D. Notify Ms. Jones of the CSI’s actions 

3. What regulations should the CSI cite on the Noncompliance Record? 

A. 416.13(c) 

B. 416.13(a) 

C. 416.13(b) 

D. 416.17 

017
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

08 SSOP Workshop #3: Corrective Actions 

In the processing department, the CSI observed two employees pick up five poultry carcasses 

off the floor and place them onto the moving sizing belt which is a food contact surface. The 

contaminated carcasses were placed on top of other poultry carcasses that were placed on the 

sizing belt. The CSI initiated a RCA due to the cross contamination of the poultry carcasses on 

the sizing belt. The employee stopped the sizing belt and removed the affected product. The 

sizing belt was cleaned and sanitized. The QC manager retrained and certified all sizing belt 

personnel on product handling procedures. Three additional Sanitation SOP monitoring checks 

will be performed for the next two months to assure that the training for sizing belt personnel is 

effective. 

1. Did the establishment put measures in place to Prevent the recurrence of direct 

contamination or adulteration of product? 

A. Yes 

B. No 

2. Did the establishment Restore sanitary conditions? 

A. Yes 

B. No 

3. Did the establishment ensure appropriate Disposition of product? 

A. Yes 

B. No 

018
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

09 Sanitation Scenarios Workshop 

Objective: To provide practice applying the SPS and SSOP regulatory thought process 

to inspection scenarios. 

1. You observe an open gap of approximately one-half inch around a window that opens to the 

outside. Upon a close further examination, you do not observe any dirt or debris on the equipment 

ready for use, and no product is in the area. 

Is there an insanitary condition? 

If so, is it affecting product or food contact surfaces? 

Is this a noncompliance? 

If so, which regulation(s)? 

Should you take a regulatory control action? 

Under which task should you document this? 

Would the establishment have to take any corrective actions? 

If so, which? 

019
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. While passing through the fabrication department, you observe about 5 specks of a 

black substance on a piece of meat on the cutting table and about 20 more specks on 

the table surface. Further inspection reveals a heavy accumulation of grease and rust 

on an overhead rail. 

Is there an insanitary condition? 

If so, is it affecting product or food contact surfaces? 

Is this a noncompliance? 

If so, which regulation(s)? 

Should you take a regulatory control action? 

Under which task should you document this? 

Would the establishment have to take any corrective actions? 

If so, which? 

020
 

 

 

 

 

 

10 Noncompliance Record Association Workshop 

Review the following 5 NRs and then answer the following questions: 

1. Should any or all of the NRs be associated? 

If Yes, please list the NR #s and why. 

2. If any of these NRs should not be included in the association, identify the NR(s) and state why 

the NR(s) should not be associated. 

3. Is there additional language that should be included in the NR block #10? 

021
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 Noncompliance – NR #1 

U.S. Department of Agriculture TYPE OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 

NONCOMPLIANCE RECORD X Food Safety  Other Consumer Protection 

1. DATE 2. RECORD NO. 3. ESTABLISHMENT NO. 

3/01/2015 LIC9487568734N M38574+P38574 

4. TO (Name and Title) 5. PERSONNEL NOTIFIED 

Joe Smith Plant Manager So Klean 

6. RELEVANT REGULATIONS 6a. ASSOCIATED NR(s) 

416.13(a) 

7. TITLES OF HACCP OR SSOP PLAN or OTHER SUPPORTING 7a. NAME OF CCP(S) or PREREQUISITE PROGRAM 

DOCUMENTATION 

8. INSPECTION TASK 9. VERIFICATION ACTVITY 

SSOP Pre Operational X Review & Observation  Recordkeeping  Both 

9a. AFFECTED PRODUCT INFORMATION No product affected. 

9b. RETAIN/REJECT TAGS # B1468923 and B1468924 

10. DESCRIPTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

At approximately 0400 hours while performing the preoperational SSOP review 

& observation task, I observed the following: rust and meat particles on three 

band saw blades stored on the boning table; rust, meat particles, and a white 

residue on the food contact surfaces of the cuber. These surfaces are all food 

contact surfaces and rust and product residue on these surfaces would cause 

product to become contaminated at the start of operations I applied US Reject 

tags # B1468923 and B1468924 to the blades and cuber parts, respectively. I 

notified Mr. S.K., Sanitation Supervisor of the noncompliance, and he initiated 

action to restore sanitary conditions. The regulatory control actions were 

relinquished once sanitary conditions were restored. 

The three band saw blades were disposed of. The sanitation crew soaked the 

cuber parts in acid solution to remove rust, meat specs, and white residue. 

The SSOP will be modified to include a procedure for cleaning the saw blades in 

a manner that will prevent rust formation. A procedure will also be included for 

soaking the cuber in an acid solution. 

022
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 Noncompliance – NR #2 

U.S. Department of Agriculture TYPE OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 

NONCOMPLIANCE RECORD X Food Safety  Other Consumer Protection 

1. DATE 2. RECORD NO. 3. ESTABLISHMENT NO. 

03/14/2015 LIC3408124976N M38574+P38574 

4. TO (Name and Title) 5. PERSONNEL NOTIFIED 

Joe Smith Plant Manager Tiana Lee 

6. RELEVANT REGULATIONS 6a. ASSOCIATED NR(s) 

416.13(a), 416.4(b) 

7. TITLES OF HACCP OR SSOP PLAN or OTHER SUPPORTING 7a. NAME OF CCP(S) or PREREQUISITE PROGRAM 

DOCUMENTATION 

8. INSPECTION TASK 9. VERIFICATION ACTVITY 

SSOP Pre Operational X Review & Observation  Recordkeeping  Both 

9a. AFFECTED PRODUCT INFORMATION No product affected. 

9b. RETAIN/REJECT TAGS # B1469277, B1469278, B1469279, B1469280, and B1469281 

10. DESCRIPTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

At approximately 0410 hours while performing the preoperational SSOP review & 

observation task, I observed the following: rust on the auger and auger throat of the #2 

grinder, rust on the auger and blender arms of the small Hobart grinder; rust on the 

crossbar on top of the hopper to the stuffer, and dried residue on the blade guides and 

the bottom of the pulley on both band saws. These surfaces are all food contact surfaces 

and rust and product residue in these areas would cause product to become 

contaminated at the start of operations. I applied US Reject tags # B1469277, B1469278, 

B1469279, B1469280, and B1469281 to the #2 grinder, the small Hobart grinder, the 

stuffer, and both band saws, respectively. 

I notified Ms. Tiana Lee, QC Supervisor, of my findings, and she initiated corrective action 

to restore sanitary conditions. After I verified that the establishment’s corrective actions 

restored sanitary condition, I removed the US Reject tags and released the equipment. 

Ms. Lee stated that she would instruct the pre-op crew to start pre-op monitoring 30 

minutes earlier each day to provide more time for inspection and that she would also 

instruct the sanitation supervisor to work more closely with the sanitation crew to ensure 

procedures are being appropriately implemented. 

023
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 Noncompliance – NR #3 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 

NONCOMPLIANCE RECORD 

TYPE OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

X Food Safety  Other Consumer Protection 

1. DATE 

3/20/2015 

2. RECORD NO. 

LIC4307125717N 

3. ESTABLISHMENT NO. 

M38574+P38574 

4. TO (Name and Title)

Joe Smith Plant Manager 

5. PERSONNEL NOTIFIED 

So Klean 

6. RELEVANT REGULATIONS 

416.4(b) 

6a. ASSOCIATED NR(s) 

7. TITLES OF HACCP OR SSOP PLAN or OTHER SUPPORTING 7a. NAME OF CCP(S) or PREREQUISITE PROGRAM 

DOCUMENTATION 

8. INSPECTION TASK 9. VERIFICATION ACTVITY 

Preoperational SSOP X Review & Observation  Recordkeeping  Both 

9a. AFFECTED PRODUCT INFORMATION No product affected. 

9b. RETAIN/REJECT TAGS # B14688765, B12674657, and B14686473 

10. DESCRIPTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

At approximately 0415 hours while performing the Pre-Operational SSOP Review & 

Observation task, I observed the following: rust on the outer surfaces of the product 

brine tank; dried meat particles on the outer surface of the band saw cabinet; and 

dried fat and meat particles on one of the legs of the boning table. I applied US 

Reject tags # B14688765, B12674657, and B14686473 on the bine tank, band saw 

cabinet, and boning table, respectively. I notified Mr. So Klean, Sanitation 

Supervisor, of my observations. He instructed the sanitation crew to initiate 

immediate corrective actions. 

The boning table, brine tank, and band saw were re-cleaned and sanitized 

immediately. All deficiencies were documented on the pre-op sanitation report. 

Mr. Klean stated that he will instruct the sanitation crew to check all pieces of 

equipment for rust and meat particles after cleaning. And he will assess the 

cleaning process for the equipment more closely. 

11. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTION PROGRAM EMPLOYEE 

You are hereby advised of your right to appeal this decision as delineated by 306.5 and/or 381.35 of 9 CFR 

024
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 Noncompliance – NR #4 

U.S. Department of Agriculture TYPE OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 

NONCOMPLIANCE RECORD X Food Safety  Other Consumer Protection 

1. DATE 

3/22/2015 

2. RECORD NO. 

LIC5606123921N 

3. ESTABLISHMENT NO. 

M38574+P38574 

4. TO (Name and Title)

Joe Smith Plant Manager 

5. PERSONNEL NOTIFIED 

So Klean 

6. RELEVANT REGULATIONS 

416.13(a), 416.4(b), 416.3(a) 

6a. ASSOCIATED NR(s) 

7. TITLES OF HACCP OR SSOP PLAN or OTHER SUPPORTING 7a. NAME OF CCP(S) or PREREQUISITE PROGRAM 

DOCUMENTATION 

8. INSPECTION TASK 9. VERIFICATION ACTVITY 

Preoperational SSOP X Review & Observation  Recordkeeping  Both 

9a. AFFECTED PRODUCT INFORMATION No product affected 

9b. RETAIN/REJECT TAGS B1472001, B1472002, B1472003, and B1472004 

10. DESCRIPTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

At approximately 0425 hours after while performing the preoperational SSOP 

review & observation task, I observed the following: frayed plastic edges on four 

bone dust scrapers, rust on the blender arm and in the bottom of the hopper of the 

small Hobart grinder, rust on the tenderizer needles, and rust on the hand contact 

surface of the edible product shovel. I placed US Rejected tags # B1472001, 

B1472002, B1472003, and B1472004 respectively. I notified Mr. So Klean, 

Sanitation Supervisor, of my findings and he initiated corrective actions. Sanitary 

conditions were restored at approximately 0502 hours, and I removed the US 

reject tags. No product was adulterated due to the deficiency. 

The operations manager stated that he will address the importance of following 

procedures appropriately and completing the sanitation checklist each day in their 

weekly staff meeting. The production manager will check the room before the preop sheet is signed. 

11. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTION PROGRAM EMPLOYEE 

You are hereby advised of your right to appeal this decision as delineated by 306.5 and/or 381.35 of 9 CFR 

12. PLANT MANAGEMENT RESPONSE: 

This document serves as written notification that your failure to comply with regulatory requirement(s) could result in additional regulatory or 

administrative action. 

025
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 Noncompliance – NR #5 

U.S. Department of Agriculture TYPE OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 

NONCOMPLIANCE RECORD X Food Safety  Other Consumer Protection 

1. DATE 

3/28/2015 

2. RECORD NO. 

LIC5706123321N 

3. ESTABLISHMENT NO. 

M38574+P38574 

4. TO (Name and Title)

Joe Smith Plant Manager 

5. PERSONNEL NOTIFIED 

So Klean 

6. RELEVANT REGULATIONS 

416.13(a) 

6a. ASSOCIATED NR(s) 

7. TITLES OF HACCP OR SSOP PLAN or OTHER SUPPORTING 7a. NAME OF CCP(S) or PREREQUISITE PROGRAM 

DOCUMENTATION 

8. INSPECTION TASK 9. VERIFICATION ACTVITY 

Preoperational SSOP X Review & Observation  Recordkeeping  Both 

9a. AFFECTED PRODUCT INFORMATION No product affected. 

9b. RETAIN/REJECT TAGS B1472103 and B14721204 

10. DESCRIPTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

At approximately 0400 hours, I performed the preoperational review & observation 

task in the processing area. I observed the following: meat particles from the 

previous day’s operation were scattered on the metal wire guard of the packing 

machine; an accumulation of raw meat in the seams of the paddles and paddle 

cogs of the Hobart mixer. These surfaces are all food contact surfaces and product 

residue in these areas would cause product to become contaminated at the start of 

operations. I applied US Reject tag #s B1472103 and B14721204, respectively and 

notified Mr. So Klean, Sanitation Supervisor. The areas were re-cleaned and 

sanitized. Sanitary conditions were restored at approximately 0425 hours. No 

product was adulterated due to the deficiency. 

To prevent recurrence, the establishment trained the sanitation crew on how to 

properly clean the areas in question and instructed the night manager to inspect 

these and other areas more thoroughly each night. They were also instructed to 

check those areas specifically for the next 2 weeks. 

11. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTION PROGRAM EMPLOYEE 

026
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 Common Hazards for Raw Product Workshop 

1. For each of the following biological hazards, list the temperature growth range from the 

information in the module. Looking over the list, what conclusion can you make about 

the value of refrigeration in the control of these hazards? 

Organism Temperature 

Growth Range 

Salmonella 

E. coli O157:H7, 

other STEC 

Campylobacter 

Conclusion: 

2. Which biological hazard is regularly present in cattle, and therefore is often 

considered a food safety hazard in beef processes? 

3. Which biological hazard is associated with all food animal species? 

4. What are the sources of biological hazards in the slaughter process? 

5. What are some examples of potential chemical hazards in the slaughter process and 

what type of animals are most often found to have violative chemical levels? 

6. What are some examples of potential physical hazards in the slaughter process? 

027
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 HACCP 7 Principles Workshop 

1. What does HACCP stand for? 

2. Name the three categories of food safety hazards? 

3. What must be developed as a “prerequisite” for performing a hazard analysis? 

Fill In the Blank 

4. For each hazard that is reasonably likely to occur, the establishment must develop a 

. 

5. For each hazard that is not reasonably likely to occur, the establishment must provide 

for their decision. 

6. Corrective actions must be planned for all and must be 

implemented any time there is a . 

7. Every HACCP system must include an effective system of . 

Multiple Choice 

8. Critical limits are best described as: 

a. Maximum temperatures for cooking products 

b. Time limits for production of certain products 

c. Parameters indicating a CCP is under control 

d. Minimum temperatures for cooking products 

9. Which of the following best describe the purpose of monitoring? (Choose all that apply) 

a. Determine when a process has deviated from a critical limit 

b. Provide a written record for use during verification 

c. Provide a basis for why a hazard is not reasonably likely to occur 

d. Identify trends to allow for correction before a critical limit deviation occurs 

028
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 HACCP Regulatory Process Workshop 

Refer to the Study Guide to complete the following questions. Then use the answers from 

questions 2 – 5 to complete the Word Search on the next page. 

1. According to 9 CFR 417.1 the HACCP System is defined as: 

2. The HACCP plan in operation includes the: 

3. List the 4 components of the HACCP regulatory process and give a short explanation of 

each component. 

4. What are the two tasks that may be used to verify the HACCP regulatory requirements? 

5. What are the two components that may be used to verify the HACCP regulatory 

requirements when IPP perform HACCP verification tasks? 

029
Word Search

I D O B N I N P A I N G M E N N I N G O U V N D Z 

A N B N E D O C A N S U M S I S A C C P P F C N E 

I N S U P P O R T I N G D O C U M E N T A T I O N 

H A C P D I N C E C P S I S H A M T A R A H H I F 

B E N S E F R I E S B A V O S I M E O L G Y E T O 

H A N L C C Y S I C S D R O C E R P C C A H B A R 

C C P I I T T S A Z I S Y S L O G I S Y N A C V C 

A P C S S A M I I D O L Z I M P L A S R S V A R E 

T A M E I A N D O B J E R E M Y D A M E M T B E M 

S A M E O O N E S N T A S C K E C T S C M A M S E 

T O M B N U C B V F M A S H M N A S I O I S S B N 

B I M E M S A M I S I E E M T H O H L R L K G O T 

Y C E N A M A T H O L O T G I A N A L D Y S S D I 

W A R S K S E A S R E C D H S A C C C K K I A N N 

U C D C I I O N M A T I O N O O N C S E S A N A M 

W A S H N I N G M A S T E R S D I P N E N G H W C 

H E L N G P O N U Y O U R A L L O P R P I G H E T 

C O M P E R T A S M I N G D O C N L A I L S S I S 

F E E R E P C E O D O C V E N T A A O N A N I V U 

U N D E R D O C U M E N T A T I O N I G N G F E R 

A S E E P T H E M S W F G H J K L M N D Y S A R M 

T I N G O O D L U C K O N Y O U R T E S T X Y Z A 

A H A C C P V E R I F I C A T I O N T A S K N I S 

A H A Z E D N H M N S I S I N C A M E O R E S T A 

O P E H A Z A R D A N A L Y S I S A N L Y S I S A 

030
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 Hazard Analysis Verification (HAV) Task Workshop 

Refer to the handout and the HAV Task Summary Table to complete the following questions. 

1. When should IPP perform the HAV task? 

2. Review the flow diagram, product description, hazard analysis, and HACCP plan on the 

following pages, and answer the following questions: 

a. How did the establishment address biological hazards at receiving? 

b. How did the establishment address physical hazards at receiving? 

c. How did the establishment address biological hazards at storage? 

3. What decisions in the hazard analysis would the IPP request supporting documentation for, if 

any? Please explain your answer? 

031
 

 

 

 

4. Are all steps in the flow diagram addressed in the hazard analysis? If not, please explain. 

5. Are all hazards identified as reasonably likely to occur addressed by a CCP somewhere in the 

process? If not please explain. 

6. Is the use of terms like “microbial growth” or “growth of pathogens” sufficient to identify 

microbiological hazards? 

7. What decision in the HACCP Plan would the IPP request supporting documentation for, if 

any? 

032
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ 

[ 

[ 

1 

1 

l 

l 

] 

033

patties beef ground Raw 

diagram flow Process 

& Tr i mm in gs Rec eiv i ng 

Pac k agi ng Mat er ia ls 

St or a ge 

G r in d 

for mat i on Patty 

Fr eez in g 

De tec t i on Meta l 

Packaging 

Dis tr ib ut io n 

Description: Product 

ground Raw category: Process 

patties Frozen ground beef : Product

per 6 Name: Ground beef patties 

pound 

Type of package: 10 pounds per box, 

in plastic bag with paper liners 

separating layers 

6 months if 3- Length of shelf life: 

maintained frozen as recommended 

on label; 5 days if thawed and held 

refrigerated 

restaurant Fast food use: Intended 

frozen, Keep Labeling instructions: 

safe food handling label 

Frozen Distribution: 

process in this rework used No Note: 

only use training for Example: 
 

 

 

 

 

Hazard Analysis: Raw ground beef patties 

Process 

Step 

Food Safety

Hazards 

Is 

hazard 

likely to 

occur? 

Justification for 

decision 

What control 

measures can be 

applied to prevent

the significant

hazards? 

Is step a 

critical 

control 

point? 

Receiving Biological: No Purchase 

trimmings Pathogens specifications for 

& E. coli O157:H7 certification from 

Packing 

materials 

and Salmonella all suppliers that 

trimmings are 

from carcasses 

that received 

validated 

interventions 

effective to 

eliminate or 

reduce E. coli 

O157:H7 to an 

undetectable 

level & negative 

microbiological 

test results for E. 

coli O157:H7 

required from 

suppliers 

Pathogen 

Growth 

No 

Written Receiving 

Program to 

receive product 

˂45°F to prevent 

outgrowth 

(Tompkin, R.B.

1996). 

034
 

 

 

 

 

 

Hazard Analysis: Raw ground beef patties (Continued) 

Process Food Safety Is Justification What control Is step a 

Step Hazards hazard for decision measures can be critical 

likely applied to prevent the control 

to significant hazards? point? 

occur? 

Receiving 

trimmings 

& Packing 

materials 

Chemical: nonfood grade 

No Letters of 

guarantee 

Physical:

foreign material 

No 

Establishment 

records show 

that there has 

been no 

incidence of 

foreign material 

in products in 

past several 

years 

Storage Biological:

Growth of 

pathogens 

Chemical: 

none 

No Cooler 

temperature at 

˂44°F to 

prevent 

outgrowth 

(Tompkin, 

R.B. 1996). 

Cooler 

Temperature 

monitored twice 

daily. 

Physical: none 

Example: for training use only 

035
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hazard Analysis: Raw ground beef patties (Continued) 

Process Step Food Safety

Hazards 

Is 

hazard 

likely to

occur? 

Justification 

for decision 

What control 

measures can be 

applied to prevent the

significant hazards? 

Is step a 

critical 

control 

point? 

Grind Biological:

Pathogen 

Growth 

Chemical: 

none 

Physical: metal 

Contamination 

Yes 

Yes 

Processing 

could result in 

product 

temperatures 

above 45°F, 

permitting 

pathogen 

growth. 

Past history 

indicates that 

metal 

contamination 

has occurred 

during grinding 

CCP-1 Patty Temp at 

later step 

Room Temperature 

SOP 

Proper maintenance of 

equipment, routine 

examination during 

cleaning, metal detector 

later in process 

No 

No 

Patty 

formation 

Biological:

Pathogen 

Growth 

Chemical: 

none 

Yes Processing 

could result in 

product 

temperatures 

above 45°F, 

permitting 

pathogen 

growth. 

CCP-1 Patty Temp 

Room Temperature 

SOP 

Yes 

Physical: metal 

contamination Yes 

Past history 

indicates that 

metal 

contamination 

has occurred 

during patty

formation 

Proper maintenance of 

equipment, routine 

examination during 

cleaning, metal detector 

later in process-CCP2 

No 

Example: for training use only 

036
 

 

 

 

 

Hazard Analysis: Raw ground beef patties (Continued) 

Process Step Food Safety

Hazards 

Is 

hazard 

likely to

occur? 

Justification 

for decision 

What control 

measures can be 

applied to prevent the

significant hazards? 

Is step a 

critical 

control 

point? 

Freezing Biological: 

none 

Chemical: 

none 

Physical: none 

Metal 

Detection 

Biological: 

none 

Chemical: 

none 

Physical: Metal 

Contamination Yes Past history 

indicates that 

metal 

contamination 

has occurred in 

previous 

process steps 

Functioning metal 

detection equipment to 

identify and reject 

contaminated productCCP 2 

Yes 

Packaging Biological: 

none 

Chemical: 

none 

Physical: none 

Example: for training use only 

037
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HACCP Plan: Raw ground beef patties 

CCP Critical Limits Monitoring 

Procedures 

and 

Frequencies 

HACCP 

Records 

Verification 

Procedures & 

Frequencies 

Correctiv 

e 

Actions 

# 1 Product QC personnel Product HACCP Coordinator Corrective 

Patty internal will record the Temperature will verify accuracy of actions shall 

Temp temperature internal Log the Product meet all 

≤44 ° F temperature of Temperature Log requirements 

3 patties at the Corrective once per shift and of Part 

exit to of the Action Log observe QC 417.3 (a) 

patty machine personnel performing 

prior to freezing Thermometer monitoring. 

every hour. Calibration Log 

Internal 

temperature 

measure by 

inserting a 

calibrated 

QC will calibrate 

thermometer once 

per week (per 

manufacturer’s 

instructions) 

thermometer 

into the center 

most part of the 

patty. 

QC will directly 

observe corrective 

actions at each 

occurrence 

Example: for training use only 

038
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HACCP Plan: Raw ground beef patties (Continued) 

CCP Critical Limits Monitoring 

Procedures and 

Frequencies 

HACC P 

Records 

Verification 

Procedures & 

Frequencies 

Corrective 

Actions 

# 2 Ferrous QC personnel will Metal HACCP Coordinator Corrective 

Metal detection verify that the metal Detection will verify accuracy of actions shall 

Detector 1 mm & larger 

Nonferrous 

detection 

1.5 mm & 

larger 

detector is 

functioning as 

intended by 

running a 1mm 

Ferrous seeded 

sample and a 

1.5mm nonferrous 

seeded sample 

through the metal 

detector every 2 

hours. The seeded 

sample will be 

placed between 2 

patties. Functioning 

metal detector 

must identify and 

remove the seeded 

sample- reject the 

patties. 

Log 

Corrective 

Action Log 

the Metal Detection 

Log and observe 

packaging line 

supervisor 

performing 

monitoring once per 

shift. 

Maintenance 

personnel will 

perform calibration 

procedure once per 

shift. 

meet all 

requirements 

of Part 

417.3 (a) 

Example: for training use only 

039
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 HACCP Verification Task Methodology Workshop 

1. IPP are to verify that the establishment implements its HACCP system in accordance with 

the regulations in by performing the HACCP verification task. 

2. IPP must be familiar with the establishment’s , , and any 

or other programs that the establishment uses to support the decision(s) that 

specific food safety hazards are not reasonably likely to occur. 

3. IPP use the and/or the components to 

verify that an establishment is effectively implementing the procedures set out in its HACCP plan. 

4. IPP are to verify that establishments are meeting the HACCP regulatory 

requirements. 

5. IPP will document their findings in , including any noncompliance they find when 

performing their verification activities. 

040
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 HACCP Monitoring Workshop 

1. Review the record below and answer the questions. 

Goat Slaughter HACCP Plan 

Process 

Step 

CCP 

Number 

CCP 

Description 

Critical 

Limits 

Monitoring Procedures 

Carcass 

Trim 

zero 

tolerance 

1B No visible 

contamination 

No visible 

feces, milk, 

or ingesta 

Every carcass will be visually 

examined by the carcass trimmer 

for visible feces, ingesta, or milk 

Goat Slaughter HACCP record 

Slaughter 

Number 

Feces, ingesta, 

milk present? 

(Y or N)* 

Performed 

by 

Date: 2-8-12 

Time 

Corrective 

Actions and/or 

Comments 

1 N TDM 0840 

2 N TDM 0915 

3 N TDM 0955 

4 N TDM 1035 

5 N TDM 1140 

6 N TDM 1229 

7 N TDM 1320 

8 N TDM 1405 

9 N TDM 1455 

* N indicates no feces, ingesta or milk present. Y indicates feces, ingesta or milk was 

observed. If so, described in comments. 

a) Are the monitoring procedures being performed at the frequency described in the 

HACCP plan? 

b) Is the CL met? 

c) Where would he perform the recordkeeping component? 

d) If he decides to perform the review and observation component, how would he 

proceed? 

041
 

 

 

 

 

 

< 

< 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

2. At Est. P42, the Fully Cooked-Not Shelf Stable HACCP verification task is scheduled on 

the PHIS task calendar. The IPP verifies the monitoring requirement while performing the 

review and observation component of the Fully Cooked-Not Shelf Stable HACCP 

verification task. The IPP reviews the HACCP plan and sees that the monitoring procedure 

for CCP-3 is to check the cooked internal temperature of turkey bologna. The plan states 

that the smokehouse operator will check the internal temperature using a hand-held digital 

thermometer of 1 piece of product from 3 locations on each rack of product (top, middle, 

and bottom) in every smokehouse of product. The critical limit is 160°F or higher. The 

smokehouse operator will document all 3 readings on the Smokehouse Record. 

3. The IPP goes to the smokehouse area and discovers that the smokehouse operator is 

ready to conduct a monitoring check on the product the IPP planned to check. What does the 

IPP expect to see? 

4. The IPP decides to take a product temperature. What does the IPP do? 

5. An IPP is performing the Heat Treated – Shelf Stable HACCP verification task and 

verifying the monitoring requirement. You review the HACCP plan. 

HACCP plan: Beef Sticks, Heat Treated, Shelf-stable 

CCP # Critic 

al 

Limit 

s 

Monitoring Procedures & 

Frequencies 

HACCP 

Records 

2. 

Lethality 

≥158°

F 

Select 3 beef sticks at the 

specified cold spot, measure 

the internal temperature with a 

thermocouple thermometer and 

record the lowest temp. 

Lethality log 

Corrective 

action log 

Calibration log 

a) Is this portion of the HACCP plan in compliance? Why or why not? 

042
 

 

 

 

 

 

15 HACCP Verification Workshop 

1. Answer the following questions: 

a. What are the 3 verification activities that the HACCP regulations specify? 

b. Must all three occur at each CCP in the HACCP plan? Please explain your answer. 

c. Would an establishment be in compliance if the same establishment employee performed 

all three of the verification activities at one CCP? 

043
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. An IPP is performing the Raw-Intact HACCP verification task in a poultry-boning operation 

and verifying the establishment verification requirements for the chilling CCP. While 

performing the task, she reviews the establishment's HACCP plan: 

HACCP plan: raw boneless skinless chicken breasts 

CCP # Critical 

Limits 

Monitoring 

Procedures & 

Frequencies 

HACCP 

Records 

Verification 

Procedures & 

Frequencies 

Corrective 

Actions 

2 Product QC personnel will Product HACCP Coordinator Corrective 

Chilling temperature 

not to 

exceed 40 

degrees F 

record 

temperature 

every 4 hours 

Check internal 

temperature of 

the product, using 

a handheld 

calibrated 

thermometer 

inserted into the 

thickest portion of 

the breast muscle 

Temperature 

Log 

Corrective 

Action Log 

Thermometer 

Calibration 

Log 

will review the Product 

Temperature Log and 

observe QC 

personnel performing 

monitoring once per 

shift 

Daily, the QC will 

check the accuracy of 

all thermometers used 

for monitoring devices 

for accuracy by 

immersion in slush 

ice, 

All thermometers 

found to be inaccurate 

will be calibrated 

using immersion in 

slush ice and reevaluated 

HACCP Coordinator 

will review the 

Corrective Action Log 

(if applicable) and the 

Thermometer 

Calibration Log once 

per week. 

actions shall 

meet all 

requirements 

of Part 

417.3(a) 

044
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Does the HACCP plan contain procedures and frequencies for the calibration of the 

process-monitoring instruments? 

If yes, what is the procedure? 

If yes, what is the frequency? 

b. Does the HACCP plan contain procedures and frequencies for direct observation of 

monitoring activities? 

If yes, what is the procedure? 

If yes, what is the frequency? 

c. Does the HACCP plan list procedures and frequencies for the review of records generated 

and maintained in accordance with 9 CFR 417.5(a)(3)? 

If yes, what is the procedure? 

If yes, what is the frequency? 

045
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 HACCP Recordkeeping Workshop 

1. An inspector is verifying the recordkeeping requirement at the pre-evisceration antimicrobial 

rinse CCP as part of the Slaughter HACCP verification task. He reviews the monitoring record for 

the CCP, which follows. 

Pathogen Reduction Log 

Date Lot 

No. 

Time Solution 

Conc. 

(%) 

Pressure 

(psi) 

Corrective 

Actions 

Monitored 

by 

Verified 

by

* 

2-1-2023 1 0730 OK OK - TDM PP 

*direct observation verification-results as per HACCP plan 

a. Are there any noncompliances in this record? Please explain and cite the relevant 

regulation. 

2. How soon, after the monitoring and verification activities, do the results have to be recorded 

on the establishment records? What is the regulatory reference for this? 

3. Evaluate the record below. 

Thermometer Calibration Log 

Calibrate to 32° F while in slush ice water 

Date Time Dept. Thermometer 

ID 

Personal 

Thermometer 

Reading 

Adjustment 

Required? 

(Yes or No) 

Initials Comments 

2/15/23 PM Carcass 

Cooler 

2B 32°F No TDM 

a. Is there any noncompliance with recordkeeping requirements here? 

b. If so, what is the regulatory reference? 

046
 

 

4. While performing the recordkeeping component of the Heated Treated-Not Fully Cooked-Not 

Shelf Stable HACCP verification task at a smoked pork chop establishment, the IPP is 

verifying the record retention requirement. The establishment has been producing this product 

for two years. The QC Manager gives the IPP a thick file and says that it contains all the 

HACCP records that the establishment has for these products. The IPP looks at yesterday‘s 

record (January 29, 2012), which is on top. The IPP looks through the records in the folder 

and notes that the oldest date is for June 30, 2011. Is there noncompliance? 

047
 

 

 

 

 

 

15 HACCP Supporting Documentation - Prerequisite Programs and Other Supporting 

Programs Workshop 

1. An IPP is performing the Raw Intact HACCP verification task, she reviews the hazard 

analysis and finds that the establishment implements a prerequisite program for product 

temperature control to support the decision they made in the hazard analysis that the 

growth of pathogens is not reasonably likely to occur. The temperature control program 

indicates that 2 internal product temperatures are taken daily. She asks the establishment 

manager to provide her with the prerequisite program record for the day the specific 

production was produced. She sees that only one measurement is documented on the 

record instead of two results. 

a. Is there any noncompliance with the support documentation recordkeeping 

requirements at this point? 

b. What should she do next? 

048
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 HACCP Corrective Actions Workshop 

1. An IPP is reviewing a HACCP record and observes that a result of 3% is recorded as a 

monitoring check. The critical limit at this CCP is “at least 6%.” 

a. At this point in the review, is this a deviation from a critical limit and/or a HACCP 

noncompliance? 

b. Continuing with the above, if the establishment’s records indicate that all corrective actions 

performed met the requirements of 417.3(a), is there a HACCP noncompliance? 

2. The HACCP plan specifies that the CCP for product temperature will be monitored by 

checking product at three locations in the cooler each hour, and recording all results. An IPP 

reviews the temperature log and observes that at each monitoring check there are only two 

temperatures recorded. All results are within critical limits. 

a. Based only on the information given, is this a deviation from a critical limit, an unforeseen 

hazard, or a HACCP noncompliance? 

b. Would the IPP expect to see all corrective actions in section 417.3(a) taken for this 

situation? Please explain. 

3. An IPP has recently rotated assignments and his new patrol includes a pork fabrication 

operation. Today’s schedule includes the Raw Non- Intact HACCP verification task. He 

observes that there is a metal detector in use on the pork cuts. He reviews the HACCP plan 

and hazard analysis, and he sees that the hazard analysis identifies metal, but finds it is not 

likely to occur because of the metal detection program so the HACCP plan does not have a 

CCP for metal detection. 

Later that day, he learns that the metal detector has rejected product. He reviews the 

corrective action log. 

049
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HACCP CORRECTIVE ACTION OR UNFORESEEN HAZARD REPORT IJK Corporation 

Date: 3-2-12 

Product and amount affected: 25 lb. boneless pork loin 

Describe the unforeseen hazard, including cause: 

At 9:00 am the metal detector rejected product, which was carefully examined by QC, what 

looks like a syringe needle was found EF 10:05 am. 

Describe how the affected product was segregated and held: 

We disposed of the piece as inedible EF 10:05 am 

Describe how the product was reviewed to determine acceptability for distribution: 

All product from that same load was run back through the metal detector but nothing else 

was found EF 1:00 pm. 

Describe measures taken to prevent a reoccurrence and/or to eliminate the cause: 

We have contacted the supplying establishment XYZ and notified them that if it happens 

again we will no longer purchase from that supplier GH 11:00 am. 

State whether HACCP plan reassessed, conclusions, and any changes: 

Yes. Established a new CCP for metal detection. See new version of HACCP plan, dated 

3-2-12 GH 1:00 pm. 

Eric Fazoli 3-2-12 Gerry Harroldson 3-2-12 

Plant Management, date QA Manager, date 

Example: For Training 

Use Only 

a. What regulation applies to this situation? 

b. Did the establishment meet corrective action requirements? 

c. Is there a HACCP noncompliance? 

d. What else should the IPP do? 

050
 

 

 

 

 

 

15 HACCP Pre-shipment Review Workshop 

1. The establishment must accomplish the pre-shipment review prior to the specific production 

leaving the physical premises. True or False? 

2. An IPP is assigned to a very small beef slaughter establishment that stores a wide variety of 

finished products (raw and cooked) for several months in the freezer. The HACCP plan 

includes a CCP for cold storage of finished products after processing. The establishment 

monitors the CCP daily and documents the results. The pre-shipment review form is then 

completed, signed and dated, and any product in the freezer is clear to be shipped that day. 

Does this fulfill the regulatory requirements for pre-shipment review? Why or why not? 

051
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 Lethality, Stabilization, and Multiple Hurdles Workshop 

1. State the regulatory lethality performance standard for cooked beef, including the log 

reduction and the target organism. Include the regulation that covers this. 

2. Why must high relative humidity be applied during the first part of the heating process 

(lethality treatment) for jerky products, and certain fully cooked RTE meat and poultry 

products? 

3. Could an establishment use the FSIS Appendix A lethality compliance guideline to support 

its critical limits for meeting the lethality performance standard, if the establishment cooks 

cured beef briskets in a sealed, moisture impermeable bag to an internal temperature of 

145°F for 4 minutes? 

052
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

29 Listeria monocytogenes Regulations: Workshop 

1. Establishments are required to comply with section 9 CFR 430.4 (Control of Listeria 

monocytogenes) if they produce: 

a. Ready-to-eat products processed and sold in impermeable packaging. 

b. Not ready-to-eat products with secondary inhibitors. 

c. Ready-to eat products. 

d. Ready-to-eat products exposed to the environment after the lethality step. 

2. Fill in the blanks with one of the following: 

a) Alternative 1 

b) Alternative 2, Choice 1 

c) Alternative 2, Choice 2 

d) Alternative 3 

Use of only a post-lethality treatment (which may be the antimicrobial agent or 

process) that reduces or eliminates microorganisms on the product. 

Use of a post-lethality treatment (which may also be the antimicrobial agent or 

process) that reduces or eliminates microorganisms on the product AND an 

antimicrobial agent or process that suppresses or limits the growth of L. 

monocytogenes. 

Sanitation measures only, in the HACCP plan, SSOP, or prerequisite program, 

including testing of food contact surfaces to verify the effectiveness of the 

sanitation procedures. 

Use of an antimicrobial agent or process that suppresses or limits the growth of L. 

monocytogenes, along with a sanitation program addressing the testing of food 

contact surfaces to verify the effectiveness of the sanitation procedures. 

053
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

3. An establishment MUST implement hold-and-test procedures when a positive result for 

an indicator organism is found on a food-contact surface during follow-up testing (second 

consecutive food contact surface positive for L. monocytogenes) if the establishment is 

producing: 

a. RTE products exposed to the environment after the lethality treatment 

using Alternative 1, 2, or 3. 

b. Non-deli and hotdog type RTE products exposed to the environment after the 

lethality treatment using Alternative 3. 

c. Deli and hotdog type RTE products exposed to the environment after the lethality 

treatment using Alternative 3. 

d. Deli and hotdog type RTE products exposed to the environment after the lethality 

treatment using Alternative 2, Choice 2 

4. An establishment MUST identify the conditions under which it will implement hold-andtest procedures after a positive result for an indicator organism is found on a food-contact 

surface if the establishment is producing: 

a. Non-deli and hotdog type or deli or hotdog type RTE products exposed to the 

environment after the lethality treatment using either Alternative 2 (Choice 2) or 

Alternative 3. 

b. Deli and hotdog type RTE products exposed to the environment after the lethality 

treatment using either Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. 

c. Deli and hotdog type RTE products exposed to the environment after the lethality 

treatment using Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, Choice 1. 

d. Non-deli and hotdog type RTE products exposed to the environment after the 

lethality treatment using Alternative 2, Choice 1 

054
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31 HACCP Systems and Recall Verification: Workshop 

Refer to the module and to FSIS Directive 5000.1 to complete the following questions. 

1. You are the IIC at a small establishment that produces frozen spaghetti and tomato sauce 

with meat entrees and frozen non-amenable spaghetti entrees made with a lobster cheese 

sauce. You are performing Pre-Operational Sanitation Review and Observation Task. 

a. What are the regulation sections you are to use when verifying regulatory compliance? 

You observe various product contact surfaces in the formulation area. You see that some of 

the blending equipment appears to have product residue from the previous day’s production. 

You inspect the interior surfaces of the blenders and find residue. You see what appears to 

be cheese sauce residue in several areas, and you see what appears to be tomato sauce 

residue in several other areas. You check the production records from the previous day and 

determine that the establishment produced lobster cheese spaghetti in the morning and 

tomato sauce with meat spaghetti in the afternoon. The label of the spaghetti containing 

meat does not list any lobster or milk ingredients. 

b. Are the conditions you observed creating an insanitary condition? 

c. Could the conditions you observed lead to contaminated product? 

d. Is there a food safety hazard associated with the contamination you observed? Why or 

why not? 

055
 

 

 

 

 

 

e. You take official control of the blenders by placing a U.S. Rejected tag on them. What 

regulations give you the authority to take this action? 

f. What statutes give you the authority to take this action? Explain in your own words the 

reasoning behind this authority. 

g. What actions would you take next? 

You review the HACCP plan and hazard analysis. The establishment found that food 

allergens were potential food safety hazards but determined that they were not likely to 

occur in this process because the establishment has a food allergen control program which 

prevents the hazard. 

h. Which corrective action regulation would apply in this situation? 

056
 

 

 

 

 

As part of a Directed Fully Cooked but Not Shelf Stable HACCP Verification Task, you 

review the establishment’s food allergen control program. You find that the establishment 

lists several daily in-plant checks and verification activities and the associated 

documentation that will be kept. You request recent records, and your review reveals that 

the food allergen control program verification activities are not being done at the frequency 

listed in the program. Records are also not available for some of the days. 

i. Could this indicate an inadequate system? Why or why not? 

j. How would you document what you have found? What regulations would you use? 

k. What actions would you take next? 

057
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. While performing a Fully Cooked Not Shelf Stable HACCP verification task in a readyto-eat product operation to verify the HACCP regulatory requirements, you review the 

establishment’s HACCP plan. During this review, you determine that the establishment has 

not identified a CCP to control Lm in the post-processing environment. You also observe 

that the establishment has documented a recent reassessment of its HACCP plan. You do 

not see the establishment’s Lm testing program referenced in the HACCP plan. 

You request from plant management the establishment’s hazard analysis and verify that the 

establishment identified Lm as a food safety hazard NRLTO. After reviewing the HACCP 

plan and hazards analysis, you ask management what event triggered the reassessment. 

The operations manager states that the reassessment was performed in response to a 

positive Lm result from finished RTE ham lunchmeat. When questioned about the Lm 

sampling program, the operations manager states that Lm testing is performed as a 

verification requirement at the request of a customer. You ask management to provide the 

results of their microbiological testing of the finished ham lunchmeat, which the 

establishment provides to you. You determine that the most recent sample analyzed was 

found to be positive for Lm. 

You request information about corrective actions taken and are shown an unforeseen 

hazard log that documents that the establishment segregated and held affected ham 

product. The establishment also has records to show that it performed a review to determine 

the acceptability of affected product and took corrective actions to ensure that no product 

injurious to health entered commerce by denaturing and disposing of the adulterated 

product. Documentation that the product was denatured and disposed of in a landfill is 

provided. The unforeseen hazard log further shows that a reassessment was performed, 

and the establishment determined that Lm was a hazard not reasonably likely to occur in the 

ham lunchmeat process. The basis for this decision is documented as: “It is the only positive 

ever received. We apply a full lethality treatment and apply our Sanitation Standard 

Operating Procedures daily. The application of our Sanitation Standard Operating 

Procedures daily should continue to be sufficient in the future. This result is a fluke. No 

changes to the HACCP plan are necessary at this point.” 

When you ask for support for the decision that the hazard is still not reasonably likely to 

occur, the establishment manager says, “The result was a fluke and we documented that on 

058
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the corrective action log.” Based on this information, you determine that no alterations were 

made to the hazard analysis or the HACCP plan as a result of the Lm positive sample. You 

are also able to verify that all other HACCP requirements, including pre-shipment review, 

were met as part of the Fully Cooked Not Shelf Stable HACCP Verification Task for this 

specific product. 

a. Has the establishment supported its decision about the results of the 

reassessment? Why or why not? 

b. What are the 4 questions you would seek answers to as you gather information to 

determine whether or not to document this as a noncompliance, and what conclusion would 

you make? NOTE: Remember the 4 questions from the HACCP Regulatory Process 

presentation. If the system is working, you may not document some noncompliance. 

c. What regulations need to be considered? 

d. Is there a noncompliance? Why or why not? 

059
 

 

 

 

 

e. If you determine that noncompliance should be documented, what regulations 

would you cite? 

f. What are the questions you would seek answers to as you gather information to 

determine whether or not there is an adequate HACCP system? 

g. Based on your determinations, is the establishment’s HACCP system inadequate? 

Why or why not? 

h. If you determine that you would document an NR, please complete only blocks 6, 

8, 9, and 10 on the next page. 

060
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 

U.S. Department of Agriculture TYPE OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION 

SERVICE 

NONCOMPLIANCE RECORD  Food Safety  Other Consumer Protection 

1. DATE 2. 

RECORD 

NO. 3. ESTABLISHMENT NO. 

4. TO (Name and Title) 5. PERSONNEL NOTIFIED 

6. RELEVANT REGULATIONS 6a. ASSOCIATED NR(s) 

7a. NAME OF CCP(S) or PREREQUISITE PROGRAM 7. TITLES OF HACCP OR SSOP PLAN or OTHER DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING 

8. INSPECTION TASK 9. VERIFICATION ACTVITY 

 Both  Review & Observation  Recordkeeping 

9a. AFFECTED PRODUCT INFORMATION 

9b. RETAIN/REJECT TAGS 

10. DESCRIPTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

11. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTION PROGRAM EMPLOYEE 

You are hereby advised of your right to appeal this decision as delineated by 306.5 and/or 381.35 of 9 CFR 

12. PLANT MANAGEMENT RESPONSE: 

This document serves as written notification that your failure to comply with regulatory requirement(s) could result in 

additional regulatory or administrative action. 

13. SIGNATURE OF PLANT MANAGEMENT 14. DATE 

15. VERIFICATION SIGNATURE OF INSPECTION PROGRAM EMPLOYEE 16. DATE 

FSIS FORM 5400-4 DISTRIBUTION: Original & 1 Copy to Establishment, 1 Copy to Inspector 

061
 

 

 

 

 

 

Workshop #1 – Poultry Slaughter/Processing Establishment, SPS, 

SSOP, and HACCP 

Please read the following scenario and answer the questions at the end 

within the table boxes. Please review the HACCP plan and the records that 

are associated with this scenario. 

Background: K. Nugget, a Consumer Safety Inspector (CSI), is assigned to a poultry 

establishment that slaughters and further processes young chickens during a single 

operating shift, Monday through Friday, from 0700 to 1530 hours. The establishment has 

2 evisceration lines, produces raw intact and raw non-intact products, and occasionally 

exports poultry products. 

Scenario: At 1000 hours, on March 1, 2023, CSI Nugget was leaving the shipping dock 

after completing export certifications and noticed a foul odor in the hallway outside the 

processing department. The CSI determined the odor originated from empty, damaged, 

inedible containers that were being stored in the hallway to be discarded due to their 

unacceptable condition. CSI Nugget performed an Operational SSOP Review and 

Observation verification task as she walked through the further processing department 

on her way to the slaughter department. In the processing department, she observed the 

establishment monitoring operational sanitation activities. Quality Assurance (QA) 

personnel were applying yellow caution tape around an area below a leak in the 

processing room ceiling. The leak was located between two processing lines in a 

potential product zone. 

CSI Nugget proceeded to the slaughter floor to continue to observe operational sanitation 

throughout the establishment. 

At 1230 hours, CSI Nugget decided to review the establishment’s SSOP program and 

records for the leak that was observed earlier in the further processing department. 

(Note that these SSOP records are not required to be available until the start of the 

062
 

 

 

 

same shift on the following day). The establishment’s SSOP records had two entries 

related to the leaking ceiling. An entry at 0900 hours which stated that an employee 

observed a leak and notified QA and maintenance personnel. The area was roped off by 

QA. There was another entry on the SSOP record at 1030 hours that the area was 

released because maintenance fixed the leak, and the ceiling was no longer leaking. 

Before CSI Nugget headed back to the processing room, she asked the establishment 

QA Supervisor for the CCP 1 records for the current day since she had not noticed any 

establishment personnel performing the Zero Tolerance CCP monitoring. CSI Nugget was 

told that due to short staffing, the designated monitor had been working on the ceiling 

leak in the further processing department, but the record is usually kept on the clipboard 

on the wall. CSI Nugget found the clipboard with the CCP monitoring record, but it was 

blank. CSI Nugget asked the QA Supervisor about the monitoring checks, she stated that 

the checks were performed by the QA Tech, but the checks were not documented. The 

establishment’s HACCP program specified that the slaughter Zero Tolerance CCP will be 

monitored each production hour on each line. 

CSI Nugget decided to follow-up on the conditions in the processing room. When she 

arrived, she noticed that the caution tape had been removed from the area that was 

previously segregated. Now, there were five metal combo bins with poultry thighs and 

wings in that area. The CSI observed that there was a large blue plastic tarp partially 

covering three of the five bins. The other two combo bins were completely uncovered. 

There was an accumulation of clear liquid on the plastic tarp that was slowly running into 

one of the three combo bins that were partially covered. The CSI investigated further and 

noticed that the ceiling above the metal combo bins was slowly leaking liquid into the 

uncovered combo bins. 

063
 

 

 

HACCP Plan (excerpt) CCP 1 

Poultry Slaughter HACCP Plan 

Process 

Step 

CCP 

Number 

CCP 

Description 

Critical Limits Monitoring Procedures Verification 

Procedures 

Zero 

tolerance 

Examination 

(carcass) 

1 – 

Biological 

(Pathogens in 

fecal 

material) 

No visible 

contamination 

No visible fecal 

material 

If a deviation from the 

critical limit occurs, 

corrective actions 

shall meet all 

requirements of 9 

CFR 417.3 and be 

documented on the 

Zero Tolerance 

Monitoring form. 

Designee will examine 

10 randomly selected 

carcasses each 

production hour per 

shift per line. 

Document findings on 

Zero Tolerance 

Monitoring Form. 

Once per week a 

supervisor 

observes the 

designee 

performing the 

monitoring. 

A supervisor will 

conduct records 

review daily. 

Establishment’s Zero Tolerance Monitoring Record for March 1, 2023 

Zero Tolerance Monitoring Form (CCP1) 

Date No fecal 

material 

identified on 

10 carcass 

sample = 0 

Performed by Time Corrective 

Actions 

and/or 

Comments 

Verification 

Procedures 

3/1/2023 

064
 

 

 

 

 

Establishment’s SSOP Monitoring Record for March 1, 2023 

SSOP Monitoring Record – Further Processing (Monitor Implementation 4 times daily) 

Date Time Performed by Processing Room Corrective Actions and Preventive 

Measures 

3/1/23 0800 MJ Acceptable 

3/1/23 0900 MJ Unacceptable - employee 

observed leak and notified QA 

and maintenance personnel. 

No product was involved. 

Maintenance is working on the leak

and area is sectioned off. 

3/1/23 1030 MJ Acceptable Maintenance fixed the leak. 

The ceiling is no longer leaking. 

Area released. 

Blue plastic tarps will be placed 

over the product combo bins until 

the corrective actions are complete. 

A QA Tech will monitor the area 

twice per shift, per day for the next 

three days. 

065
 

 

Questions: 

Q1 - Please explain why the establishment is not in 

compliance with FSIS regulations. Include the 

regulatory citation. 

Q2 - If you were the CSI in this 

establishment, what are the actions you 

would take? (i.e., List the actions you 

should take as a CSI in relation to each 

noncompliance you identify in this 

scenario). 

Noncompliance Description Regulation(s) 

not met 

Your Actions for This Noncompliance 

HACCP Noncompliance HACCP 

Regulation 

SSOP Noncompliance SSOP 

Regulation 

SPS Noncompliance SPS 

Regulation 

066
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Workshop #2 – Livestock Establishment NR 

After completing the workshop, the participants will be able to: 

1. Determine the required data that needs to be included in an NR. 

2. Determine the situations that require associating NRs. 

Please read the scenario, review the NR, and answer the questions at the end. 

Livestock Establishment Scenario 

Background: CSI Naomi Thompson is assigned to Veal on Wheels, a small veal slaughter and 

processing facility. The establishment slaughters approximately fifty veal calves a day on one 

shift, five days a week. They use a bed dress system (cradle) during slaughter operations. 

Incorporated into the HACCP system to address E. coli O157:H7 and non-O157:H7 STEC are 

two critical control points including zero tolerance and a lactic acid intervention. 

Scenario: On June 1, 2022, at approximately 0910 hours CSI Thompson performed a scheduled 

Slaughter HACCP verification task on the slaughter floor. While verifying the lactic acid CCP, CSI 

Thompson observed the establishment employee perform a titration to verify the appropriate 

concentration prior to starting operations. Note: Titration is a standard method of chemical 

analysis which can be used to determine the concentration of a known reactant. CSI Thompson 

also noted that the establishment used a small garden type sprayer to apply the lactic acid. She 

determined that solution was mixed to the correct concentration and the garden sprayer was an 

acceptable means of applying the solution. 

CSI Thompson then went to the slaughter floor to observe the application of the lactic acid to the 

carcasses. She noticed that the establishment was hanging both hindquarters of carcasses 

together on one rail trolley hook prior to the final wash and antimicrobial intervention steps. This 

067
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

caused the inner surface of the hindquarters of each carcass to be in contact (no separation 

between the legs). The establishment does not split the veal carcasses and usually uses a 

gambrel to separate the hindquarters for adequate washing and antimicrobial coverage. When 

she observed the establishment employee apply the lactic acid intervention to three carcasses, 

CSI Thompson noted that the inside of the hindquarters did not receive any lactic acid coverage 

due to the way the carcasses were hung. 

The employee pushed the carcasses into the chill cooler. CSI Thompson went into the chill cooler 

and observed ten veal carcasses already hanging in the cooler. These carcasses were hanging 

from one hook in the same manner. She asked the employee if he had applied the intervention to 

these ten carcasses in the same manner as the three carcasses that she had observed him 

applying the intervention. The employee stated that he had applied the intervention to all 

carcasses in the same way. 

CSI Thompson told Mr. Drayer she is taking a regulatory control action by applying U.S. Retained 

tag B19042869 to the carcass cooler door. She notified Mr. Drayer that the one tag encompassed 

all thirteen carcasses. It included the carcasses she observed on the slaughter floor and the ones 

slaughtered earlier that morning because of the deviation from a critical limit. 

CSI Thompson reviewed PHIS and determined NR KIH4527923981N was documented May 10, 

2022, for failing to detect a deviation from the critical limit at the zero tolerance CCP. She 

associates the two NRs because they indicate a problem with establishment employees assigned 

to monitor CCPs. 

068
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X 

CSI Thompson’s Noncompliance Record 

U.S. Department of Agriculture TYPE OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE X Food Safety  Other Consumer Protection 

NONCOMPLIANCE RECORD 

1. DATE 2. RECORD NO. 3. ESTABLISHMENT NO. 

06/01/2022 KNL1612111329N M8383 

4. TO (Name and Title) 5. PERSONNEL NOTIFIED 

Mr. Scott Snook, Plant Manager Mr. James Drayer, Slaughter Foreman 

6. RELEVANT REGULATIONS 6a. ASSOCIATED NR(s) 

9 CFR 417.2(c)(4) KIH4527923981N 

7. TITLES OF HACCP OR SSOP PLAN or OTHER 7a. NAME OF CCP(S) or 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PREREQUISITE PROGRAM 

Veal Slaughter Lactic Acid 

8. INSPECTION TASK 9. VERIFICATION ACTVITY 

Slaughter HACCP  Review & Observation  Recordkeeping X Both 

9a. AFFECTED PRODUCT INFORMATION: Thirteen Whole Veal Carcasses 

9b. RETAIN/REJECT TAGS: B19042869 

10. DESCRIPTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE 

On June 1, 2022, at approximately 0910 hours, while performing the Slaughter 

HACCP verification task, I noticed that the establishment was hanging both 

hindquarters of each veal carcass on one hook prior to the final wash and 

antimicrobial intervention steps. The critical limit for the antimicrobial intervention 

CCP includes a 2% lactic acid concentration applied to the entire carcass so that 

complete coverage is achieved. I observed the establishment perform a titration to 

verify the concentration prior to starting operations. Upon observing the inside of 

the hindquarters of each carcass were not receiving any lactic acid coverage, I 

notified the slaughter foreman, Mr. James Drayer, of the noncompliance. A review of 

PHIS showed a similar NR documented on May 10, 2022, in NR KIH4527923981N, 

for a different CCP. The preventative measures and further planned actions of 

retraining employees on correct HACCP monitoring procedures have been 

ineffective in preventing noncompliance recurrence. 

11. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTION PROGRAM EMPLOYEE 

You are hereby advised of your right to appeal this decision as delineated by 306.5 and/or 381.35 of 9 CFR 

12. PLANT MANAGEMENT RESPONSE: 

This document serves as written notification that your failure to comply with regulatory 

requirement(s) could result in additional regulatory or administrative action. 

13. SIGNATURE OF PLANT MANAGEMENT 

14. DATE 

15. VERIFICATION SIGNATURE OF INSPECTION PROGRAM EMPLOYEE 

16. DATE 

069
 

 

Questions: 

1. What errors can you detect in the written NR? 

2. Rewrite the NR Block 10 the way you would write it if you were the CSI. 

070
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Workshop #3 – Poultry Establishment: Sampling and Process Control 

Please read the following scenario and answer the questions at the end. 

Background: Establishment Ink, LLC is a large poultry slaughter and processing establishment 

(P-0000) located in Salt, Alabama. Their slaughter and processing operations are conducted by 

way of a first shift (0530 to 1400 hours) and second shift (1400 to 2030 hours), with a cleanup 

operation after both shifts have been completed. Establishment Ink has two Meyn Maestro 

slaughter lines that run at a maximum speed of 140 birds per minute. Establishment Ink 

slaughters and processes approximately 268,000 young chickens a day. The further processing 

operations consist of a Cut-up Department, Debone Department, and Mechanically Deboned 

Meat (MDM) Department. The MDM Department produces NRTE ground chicken that is shipped 

to their sister plant where it is used to produce raw chicken patties. This product is eligible for 

Salmonella/Campylobacter testing. Both shifts have a staffing level of 8 Food Inspectors (4 

inspectors per line), 2 Consumer Safety Inspectors, 1 Supervisory Consumer Safety Inspector, 

and a Public Health Veterinarian. 

Scenario: It’s Tuesday, April 5, 2022. CSI Red opens PHIS and observes in the establishment 

task list that he needs to verify the establishment’s generic E. coli testing procedures and results 

to see if they are maintaining process control for microbial contamination. He knows that 

Establishment P-IK has chosen generic E. coli as their indicator organism to demonstrate 

whether or not they are maintaining process control and that this program is addressed in their 

SSOP plan, so he schedules a routine Operational SSOP Review and Observation task in PHIS. 

He goes to the QA office and reviews the SSOP program which contains the procedures for 

collecting and testing for generic E. coli. The program states that the establishment will perform 

testing via a carcass rinse using an approved AOAC method. The procedures state that the 

establishment will aseptically collect 1 carcass rinse sample per 22,000 carcasses, but a 

minimum of one sample during each week of operation. The sample will then be maintained 

under refrigerated conditions and analyzed the same day in the establishment’s onsite laboratory. 

071
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He next inquires about the next time a sample would be taken for E. coli sampling. The QA 

supervisor informs him that one of his technicians was about to take a sample in the next few 

minutes. He goes along with the QA technician to the post chill location where the sample will 

be taken. He observes her prepping the sampling table and using aseptic technique by 

washing her hands, etc. The technician decides to do a swab sample using a carcass from the 

chiller belt. 

CSI Red was confused, because the program read that the sampling was supposed to entail a 

whole bird rinse. He saw nothing about a swab sampling nor support for it. 

He observes the technician follow through on procedures of a swab sampling but not a bird 

rinse as per the establishment’s written program. Once completed, he follows the QA 

technician to the lab and watches her place the sample in the freezer. She states that it is 

the end of the day and she needs to make an appointment and will analyze it in the morning. 

In the meantime, CSI Red asks to review the Statistical Process Control chart for data that 

has been plotted for the last 10 days. When he reviews the chart, he notices that 4 of those 

10 days had results that were markedly below the normal (average) control line in the chart. 

This was very odd to CSI Red, because he knows that 2 sanitation NRs and 3 fecal zero 

tolerance NRs were written during this ten day period. 

Resources: 

9 CFR 381.65(g) & (h) 

9 CFR 416.15(b) 

9 CFR 417.3(b) 

FSIS Directive 5000.1 - Verifying an Establishment’s Food Safety System 

FSIS Directive 6420.5 - Verifying Poultry Slaughter Establishments Maintain Adequate Procedures 

for Preventing Contamination with feces and Enteric Pathogens 

072
 

Question: 

Please list the issues that you noticed in the above scenario that you have concerns about 

(critique the actions, results, or the procedure that was performed by the establishment 

employee). 

073
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHIS - Introduction to the Public Health Information System 

Objective: Understand how PHIS enhances inspection and protects public health The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is the public health regulatory agency responsible for ensuring that domestic 

and imported meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled. 

FSIS has made significant advances in the inspection process and is constantly evolving to enhance 

our ability to protect public health. Looking back, certain milestones may come to mind. In 1906, 

Congress passed the Federal Meat Inspection Act. In 1996, FSIS finalized the “Pathogen Reduction: 

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems” rule. In 2011, FSIS implemented the Public 

Health Information System (PHIS) to support a data-driven approach to FSIS inspection, auditing, and 

scheduling. 

PHIS Introduction 

PHIS is a user-friendly, web-based application that replaces several legacy systems and automates 

many processes. It allows FSIS to obtain and quickly analyze more data about domestic and 

international food safety systems producing FSIS regulated products. It also enables the Agency to 

better identify food safety risks before they result in outbreaks or recalls. The Predictive Analytics 

component supports a data driven approach to inspection and sampling by automatically searching 

data to identify trends and notifying FSIS personnel about potential public health threats. 

PHIS generates specific tasks and adjusts task frequencies based on public health risk factors. IPP, 

supervisors, and analysts access real time data for early recognition of food safety system deficiencies 

and trends. Data is used to quickly and effectively respond to prevent product adulteration, recalls, and 

outbreaks. The quality of the analysis and the response however depends on the quality of the data in 

the system. It is critical that IPP enter data that is complete and accurate. 

074
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHIS was developed in response to an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recommendation that FSIS 

develop an integrated data infrastructure to support a comprehensive, timely and reliable data driven 

inspection system. PHIS enables FSIS to utilize real time data to inform all aspects of its business 

process (e.g., domestic inspection, import inspection, and export activities). 

PHIS replaced several legacy systems, facilitating maintenance and analysis of the composited data. 

Work efficiency and effectiveness continues to improve since FSIS personnel with different roles (e.g., 

inspectors, managers, analysts, policy developers) can readily access and utilize inspection and 

sampling data. Agency resources are better utilized since tasks are prioritized. 

There are four functional areas within PHIS: 

• Domestic Inspection 

• Exports Certification 

• Imports 

• Predictive Analytics 

This course covers Domestic Inspection and Export Certification. Imports are covered in a separate 

training course. 

PHIS is role-based. There are many different roles and permissions based on duties, job description 

and job series. Each user role sees a unique navigation menu. For example, CSIs can access the 

establishment profile, task calendar, inspection verification data, animal disposition, and export 

certification menus for their assignments. 

075
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Establishment profile data drives many important PHIS functions. Therefore, IPP must routinely update 

and ensure the accuracy of the profile data. The profile includes critical information about the 

establishments’ operations, product types, product volumes, and HACCP system. 

This information allows FSIS to tailor inspection, sampling, or other activities based on establishment 

factors. Sample requests are electronically routed to inspectors based on establishment profile 

information. If profile data is inaccurate or missing, IPP could receive sample requests for products that 

the establishment no longer produces. 

A “task list” is generated for each establishment based on profile data. The Task List identifies task 

priorities and frequencies. IPP consider the task priorities, time constraints, and their knowledge of 

establishment operations to schedule tasks on their task calendar. 

In addition to routine tasks, “directed” tasks may be added to the task list. PHIS generates some 

directed tasks in response to sample results. Sampling tasks specify a time frame during which IPP are 

to schedule and collect the requested sample. IPP can add directed tasks to document a 

noncompliance found when not performing a routine task. PHIS also allows directed tasks to be 

initiated at various Agency levels and targeted to subsets of establishments in response to public health 

findings or other information. The system tracks completion of tasks and can alert supervisors when 

tasks are performed. 

PHIS contains links to applicable guidance material (e.g., Directives, Notices). The guidance is based 

on the establishment profile and the specific inspection task. Linking to only the applicable guidance 

reduces time spent searching for and reviewing information that may not be helpful or pertinent. 

076
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In PHIS, IPP document the specific regulations verified and the findings of compliance or 

noncompliance for each regulation. If a noncompliance is found, it is documented on an NR along with 

other applicable information such as product type, lot number, retain or reject tags used, and/or the 

applicable CCP verified for some tasks. The system also facilitates documenting meeting minutes in a 

memorandum of interview (MOI). Inspectors can create notes in PHIS that can be used to 

communicate with other inspectors or included as agenda topics for meetings. 

Predictive Analytics 

Predictive analytics integrates data from various sources such as Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), PulseNet, the Agricultural Research Service VetNet, and the National Antimicrobial 

Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) and stores the collected data in the FSIS Data Warehouse. 

Algorithms perform real time data analysis. When anomalies are identified, PHIS sends alerts to the 

appropriate user homepages or email addresses. Users may subscribe to alerts that are of interest. 

Predictive analytics also uses algorithms to automate scheduling in response to certain events. The 

system generates appropriate follow-up tasks in response to sampling results. For performing and 

scheduling directed tasks, IPP should follow guidance in FSIS Directive 13,000.1. 

Predictive analytics incorporates decision criteria to schedule Food Safety Assessments and identifies 

when an establishment should reassess their hazard analysis. Analysts can also conduct spontaneous 

data analyses from multiple data sources to identify trends and anomalies. 

077
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHIS 1 – Establishment Profile 

Objectives 

1. Describe the Establishment Profile in PHIS and why it is important to maintain the accuracy of 

information. 

2. Describe when and how to perform the Update Establishment Profile task in PHIS. 

3. Describe what to discuss and do at the weekly meeting related to the profile. 

References 

1. FSIS Directive 5300.1, Managing the Establishment Profile in the Public Health Information System 

(PHIS) 

2. PHIS Quick Reference Guide 

Background 

The Establishment Profile (EP) is a series of web pages in PHIS that Inspection Program Personnel 

(IPP) use to enter data about official establishments and other facilities where FSIS provides 

inspection services. The profile includes information on the products produced, the processes 

performed, the equipment employed, the HACCP systems that the establishment has put in place, and 

other general information. 

PHIS uses the establishment profile information to assign routine inspection tasks, to create tailored 

inspection tasks, to generate FSIS sample requests, and to manage inspection assignments. 

Therefore, it is critical to make sure that the profile is accurate and reflects what the establishment is 

actually producing and the food safety system it is using to ensure that its products are safe. 

For new establishments, the District Office enters information in PHIS to populate parts of the profile 

and IPP complete the remainder and verify the accuracy of information on an ongoing basis. For 

existing establishments, IPP maintain and verify accuracy of information on an ongoing basis. During 

the process of granting inspection, the Grant Curator (GC) is to assign an establishment number and 

enter information regarding the application for grant of inspection or inspection services. A Frontline 

Supervisor (FLS), EIAO, or other designated personnel will visit the applicant’s establishment and report 

the information gathered at the establishment which will be used to complete parts of the establishment 

profile. After the grant process is complete, the assigned inspector-in-charge (IIC) is responsible for 

keeping the information in the establishment profile up-to-date and accurate as part of their in-plant 

duties. 

The EP information is essential to the Agency’s goal of protecting public health because FSIS uses the 

establishment profile information for generating inspection tasks, determining eligibility for sampling 

programs, for automated reporting and for ad hoc data analysis. When an establishment begins 

production of a new product, there is a significant change in product volume, an establishment address 

changes or there is a jurisdiction change, IPP are to update the establishment profile as soon as the 

change occurs to ensure the appropriate inspection tasks are being generated. Other changes, not 

directly related to task scheduling and sampling eligibility, can be completed during the next routine 

monthly Update Establishment Profile task. 

078
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following profile features aid in the determination of task scheduling and sampling eligibility 

and are critical to keep updated and accurate: 

1. HACCP Processing Category 

2. Product Volume Information 

3. Jurisdiction 

4. Sampling Supplies Address 

Other Establishment Profile information of critical importance includes: Grants and Approvals 

Operating Status Inspection Activities Shifts 

Slaughter Products produced 

Grants include all information related to the Application for Federal Inspection (AFI) and Application 

for Voluntary Reimbursable Services (AVRS). Operating Status is the overall status of the 

establishment (not just of a particular grant) and is “active” or “inactive”. When Operating Status is 

“inactive”, no inspection tasks are allocated to the establishment, so it is critical to recognize and 

correct an “inactive” status as soon as possible. An Inspection Activity is one of the following: meat 

slaughter, meat processing, poultry slaughter, poultry processing, egg product, or imported product. 

Inaccurate inspection activities indicate that EP information needs changing and as a result the proper 

tasks may not show up in the establishment task list. Shift information is critical to ensure that all shifts 

receive the appropriate inspection tasks and coverage. Operating Status, Inspection Activities, Grants 

and Shifts cannot be modified by IPP as it is “Read Only.” However, it is very important that this 

information is corrected as soon as possible, so IPP should examine it right away. Contact the DO 

through supervisory channels if it is incorrect. 

Slaughter includes the slaughter system, inspection system, number of slaughter lines, number of 

slaughter lines operating simultaneously, maximum line speed, and staffing. HACCP Processing 

Categories are critical because the tasks for each category will only be assigned if reflected in the 

profile. It is important that Inspection Tasks assigned to the establishment’s inspection task list are 

applicable and no tasks are missing. The Products and Production Volume Information has an 

impact on sampling projects and sampling frequencies. The Jurisdiction information identifies the 

government organization that performs inspection of food products at the establishment. The Sampling 

Supplies Address is critical since lab sampling supplies cannot be delivered to the establishment if 

this information is missing or not accurate. This information can be entered or edited by IPP. 

079
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performing the Update Profile Task 

PHIS will display the routine update profile task on the establishment task list monthly. 

• IPP are to perform the routine Update Establishment Profile inspection task monthly by updating the 

information in the establishment profile with any new information and reviewing the establishment task 

list. IPP are also to focus on verifying the accuracy of a specific area of the establishment profile each 

month according to the following schedule: 

Table: Establishment Profile Update Schedule 

Month Profile Information Focus Area 

January Establishment Contacts 

February HACCP Systems Information for Raw-Intact product categories 

March HACCP Systems Information for Raw-Non-Intact product categories 

April HACCP Systems Information for Thermally Processed-Commercially Sterile, 

Not Heat Treated-Shelf Stable, and Heat Treated Shelf Stable 

product categories 

May HACCP Systems Information for Fully Cooked–Not Shelf Stable, Product 

with Secondary Inhibitors–Not Shelf Stable, and Heat Treated but Not Fully 

Cooked–Not Shelf Stable product categories 

June General Profile Information 

July Product Information for Raw-Intact product categories 

August Product Information for Raw-Non-Intact product categories 

September Product Information for Thermally Processed-Commercially Sterile, Not 

Heat Treated-Shelf Stable, and Heat Treated Shelf Stable product categories 

October Product Information for Fully Cooked–Not Shelf Stable, Product with 

Secondary Inhibitors–Not Shelf Stable, and Heat Treated but Not Fully Cooked– 

Not Shelf Stable product categories 

November Slaughter Information 

December General Profile Information 

• IPP are to also perform the Update Establishment Profile task if they become aware while performing 

other inspection tasks, or through communication with a management official, that the establishment is 

producing a new product. A directed task may be used for this purpose if the routine task has already 

been performed for that month. IPP perform the update profile task by reviewing and updating the 

information in the establishment profile. The EP link on the left navigation menu contains the sub-links 

needed to access the various establishment profile pages. IPP can only edit profile information for 

establishments in their inspection assignments. 

080
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• IPP provide a copy of the EP report to establishment management during the next weekly meeting 

upon entering a new assignment, or following a change to an existing assignment. Management will 

have an opportunity to affirm or correct any of the profile information in PHIS. When management 

responds with a correction, IPP are to change their response only after seeing establishment records or 

other data that is needed to support the basis for the correction. IPP are to resolve any issues or 

discrepancies regarding profile information before they document the task as completed in PHIS. 

• To generate the Establishment Profile Report, IPP are to: 

• Select the establishment under the Establishment Profile tab on the left navigation menu; 

• Scroll down to the bottom of the page and find the Reports tab; and 

• Click on Reports, then select Establishment Profile Report. This will generate the report 

that can then be saved or printed. 

Note: Refer to the PHIS user guide or the PHIS Help Button for step-by-step information. 

When performing the Update Establishment Profile task, IPP are to gather information from a 

management official at the establishment or facility and complete or update information as needed. 

The following parts of the EP will be accessed in making updates: 

• Establishment Contacts 

• General 

• Establishment Task List 

• HACCP Systems Information (meat and poultry establishments only) 

• Slaughter Information (meat and poultry establishments only) 

• Product Information (meat and poultry establishments only) 

• Production Volume Information (meat and poultry establishments only) 

• Profile Questionnaires 

Note: Information concerning Grants and Approvals (Read only), Profile Summary, Operating 

Schedule, Facilities, Equipment (Thermal Processing), and Training can also be accessed. 

081
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHIS 2 – Task List / Task Calendar 

Objectives 

1. Identify the FSIS directive that provides instructions to IPP for scheduling inspection task 

in PHIS. 

2. Define the following terms: Task Library, Establishment Task List, Task Calendar, 

Routine Task, and Directed Task. 

3. Describe how the task list is created for an establishment and how to navigate the 

features of the task list. 

4. Identify situations that require IPP to schedule and perform directed tasks and how to 

schedule a directed task. 

5. Identify the two sections of the PHIS tasks calendar page and how to navigate the 

features of the page and filter for the inspector and the establishment. 

6. Describe the principles that IPP follow when scheduling and performing inspection tasks. 

7. Describe the steps that IPP need to perform the first time they log in to PHIS each day. 

PHIS, which stands for Public Health Information System, is a web-based application used by FSIS to 

generate specific tasks for inspection personnel to schedule tasks to perform based on public health risk 

factors. 

The PHIS Task Library is a component of PHIS that lists all the different kinds of routine inspection 

tasks that may be performed by IPP. It also provides a description of each task. The Office of Policy and 

Program Development staff members maintain the tasks in the task library. Each task is given a priority 

level and an expected frequency to be performed in a one-month period. The Task Library will also 

display inspector guidance, mandatory regulations cited, other regulatory concerns, and the specific 

data to be recorded each time IPP perform the task. 

The Task Calendar page is divided into two sections, the Establishment Task List and the 

Establishment Task Calendar. The Establishment Task List displays all the tasks which are assigned 

to the establishment based on the information in the establishment profile. In other words, the 

establishment task list is the source of routine inspection tasks added on the Task Calendar and 

performed by IPP assigned to that establishment. The Establishment Task Calendar displays all the 

scheduled, in-process, completed, and not performed task for the establishment. It provides IPP with 

the flexibility to schedule tasks on days that work best for their assignments. 

There are two types of tasks: Routine tasks and Directed tasks. 

• Routine tasks are inspection verification activities conducted on a routine, on-going or planned basis 

under normal conditions. Routine tasks are allocated based on the information in the establishment’s 

profile, e.g., HACCP processing category and products. 

082
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Directed tasks are those that do not occur on a routine basis under normal circumstances. These 

tasks are performed on an as needed basis. Sampling tasks and export certification tasks are 

considered to be directed tasks because they do not occur on a routine basis. Directed tasks may be 

initiated in several ways: Positive pathogen result, FSIS headquarters personnel, supervision, and 

conditions observed in the establishment. 

When scheduling tasks, inspection personnel should us the frequency and priority level of each task. 

They should also utilize their knowledge of the establishment, travel times between inspection 

assignments, allocate the tasks over the entire month, avoid predictable patterns, and do not schedule 

too many tasks. If IPP determine that they will not be able to complete all high priority tasks or all 

directed tasks by the applicable end dates, they are to discuss the situation with their immediate 

supervisor as soon as possible. The supervisor will be able to advise IPP on how to best arrange the 

necessary tasks or may be able to spread the necessary work to other IPP. 

At the beginning of each work week, IPP should ask establishment management what operations will 

be conducted and what products will be produced during the week. Based on the information provided 

by the establishment, IPP may need move, or remove and reschedule inspection tasks. If all of the work 

cannot be performed on a given day due to the addition of directed tasks, sampling tasks or export 

certification requests, IPP should adjust the Task Calendar by moving tasks to another day. IPP 

assigned to the same establishment are expected to coordinate work efforts. This may require 

reassigning and completing tasks on the Task Calendar that have not been started and tasks that 

have been started (in-progress) but not completed from each another. Note: An inspector cannot 

assign a task (work) to another inspector, but an inspector can claim a task (work) assigned to or 

originally scheduled by another inspector. The ideal situation or overall goal is that IPP complete all 

routine tasks for the month. In this case, the number of completed tasks would equal the number of 

planned tasks by the end of the month. 

The ideal situation or overall goal is that IPP complete all the routine tasks for the month (i.e., the 

number of completed tasks matches the number of expected or planned tasks at the end of the 

month). Even though IPP have scheduled all of the expected tasks, there are going to be times when 

they cannot perform all of them by the end of the month. Those tasks that are still on the Task 

Calendar that have not been started by the end of the month are marked as “not performed”. IPP must 

select the appropriate “justification” for not performing the task from a dropdown list in PHIS. Thus, at 

the end of the month, IPP account for all the expected instances of a task that were on the 

establishment’s Task List in one way or another. 

PHIS maintain information about IPP in-plant assignments. The information available to the IPP is 

limited to his/her work assignments. However, IPP often cover assignments other than their permanent 

assignment. The most obvious example is relief inspectors, but other IPP will temporarily cover an 

assignment that is not their assignment. To access and interact with PHIS while temporarily covering 

another employee’s inspection duties, IPP must be designated as covering that assignment in PHIS. 

The temporary coverage does not disrupt the permanent assignment structure but allows IPP to enter 

information into the system for the coverage assignment. A coverage assignment can be set up within 

PHIS on a long-term basis and only used when needed, or it can be set up only when the coverage 

occurs. 

083
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHIS Daily Activities to Ensure Tasks are Scheduled and Performed when Logging into PHIS for

the First Time during the Work day, IPP should (in this order): 

1. Review any new alerts on the dashboard of the homepage. The alerts: 

• Are generated automatically based on data entered into the system and events that occur in the 

establishment 

• Provide IPP with urgent or critical information 

• May direct IPP to perform additional inspection tasks or take other action 

2. Review each establishment’s Task List to find any new directed tasks. Directed inspection tasks: 

• Are generated automatically based on data entered into the system 

• May be generated by supervision, the District Office, or Headquarters 

3. Review each establishment’s task list to find any new sampling tasks. 

4. If the establishment exports product, determine if there are any new export requests. 

5. Review the task calendar to see what inspection tasks are already scheduled for the week or month. 

6. Add any new directed inspection tasks/sampling tasks/export requests to the Task Calendar. 

IPP are to consider the priorities of the new tasks relative to the tasks already scheduled on the calendar 

to ensure that they still complete the most important tasks by the end of the month. For sampling tasks, 

they need to plan to ensure they can collect the sample during the designated time period. 

7. Adjust the Task Calendar, if the work cannot all be performed on a given day due the addition of 

directed inspection tasks/sampling tasks/export requests. 

8. Review any open NRs to determine if they can verify that the establishment has brought itself back 

into compliance while performing inspection tasks. 

084
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statusin PHIS Definition 

Inspection Task Not Open 

Task Color Blue 

on the calendar 

Task has been added to inspector’s task calendar 

Verification component option has NOT been selected in PHIS 

Open 

(in-progress) 

Task Color 

Yellow on the 

calendar 

Verification component option has been selected in PHIS 

IPP have begun to enter results 

Statusin PHIS Definition 

Inspection Task Completed 

Task Color 

Green on the 

calendar 

All verification has been performed and all results have been entered 

for the task 

If an NR was issued, the NR’s status has been updated to 

“completed” 

“Inspection completed” box has been marked on “the inspection 

results” page for the task 

Not Performed 

Task Color Red 

on the calendar 

“if scheduled” 

IPP has NOT started the task before its end date (usually the last 

workday of the month) 

085
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHIS 3 - Inspection Documentation, NRs, MOIs, Inspector Notes, Meeting Agenda 

Objectives: Understand how to: 

1. Navigate the Inspection Results page 

2. Record the result of an inspection task 

3. Document the regulations verified 

4. Create an inspection note 

5. Document an NR 

6. Document an MOI 

7. Create a meeting agenda 

Documenting Inspection Task Results in PHIS 

FSIS uses the results of inspection tasks and information about establishment operations to guide 

policy development and target Agency resources to those activities that will best protect public health. 

To assist with these types of decisions, the Public Health Information System (PHIS) is designed to 

capture information about inspection tasks such as: 

1. Which regulatory requirements IPP verified, and whether they observed compliance or 

noncompliance; 

2. How IPP verified the regulatory requirements (i.e., recordkeeping, review and observation, or both). 

IPP use PHIS to document the results of their inspection tasks. After IPP perform an inspection task, 

they are to open the “Inspection Results” page for the specific inspection task, select applicable 

“tabs”, and record their results in PHIS. They are to make the appropriate entries regarding the task 

and their findings of regulatory compliance or noncompliance by checking appropriate boxes, making 

appropriate selections from lists, or typing in text. PHIS will allow inspection tasks to extend over more 

than one day. Thus, IPP may enter partial results on one day and then continue/finish performing the 

task by entering the remaining results on another day. 

The primary method of accessing the Inspection Results page is through the Task Calendar. Other 

pathways are also available in PHIS for accessing the Inspection Results page. For example, IPP can 

also access the Inspection Results page using the Inspection Verification left navigation menu. The 

results of all inspection tasks are documented on the Inspection Results page. 

Completing the Noncompliance Record (NR, FSIS Form 5400-4) in PHIS 

When IPP determine that the establishment has not met one or more regulatory requirements, they 

check the “Regulatory Noncompliance” box at the bottom of the “Regulations” tab of the Inspection 

Results page, and then click “Save” in PHIS. Checking the “Regulatory Noncompliance” box enables 

the “Create/Edit NR button” on the bottom of the Inspection Results page. Much of the information that 

appears in the sections/blocks on the printed NR is automatically added by PHIS. Some blocks on the 

printed NR are completed with information entered by the IPP. For instance, the IPP must provide a 

complete, clear, and concise description of each noncompliance. 

086
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Role of Inspection Notes 

The “Notes” tool enables IPP to document observations, trends, and other issues that relate to 

establishment operations that should be brought to the attention the establishment. Notes can also be 

used as memory joggers for IPP to follow-up on a particular observation or issue. For example, IPP 

should document and discuss less-than-perfect sanitary conditions or execution of establishment 

procedures and programs with establishment management that at the time do not represent 

noncompliance but could lead to noncompliance. Inspection notes are maintained within the system in 

10 categories: facilities, equipment, sanitation, processing, safety, FSA, food defense, export, support 

and records. 

There are several advantages to entering specific observations into PHIS using the Inspection Notes 

feature. For instance, entering notes into PHIS can facilitate communication between: 

1. IPP in the same assignment; 

2. Relief IPP and the assigned IPP; 

3. IPP and their supervisors, and 

4. IPP and other parts of the FSIS chain of command. 

The Inspection Notes tool allows IPP in the same assignment and relief IPP to review findings, issues, 

or concerns previously observed. By having access to such information, they are better equipped to 

identify developing problems. They can act to prevent issues that could affect public health. For 

example, while performing inspection verification tasks, assigned IPP can continue to focus attention 

on a particular finding, trend, or issue and if necessary, continue to document the establishment’s 

inability or unwillingness to address or correct the issue before it leads to noncompliance. 

**************************************************************************************************** 

Note: The use of inspection notes is not intended to replace documentation of noncompliance on NRs. 

All regulatory noncompliance should be documented on an NR.

**************************************************************************************************** 

PHIS Features IPP Use to Document Meetings between IPP and Establishment Management 

PHIS has several time-saving features that IPP use to document the mandatory meetings that they have 

with establishment management. These features enable IPP to work efficiently. First, there is a Meeting 

Agenda tool for recording the topics to be discussed at the meeting. 

Secondly, there is an inspection notes tool to record IPP concerns that do not rise to the level of 

noncompliance but still need to be discussed with establishment management. The Inspection Notes 

can be easily transferred to the Meeting Agenda. Lastly, the Memorandum of Interview (MOI) tool 

creates the official record of the discussion between IPP and establishment management at each 

meeting. 

Entrance Meetings 

Upon rotation into an assignment, or when IPP are newly assigned to an establishment, they are to 

review the establishment’s history, which is reflected in the establishment’s homepage in PHIS. They 

are to consult with their immediate supervisor if they have questions or concerns about the 

establishment’s history. 

After IPP familiarize themselves with establishment’s history, HACCP plans, and programs, they are to 

conduct an entrance meeting (e.g., the first weekly meeting) with the establishment 

087
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

management. At this meeting, IPP should inquire about the specific operations of the establishment 

and seek to answer any questions that came up during their review of the establishment’s history or 

programs. IPP are to ask establishment management about the location of the applicable records and 

the protocol for FSIS personnel to access and review the records. Establishments are required to 

provide access to records needed by IPP to perform their duties. However, IPP must review the 

necessary records in the location specified by establishment management. IPP are not to maintain any 

copies of the establishment’s written programs or data from such programs in the inspection office. 

Likewise, IPP are to ask about any previously agreed upon notification (e.g., when IPP need to inform 

the establishment they will be collecting a sample) when Agency sampling is performed at the 

establishment. IPP need to know this information so that an establishment can properly control sampled 

product pending FSIS test results. 

IPP take notes at the entrance meeting and document the notes in a MOI in PHIS and provide a 

copy of the MOI to the establishment. 

Awareness Meetings 

When new regulations, policies, performance standards, compliance guidelines, or product sampling 

protocols are published in a Federal Register Notice, FSIS provides information, guidance and 

instructions to IPP for verifying the new policy or implementing the new performance standards or 

implementing the new sampling protocol through either a FSIS Directive or FSIS Notice. The Directive 

or Notice often directs IPP to conduct an awareness meeting with establishment management upon 

receipt of notice or directive. The Notice or Directive identifies specific information that IPP are to share 

with establishment management at the meeting. IPP take notes at the awareness meeting and

document the notes in a MOI in PHIS and provide a copy of the MOI to the establishment. 

Weekly Meetings and Agenda Items 

As set out in FSIS Directive 5000.1, IPP are to have weekly meetings with establishment 

management. IPP are to use the tools in PHIS to record inspection notes, create meeting agendas, 

document MOIs, and record the performance of weekly meeting tasks. The performance of the weekly 

meeting AND other meetings is documented in PHIS under the “Meeting with Establishment 

Management” task. 

The purpose of the weekly meeting is to provide an opportunity for IPP to address matters that affect 

the establishment’s on-going compliance with FSIS requirements. The discussion of issues during the 

weekly meeting is not intended to replace documentation of noncompliance on an NR. Moreover, the 

fact that an issue is not discussed at the weekly meeting does not mean that the issue could not 

become the subject of an NR. 

Meetings should benefit both IPP and the establishment. For instance, it is important that IPP discuss 

topics pertinent to the establishment’s food safety system that could affect public health. IPP are not 

precluded from asking establishments about any subject of regulatory concern, e.g., recalls, allergen 

control, etc. Establishment management may wish to share information regarding their operations, 

such as facility improvements and changes to their food safety systems, or express concerns at the 

meetings. 

A wide variety of topics can be discussed at the meetings, including individual noncompliances, 

developing trends of noncompliance, and findings by IPP that do not represent regulatory 

noncompliance but that need to be brought to the attention of the establishment. For example, 

088
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

discussion of information from external sources, such as customer or consumer complaints, can provide 

information to alert establishment management about a safety risk or about other information that is 

relevant to the establishment’s food safety system. 

******************************************************************************************** 

Note: FSIS Directive 5000.1 requires IPP to discuss developing trends in noncompliance at the weekly 

meetings and document the discussion of noncompliance trends and the associated NRs in an MOI. 

IPP are to discuss any identified associations between current and past noncompliances, and describe 

to establishment management why the associated NRs indicate a trend of noncompliance. It is 

recommended that IPP explain that continued noncompliance may result in further enforcement 

actions, to help the establishment understand the consequences of continued noncompliance.

******************************************************************************************** 

FSIS Directive 5010.1 provides a general list of food safety related topics that IPP may consider 

discussing with the establishment during weekly meetings. Given the range of the issues confronting 

FSIS-regulated establishments, it may be difficult to discuss all of the topics that either FSIS or the 

establishment wishes to address during any one weekly meeting. 

Similarly, IPP should not use the list of topics in FSIS Directive 5010.1 like check list nor should they 

attempt to discuss all topics listed during a given period of time. The topics in the directive should be 

discussed as they arise. The list below is not all-inclusive. Possible topics for discussion listed in FSIS 

Directive 5010.1 include: 

1. In-plant observations, e.g., individual NRs, less than perfect conditions that may, if not addressed, 

become noncompliances, and humane handling/poultry good commercial practices issues; 

2. Issues and information that the establishment wishes to share; 

3. Agency issuances, e.g., FSIS Notices and Directives and askFSIS questions; 

4. Information regarding FSIS sampling; 

5. Information related to the establishment’s food safety system, e.g., changes to prerequisite 

programs used to support food safety decisions; 

6. Information from external sources, e.g., consumer complaints and recalls; and 

7. Any inspection related activities occurring outside of approved hours of operation. 

On a periodic basis, about once a month as scheduled using the PHIS “Update Establishment Profile” 

task, IPP are to ask establishment management at the weekly meeting whether it has made any 

changes in the production process or other changes that could affect the safety of the product. If IPP 

learn that establishment management has made a change in its process, based on the nature of the 

change, IPP are to perform the appropriate verification activities outlined in FSIS Directives 5000.1 and 

5000.6. If IPP are unsure how to proceed, they are to contact their supervisor for guidance. 

Before the weekly meeting with the establishment, IPP may use the Meeting Agenda tool in PHIS to 

create an outline of the topics to be discussed. The topics discussed at the weekly meeting are 

dependent upon the events or conditions that occur in the establishment each week. The meeting 

agenda may be printed and distributed to IPP who will attend the meeting. IPP are to share a copy of 

the meeting agenda with establishment management when requested. PHIS will enable IPP to link the 

meeting agenda to an MOI to create an establishment meeting MOI. 

089
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When an establishment has multiple inspection shifts and/or multiple assigned IPP, it is the Inspectorin-Charge’s (IIC) duty and responsibility to conduct and document weekly meetings. The IIC: 

• Ensures that regulatory concerns that arise on all shifts are discussed at the weekly meetings; 

• May delegate conducting the meeting to IPP; 

• May include IPP (CSIs or FIs) in the meeting with establishment management; 

• Signs all documentation, and 

• Ensures that all IPP on all establishment shifts are made aware of regulatory concerns that are 

discussed at weekly meetings. 

When the IIC designates an FSIS employee to conduct the weekly meeting, it does not mean that IIC 

never conducts the weekly meeting or attends the weekly meeting. Depending upon the events 

occurring (e.g., a product recall, positive pathogen result, humane handing issues or an inadequate 

HACCP system) or conditions observed (e.g., trends in noncompliance) in the establishment, it may be 

appropriate for the IIC, or even the FLS, to conduct the weekly meeting or at least be in attendance to 

assist and support IPP. 

As set out in FSIS Directive 5000.1, IPP are to take notes at the weekly meetings and are to 

document the notes in a MOI in PHIS. IPP are to provide establishment management with a copy 

of the MOI. 

******************************************************************************************** 

Note: If IPP do not conduct a weekly meeting, they are to document this fact and the reason why in an 

MOI. For example, if establishment management chooses not to attend the weekly meeting, IPP are to 

document this in an MOI. If IPP cannot conduct the meeting due to the performance of higher priority 

tasks, such as sampling, IPP are to document this in an MOI. 

For Cause Meetings 

As needed, IPP can schedule a meeting with establishment management to discuss urgent issues such 

as a positive pathogen result, recall, outbreak, or inhumane handling incident. 

IPP take notes at the meeting, document in a MOI in PHIS, and provide a copy of the MOI to the 

establishment. 

******************************************************************************************** 

Memorandum of Interview (MOIs) 

FSIS Directives 5000.1 and 5010.1 and several notices instruct IPP to meet with establishment 

management and document the outcome of the meeting in an MOI. An MOI is used to record and 

convey discussions with establishment or facility management. The MOI is the written summary of 

an interview. It should not be a verbatim recitation of the interview, nor does it necessarily have to be 

written in the same order as the interview was conducted. Instead, it includes the date of the meeting, 

who was at the meeting, and captures and summarizes critical, relevant information including the 

specific topics discussed and answers to any questions asked during the meeting. 

090
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

******************************************************************************************** 

Note: IPP are not to use the MOI as a means to document daily conversations with establishment 

employees. 

******************************************************************************************** 

IPP can create and document the following MOIs in PHIS: 

• Establishment Meeting 

• Standard 

• Domestic Food Defense 

• Import Food Defense 

An MOI is a very important inspection tool for IPP because it documents the fact that IPP maintain 

open lines of communication with official establishments. For instance, after the weekly meeting, IPP 

are to prepare either an establishment meeting MOI or a standard MOI in PHIS to document the agenda 

items covered in the meeting and document any establishment responses. IPP are to document any 

discussion of noncompliance trends and NR associations at the weekly meeting in the MOI. Open NRs 

and NRs under appeal may be linked to an establishment meeting MOI or a standard MOI in PHIS. 

An MOI can also document a variety of other issues including, but not limited to the: 

• Discussion of a new inspection policy transmitted through a FSIS notice (e.g., a directed awareness

meeting); 

• Performance of records review in accordance with FSIS Directive 5000.2, and 

• Performance of specific verification activities (e.g., supplier tracking information and humane 

handling) as deemed necessary by FSIS. 

If establishment management provides no response to issues/concerns, this fact should be recorded in 

the MOI. 

IPP are to maintain a copy of the MOI in the official government file and must provide a copy of the MOI 

to the establishment. When the MOI is provided to the establishment or facility, it is designated as 

“finalized” in PHIS. 

MOIs can be used to track the establishment’s history of responding to issues/conditions in the 

establishment that are not noncompliance but can lead to noncompliance if conditions worsen or if the 

establishment doesn’t act upon the information the IPP has given the establishment, e.g., less than 

perfect execution of prerequisite program. If the situation has been documented in a MOI on numerous 

occasions, it would be hard for the establishment to say it didn’t know the issue/condition could lead to 

noncompliance when it finally results in noncompliance documented on an NR. 

If an establishment objects to any part of the MOI, IPP are to document the objection at the end of, or as 

an attachment to, the MOI. If the establishment's objection is in writing, IPP are to attach the written 

objection to the MOI. When the establishment’s written objection is transmitted electronically, e.g., email or other file format, IPP can upload the file in PHIS and save the document as an attachment to 

the MOI record. IPP provide a copy of the amended MOI to the establishment. MOIs can be reviewed 

by the Frontline Supervisor. 

091
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tips for Writing MOIs 

• Write the MOI as soon as possible after conducting the meeting. “Cold notes” are difficult to 

understand. 

• Document who attended the meeting, the topics that were discussed, and what was said at the

meeting. Document only the facts and not any opinions. 

• Use quotations only when directly quoting a person. 

Example: Mr. Adams said, “I told Ms. Popadoupolis, the Food Safety Manager, that the SSOP and 

HACCP records need to be available to the second shift inspector. “ Ms. Popadoupolis said she 

would take care of it.” 

• Paraphrasing is generally a safer way of relating what someone said since it is difficult to capture the 

verbatim account when a person is speaking quickly. 

• When paraphrasing, use words like “said” and “stated” to maintain a neutral tone. Example: “Mr. 

Adams stated that Mr. Wallace, the Maintenance Manager, is waiting for a quote to repair a large 

section of epoxy flooring outside the smokehouses and rack wash area.” 

• Do not use “claimed” as a synonym for “said” because this verb has an undertone of blame and 

mistrust. 

Example: “Mr. Wilson claimed he was not present during pre-operational sanitation inspection.” (This 

sounds as though we do not believe him.) 

• When discussing several people of the same gender, restate the name to prevent confusion. 

Example: “Mr. Irvine said that he told his Quality Assurance Manager that not making the SSOP 

and HACCP records available to the second shift inspector was a violation of the USDA 

regulations and that he will develop a method of making them available.” (Who will develop a 

method of making the records available? Mr. Irvine or the Quality Assurance Manager?) 

• Use the first person for your observations. 

Example: “I asked Mr. Irvine to tell me which office he contacted within the FSIS.” 

• Use the third person to relate information about the interviewee. 

Example: “Ms. Jones said she was the acting HACCP Coordinator of the establishment during the 

Food Safety Assessment.” 

Creating Inspection Notes 

The PHIS inspection notes feature is designed to be helpful to IPP in several ways: First, inspection 

notes help foster communication between IPP assigned to the establishment across days and shifts. 

Secondly, they provide a way to capture inspection findings that do not rise to the level of 

noncompliance but still need to be discussed with establishment management. 

Lastly, PHIS provides a mechanism for easily transferring these notes into a meeting agenda for the 

weekly meeting and MOIs. 

Creating a Meeting Agenda 

FSIS Directive 5000.1 requires IPP to conduct entrance meeting and weekly meetings with 

establishment management. Some FSIS Notices require IPP to conduct an awareness meeting with 

establishment. Conditions in the establishment and some inspection findings may require IPP to have 

non-routine meeting with establishment management, e.g., a positive pathogen or positive residue 

sample result, humane handling issues, or a recall. These are often referred to as for cause meetings. 

A wide variety of topics can be discussed at the meetings, including individual noncompliances, 

developing trends of noncompliance, and findings by IPP that do not represent regulatory 

noncompliance but need to be brought to the attention of the establishment. IPP can use the meeting 

agenda tool in PHIS to create an agenda for the meeting. 

092
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The PHIS agenda feature lets IPP select inspector notes and import those notes into a meeting agenda. 

This allows IPP to include appropriate entries from the PHIS inspector notes feature into a draft 

agenda in preparation for the weekly meeting. Some inspector notes may be memory joggers for the 

IPP or just to convey information to IPP assigned to the same establishment that may not need to be a 

discussion item at the weekly meeting with the establishment. When there are no inspection notes that 

need to be discussed at the weekly meeting, IPP will use the Agenda tab to add discussion topics to 

the meeting agenda. 

Inspection notes are placed in the agenda “as is” and may need some editing and additions such as 

introduction and conclusion text before completing the meeting agenda. 

IPP may add additional topics to the agenda that they did not enter in as inspector notes that they feel 

need to be discussed at the weekly meeting. If the IPP feels that a particular noncompliance on an 

open NR needs to be discussed with establishment management at the weekly meeting, IPP should 

associate the open NR with the Meeting Agenda. 

Conduct the Meeting 

Now that the IPP has created the establishment meeting Agenda, he or she would log off PHIS and 

conduct the meeting. IPP use the Agenda to assist in the organization and focus of the meeting. IPP 

are required to take notes and document the outcome of the meetings they have with establishment 

management. An MOI is used to record and convey IPP discussions with establishment or facility 

management. 

Creating an Establishment Meeting MOI from the Agenda 

After the meeting, IPP document the outcome of the meeting on the MOI. IPP should include the 

establishment’s response to regulatory and non-regulatory concerns discussed at the meeting. 

093
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHIS 4 - Sample Management 

Objectives 

1. Describe the difference between directed samples and collector generated samples. 

2. Schedule a directed sampling task. 

3. State the purpose of the laboratory capacity reservation system. 

4. Document a directed sampling task. 

5. Cancel a scheduled sampling task from the Task Calendar. 

6. Check laboratory results. 

7. Print laboratory forms. 

8. Describe the method of collecting a sample for establishments with no internet access. 

General Instructions: 

• IPP review relevant FSIS Directives and Notices applicable to the sampling program before 

collecting the sample. 

• IPP utilize the PHIS Quick Reference and Users Guides for detailed instructions on the sample 

management feature of PHIS. 

• IPP answer the sample questionnaire, submit it, then print the lab sample form, sign it and place it in 

sample box. 

• IPP follow the instructions in FSIS Directive 7355.1 for packaging, sealing sample boxes, and 

maintaining the integrity of samples submitted to the lab. 

References: 

FSIS Directive 13,000.2, Performing Sampling Tasks in Official Establishments using the Public Health 

Information System 

FSIS Directive 10,800.1, Residue Sampling, Testing and Other Verification Procedures under the 

National Residue Program for Meat and Poultry Products 

FSIS Directive 10,800.2, Residue Sampling and Testing under the National Residue Program 

PHIS Users Guide 

094
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Sample Management feature of PHIS streamlines scheduling, assigning, documentation, and 

tracking of FSIS’s sampling tasks. IPP have the flexibility to schedule sample collection within the 

constraints of their particular assignment and the availability laboratory resources. 

Sampling Verification Programs and Sampling Tasks 

FSIS administers three sampling verification programs: 

• Microbiological sampling for food borne pathogens such as for E. coli O157:H7 on raw beef products, 

Salmonella sampling for raw products, and Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella on ready-to-eat 

(RTE) products. 

• Carcass/tissue (kidney, liver, heart, or spleen) sampling for drug and chemical residues (antibiotics, 

pesticides, and heavy metals) to ensure that residue tolerance or action level established by FDA and 

EPA are not violated. 

• Carcass/tissue sampling for pathology determinations (e.g., disease conditions, wholesomeness, 

etc.) to determine if there is a risk to humans handling or consuming the meat or poultry products. 

Lab sampling tasks fall into two collection types: 

1. Directed Sampling task 

2. Collector Generated sample 

Directed Sampling Tasks displayed on the Establishment Task List are based on the sampling 

verification programs for which the establishment is eligible. Eligibility for a specific sampling program 

is determined by information entered in the establishment’s profile in PHIS such as the slaughter 

class, type of product produced or processed, and production volumes. One or more directed lab 

sampling tasks may be created by an authorized user (typically at the Headquarters or District level) 

and directed to specified establishments. IPP must use the Establishment Task List and Task 

Calendar when scheduling or collecting a directed sample. For each lab sampling project, IPP will 

add the sampling tasks on their Task Calendar. 

Scheduling the task, reserving lab capacity, and documenting the collection of all directed sample 

requests is done through the Task Calendar and not the sample management left navigation menu in 

PHIS. 

Collector Generated Samples are not displayed on the Establishment Task List. 

For all collector generated samples, the IPP will need to create a sampling task in PHIS by determining 

laboratory capacity, scheduling the collection date, and documenting the collection of the sample. The 

mechanism for scheduling a sampling task and documenting collector generated samples varies in 

PHIS. 

095
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHIS Laboratory Capacity Reservation System 

PHIS allows IPP to schedule sample collection tasks using the PHIS Laboratory Capacity 

Reservation System. The laboratory reservation system alerts the laboratory to expect the sample 

and ensures that FSIS laboratory resources will be available on the day the sample arrives. The 

requested collection date will be checked against the laboratory capacity and reservation module of 

PHIS. Confirmation will be provided indicating that there is available laboratory capacity on the 

requested collection date for the type of sample being collected. If capacity is not available, IPP are to 

select an alternate date. Once sample scheduling is completed, PHIS will display the address of the 

FSIS Laboratory that is scheduled to receive and analyze the sample. 

Remember: 

o Sampling tasks should be scheduled to the task calendar using a realistic collection date based on 

the plant’s production schedule. This should be done as early as possible to ensure a capacity slot 

is available for the desired collection date. Once the sampling task has been moved from the task 

list to the calendar, a capacity slot is reserved to accommodate the scheduled sample (see FSIS 

Directive 13,000.2). 

o Scheduled sampling tasks should be canceled or rescheduled as soon as IPP are aware they will 

not collect on a scheduled date so capacity slots can be released for others to use. 

o Waiting to schedule sampling tasks in the last few days of the collection window may result in no

capacity being available. 

o Sampling for low and infrequent producers should be scheduled as far in advance as possible. 

General Instructions for Performing Sampling Tasks in PHIS 

The FSIS laboratory is completely dependent on IPP to properly collect, prepare, and ship the sample. 

The FSIS Sampling Form that accompanies each sample must be completely and accurately filled out. 

The IPP role in the sampling process is vital. The information entered on the form becomes part of a 

legal document. If mistakes are made during the collection of the sample or on the form, the lab will 

discard the sample. 

096
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHIS 5 - Animal Disposition Reporting (ADR) 

Objective: Perform the following functions in PHIS: 

• Specify weight reporting frequencies 

• Record No Kill periods 

• Enter livestock inspection results 

• Record custom slaughter data 

• Enter poultry inspection results 

• Print condemnation certificates 

References 

PHIS Users Guide – USDA Intranet 

FSIS Directive 6100.1, Ante-Mortem Livestock Inspection 

FSIS Directive 6100.2, Post-Mortem Livestock Inspection 

FSIS Directive 6100.3, Ante-Mortem and Post-Mortem Poultry Inspection 

FSIS Directive 6170.1, Ratite Ante-Mortem and Post-Mortem Inspection 

FSIS Directive 10,800.1, Residue Sampling, Testing and Other Verification Procedures under the 

National Residue Program for Meat and Poultry Products 

Animal Disposition Reporting 

Inspection findings by Inspection Program Personnel (IPP) during ante-mortem and post- mortem 

inspection that identify diseased animals or carcasses, must be reported in PHIS in Animal Disposition 

Reporting. The IPP is responsible for collecting, storing, and reporting information on the disposition of 

livestock and poultry presented for slaughter at all official Federal and Talmadge-Aiken establishments. 

Within PHIS, IPP are authorized to create and edit several types of animal disposition data within the 

system. 

Daily dispositions for livestock slaughter establishments are entered on a per shift basis. If there are 

two slaughter shifts, then data will be entered for both shifts. Daily dispositions for poultry slaughter 

establishments are entered on a per lot basis. The establishment is responsible for designating the 

lots. 

Disposition data is associated with the actual day of slaughter, not the date that the information is 

entered into PHIS. Whenever possible, ADR data should be entered at the end of shift. 

In PHIS, only the post-mortem carcass dispositions made by the PHV (carcasses railed out to the PHV) 

are entered into PHIS. The individual entries will have the retain tag number, and there is a free text 

narrative box to record additional information. 

Condemnation certificates can be automatically generated by PHIS for both AM and PM condemnations. 

These certificates can be printed out and signed. 

Animal Disposition will be the portal for collecting data on in-plant residue screening test results (KISTM) 

and for requesting laboratory confirmation of presumptive positive test results. Each residue screening 

test result will be individually associated with the AM or PM disposition decision for that carcass. 

Additionally, ADR will be the portal for collecting the number of Brucellosis and Tuberculosis samples 

taken, along with BSE sample information. 

097
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHIS Simulations 

There are 16 training simulations that will familiarize you with navigating and using the Public Health 

Information System (PHIS) to document various inspection tasks. The instructor will introduce each 

simulation and then provide time for you to review the simulation on your own in the FSIS Training Site. 

Please follow the instructions in the simulation and click on the various buttons and targets to 

complete each simulation. Depending on the strength of your internet connection, the simulation may 

load slowly. 

Link to PHIS Simulations in the FSIS Training Site: 

https://fsistraining.fsis.usda.gov/course/view.php?id=46 

References: 

FSIS Directive 13,000.1 - Scheduling In-Plant Inspection Tasks in the Public Health Information 

System (PHIS) 

FSIS Directive 13,000.2 - Performing Sampling Tasks in Official Establishments Using the Public 

Health Information System 

1 - PHIS Navigation 

This lesson introduces the PHIS navigation process. 

Objective: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to describe how to navigate through PHIS 

features and pages 

• Log into PHIS 

• Homepage 

• My Dashboard tab – Alerts, My Tasks, Inspection Results, Smart Links 

• My Establishments tab – My Establishments, Non-Compliance Record, FSA 

• My Inspections and Samples tab – Inspection Agenda, Inspection Note, Lab Sample Collection 

• Left Navigation Menu 

098
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 - SPS Verification Task 

This lesson introduces the SPS Verification Task – compliance scenario. 

Objective: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to describe how to complete the SPS 

verification task in PHIS. 

• Schedule the SPS Verification Task from the Task List to the Task Calendar 

• Document the task 

• Inspection Results 

• Activity Tab – Select verification activity (review and observation, record keeping, both) 

• Regulations Tab – Check mandatory regulations and any other regulations verified 

• Create an Inspection Note 

099
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 – Pre-Operational SSOP Review and Observation Task 

This lesson introduces the Pre-Operational Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP) Review 

and Observation Task – Noncompliance scenario. 

Objectives: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to: 1) Describe how to document 

noncompliances in PHIS, and 2) Describe how to complete the Pre-Operational SSOP review & 

observation task in PHIS. 

• Schedule Pre-Op SSOP Review and Observation Task from the Task List to the Task Calendar 

• Document the task 

• Inspection Results 

• Activity Tab – Select verification activity (review and observation, record keeping, both) 

• Regulations Tab – Check mandatory regulations and any other regulations verified, check 

Regulatory Non-Compliance box 

• Create/Edit NR 

• Add Noncompliance, check noncompliant regulation(s), type Noncompliance Description 

• Print NR, view NR, edit NR, Finalize NR 

• Verify Corrective Actions, Complete NR 

• Complete the task 

100
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 - Operational SSOP Review and Observation Task 

This lesson introduces the Operational Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP) Review and 

Observation Task – Compliance scenario. 

Objectives: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to describe how to complete the operational 

SSOP review & observation task in PHIS. 

• Document the task 

• Inspection Results 

• Activity Tab – Select verification activity (review and observation, record keeping, both) 

• Regulations Tab – Check mandatory regulations and any other regulations verified 

• Complete the task 

101
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 - HACCP Verification Task 

This lesson introduces the HACCP Verification Task scenario. 

Objective: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to describe how to complete the HACCP 

Verification task in PHIS. 

• Document the task 

• Inspection Results 

• Activity Tab – Select verification activity (review and observation, record keeping, both) 

• Regulations Tab – Check mandatory regulations and any other regulations verified 

• Complete task 

102
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 - Poultry Zero Tolerance Verification Task 

This lesson introduces the Poultry Zero Tolerance Task – Compliance scenario. 

Objective: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to describe how to complete the Poultry Zero 

Tolerance Verification task in PHIS. 

• Document the task 

• Inspection Results 

• Activity Tab – Select verification activity (review and observation, record keeping, both) 

• Regulations Tab – Check mandatory regulations and any other regulations verified 

• Complete task 

103
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 - Livestock Zero Tolerance Task 

This lesson introduces the Livestock Zero Tolerance Task – Noncompliance scenario. Objectives: 

Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to: 1) Describe how to complete the Livestock Zero 

Tolerance Verification task in PHIS and 2) Describe how to document noncompliances in PHIS. 

• Document the task 

• Inspection Results 

• Activity Tab – Select verification activity (review and observation, record keeping, both) 

• Regulations Tab – Check mandatory regulations and any other regulations verified 

• Create/Edit NR 

• Add Noncompliance, check noncompliant regulation(s), type Noncompliance Description 

• Print NR, view NR, edit NR, Finalize NR 

• Verify Corrective Actions, Complete NR 

• Complete task 

104
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 - Scheduling and Submitting a Salmonella/Campylobacter Poultry Parts Sample 

This lesson introduces the scheduling and submitting of a Salmonella/Campylobacter poultry parts 

sample in PHIS. 

Objectives: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to: 1) Describe how to create a lab sampling 

task in PHIS and 2) Describe how to submit a lab sample in PHIS. 

• Filter Task List by Establishment 

• Filter Task by Lab Sampling 

• Add the Sampling for Chicken Parts – Legs, Breasts, and Wings Task. 

• Select the Collection Date and View Laboratory Capacity 

• Document the task 

• Select Sample 

• Complete Sample Collection Data 

• Take Questionnaire and Submit 

• Print Form 

• Submit to Lab 

105
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 - Creating Inspection Notes, Meeting Agendas, and MOIs 

This lesson introduces how to create inspection notes, agendas, and Memorandum of Interviews 

(MOIs) in PHIS. 

Objectives: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to describe how to create inspection notes, 

agendas, and MOIs in PHIS. 

• Select Establishment 

• Inspection Notes 

o Create Note 

o Select Category 

o Enter Text 

• Meeting Agendas 

o Create Agenda 

o Select Meeting Date, Time, Subject, and Attendees 

o Comment List 

o NR 

• MOI 

o Meeting Agendas 

o MOI - Meeting 

o Agenda Text Box 

o NR 

o Review 

o Finalize 

o Print 

106
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 - Livestock Humane Handling Task 

This lesson introduces the livestock humane handling task. 

Objective: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to describe how to complete a livestock 

humane handling task in PHIS. 

• Document the task 

• Inspection Results 

• Activity Tab – Select verification activity (review and observation, record keeping, both) 

• HATS Tab (Humane Activities Tracking System) 

o Select HATS categories verified 

o Enter Duration (minutes/hours) in 15-minute intervals 

• Regulations Tab – Check mandatory regulations and any other regulations verified 

• Complete task 

107
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 - Establishment Profile – Add a HACCP Plan 

This lesson introduces the PHIS Establishment Profile navigation process. 

Objectives: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to add a new HACCP plan to an 

establishment’s profile 

Step 1: Click Establishment Profile 

Step 2: Click Open on the establishment row 

Step 3: Click on the HACCP Tab for the establishment 

Step 4: Click on the HACCP Plans Tab 

Step 5: Click on Add a HACCP Plan above the grid 

Step 6: Click the Signature date and select the date on the calendar 

Step 7: Click on Plan Name and enter the name of the plan 

Step 8: Click on the Processing Categories box for the product type 

Step 9: Click on Add 

Step 10: The HACCP Plan has been added to grid, click Exit Profile 

108
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 - Establishment Profile – Updating Production Volume 

This lesson introduces the PHIS Establishment Profile navigation process. 

Objective: Upon completing this lesion, you will be able to explain the steps CSIs take to update an 

establishment’s production volume. 

Step 1: Click Establishment Profile 

Step 2: Click Open on the establishment row 

Step 3: Click on the Products Tab for the establishment 

Step 4: Click Open for the Raw-Intact/Raw-Intact Chicken/Chicken/Poultry (Leg, Breast, Wings ONLY) 

Step 5: Click Edit 

Step 6: Click the Drop down arrow for the Average Daily Volume. Select 50,001-250,000. 

Click Update 

Step 7: Click Save HACCP Volumes. The HACCP Volumes have been updated in the grid. 

109
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 - Establishment Profile – Updating and Adding an Establishment Contact 

This lesson will introduce you to the procedure to update and add an Establishment Contact. 

Objective: Upon completing this lesion, you will be able to explain the steps CSIs use to update and 

add an establishment contact. 

Step 1: Click Establishment Profile 

Step 2: Click Open on the establishment row 

Step 3: Click on the Facility Tab for the establishment Step 4: Click on the Contacts Tab 

Step 5: Click on Open on the contact’s row to be updated 

Step 6: Click inside the First Name box, enter the replacement first name 

Step 7: Click inside the Last Name box, enter the replacement last name 

Step 8: Click inside the Email Address box, enter the replacement email address 

Step 9: Click Save 

Step 10: The establishment contact has been edited, to Add a new establishment contact, Click Add a 

New Contact 

Step 11: Click inside the box for Responsibilities and select from the drop-down menu 

Step 12: Click inside the First Name box, enter the first name 

Step 13: Click inside the Last Name box, enter the last name 

Step 14: Click inside the Phone Number box, enter the phone number 

Step 15: Click inside the Email Address box, enter the email address 

Step 16: Click Yes or No if the person is a Primary Contact 

Step 17: Click Yes or No if the person is an After-Hours Contact 

Step 18: Click Yes or No if the person should receive NR Notification 

Step 19: Click Yes or No if the person is a Billing Contact 

Step 20: Click Add button 

Step 21: The new contact has been added to grid 

110
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 – Hazard Analysis Verification (HAV) Task 

This lesson introduces the HAV task. 

Objective: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to describe how to complete an HAV task and 

document a noncompliance in PHIS. 

• Document the task 

• Inspection Results 

• Activity Tab – Select verification activity (review and observation, record keeping, both) 

• Regulations Tab – Check mandatory regulations and any other regulations verified 

o Check Regulatory Non-Compliance box 

o Create/Edit NR 

o Noncompliances Tab , Add noncompliance 

 Check Regulation(s) Found Noncompliant 

 Type Noncompliance Description, complete the rest of fields 

 Save, view draft, check Noncompliance Finalized box, print 

 Check NR completed box after you have verified establishment is back in compliance 

• Take Questionnaire 

• Complete task 

111
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 – Animal Disposition Reporting - Poultry 

This lesson introduces the Animal Disposition Reporting (ADR) section in PHIS. 

Objective: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to describe how to record a no kill period in the 

ADR section and describe how to enter poultry slaughter and disposition data in o the ADR section. 

• Click on Animal Disposition on the left navigation menu 

• Select No Kill Period 

o Select Establishment name, click on Add No Inspected Slaughter Period 

o Enter Start and End dates, select Reason Code, save 

• Select Establishment Reporting to enter slaughter data 

o Select Establishment name, date, click on Add Slaughter Record 

o Enter Sub-Class, Lot Number, Head Count, and weights 

o Enter head counts, weights, and Post-mortem Carcass Condemnation Details 

o Repeat steps for each Sub-Class and Lot 

o Print the condemnation certificate for each lot 

112
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 – Animal Disposition Reporting - Livestock 

This lesson introduces the Animal Disposition Reporting (ADR) section in PHIS. 

Objective: Upon completing this lesson, you will be able to describe how to report the weight reporting 

frequency in the ADR section and describe how to enter livestock slaughter and disposition data into 

the ADR section. 

• Click on Animal Disposition on the left navigation menu 

• Select Weight Reporting Frequency 

o Select Establishment name then Slaughter Frequency 

• Select Establishment Reporting to enter slaughter data 

o Select Establishment name, date, click on Add Slaughter Record 

o Enter Sub-Class, Head Count, and weights 

o Enter head counts, weights, and Post-mortem Carcass Condemnation Details 

 Option to use Add Multiple Disposition Records 

o Edit Disposition Record as needed 

o Print the condemnation certificate 

113
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

Case Studies: Scenario-Based Learning 

Use the information below to navigate through case-study scenarios and apply what you’ve 

learned during the Inspection Methods training. If you get stuck or identify a topic you need to 

revisit further, make a note and continue on with the scenario. You can note the slide number 

(upper right corner, e.g., L-1) for reference. 

Don’t worry if you make a mistake – you will have multiple opportunities to try if you don’t get it 

right the first time. You can select “Back” to try again. After you complete the scenario, the 

trainers will review key points and answer any questions you noted. 

Note: In each scenario, you can choose any task first. Prior to completing the scenario, you 

will complete all the tasks. 

1) Livestock Slaughter/Processing Scenario 

a. Part I – Familiarize yourself with the establishment 

b. Part II – Complete Livestock Zero Tolerance, Operational SSOP Review and Observation, and 

SPS Verification tasks 

2) Poultry Slaughter/Processing Scenario 

a. Part I – Familiarize yourself with the establishment & complete Pre-Op SSOP task 

b. Part II – Complete Poultry Zero Tolerance and Slaughter HACCP tasks 

3) Ready-to-eat (RTE) Heat Treated Shelf Stable Scenario (optional, not covered in class) 

a. Part I – Familiarize yourself with the establishment & update establishment profile 

b. Part II – Complete SPS Verification, Heat Treated Shelf Stable HACCP, and Operational 

SSOP Record Review tasks 

114
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

■ 

■ 

1111 

■ 

-

-

-

-

#1 - Livestock Slaughter/Processing Scenario 

L-3 Background: Congratulations! You are a new CSI assigned to a very small livestock slaughter and 

processing establishment, M8765. It's your first day on the job, and you want to familiarize yourself 

with the establishment. 

A. Livestock Scenario Part I – Familiarize 

L-4 Review the establishment profile. Notes: 

L-7/9 Review establishment programs (HACCP, Sanitation SOPs, Prerequisite programs). Notes: 

Questions to consider: 

Which SSOP regulations correspond to which parts of the Sanitation SOPs? What are some examples 

of this establishment’s Prerequisite Programs? 

What are the CCPs at this establishment? 

L-8 Match the Sanitation SOP regulations to the corresponding Sanitation SOP. Notes: 

L-12 Review FSIS Directive 5000.1 for information on conducting an Entrance Meeting. 

Questions to consider: 

What types of content would you include in an entrance meeting? 

After conducting an entrance meeting, how will you document the meeting? After documenting the 

meeting, what will you share with the establishment? 

L-13 Type the topics you plan to discuss at the entrance meeting. Notes: 

L-16 Review the example MOI. Notes: 

L-17/18 Review your PHIS Task list. Review FSIS Directive 13,000.1. 

115
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

-

-

-

Question to consider: 

How would you prioritize scheduling tasks in PHIS? 

B. Livestock Scenario Part II – Complete 3 inspection tasks 

L-20 Choose which task to complete first: Livestock Zero Tolerance, Operational SSOP Review and 

Observation, or SPS Verification. 

Note: you can choose any task first. Prior to completing the scenario, you will complete all three tasks. 

Livestock Zero Tolerance task 

L-21 Review FSIS Directive 6420.2 for information on how to conduct a Livestock Zero Tolerance task. 

Questions to consider: 

What substance(s) must livestock carcasses be free of on the Zero Tolerance task? What are 

examples of supportable descriptions of fecal and ingesta in each species? How will you determine 

what number of carcasses to examine on Zero Tolerance? 

What will you do if you identify fecal or ingesta on Zero Tolerance? What do you expect the 

establishment to do if they fail Zero Tolerance? 

What regulations will you use to document Zero Tolerance noncompliance? What should your Zero 

Tolerance NR include to be supportable? 

What task should you schedule in response to a Zero Tolerance noncompliance, and why? 

L-23 Match the feces descriptions by species. Notes: 

L-25 Conduct the Zero Tolerance task. What are your observations? Notes: 

116
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

-

-

-

-

L-30 Identify the W’s in the Livestock Zero Tolerance NR. Notes: 

L-33 Match corrective actions from Zero Tolerance failure to regulations. Notes: 

Operational SSOP Review and Observation task 

L-39 Review FSIS Directive 5000.1 for information on how to conduct an Operational Sanitation SOP 

Review and Observation task. 

Questions to consider: 

What is the difference between SPS Verification and SSOP tasks? 

What are you observing when you conduct an Operational SSOP Review and Observation task? 

What action would you take if you observe product or food contact surface contamination? 

What do you expect the establishment to do if product or food contact surfaces become contaminated? 

What should your SSOP NRs include to be supportable? 

When must an establishment have their SSOP records completed? 

L-42 Conduct the Operational SSOP Review and Observation task. What actions do you take? Notes: 

L-47/48 Document an SSOP NR. Review the example SSOP NR. Notes: 

117
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

-

SPS Verification task 

L-35 Review FSIS Directive 5000.1 for information on how to conduct a SPS Verification task. 

Questions to consider: 

What is the difference between SPS Verification and SSOP tasks? 

What types of facilities are you observing to verify which SPS regulations? 

L-37 Match the regulations to the SPS picture. Notes: 

Once you have completed the Livestock ZT, Operational SSOP Review and Observation, and SPS 

Verification tasks, you have completed this scenario. Add any additional notes or questions below. 

Notes: 

118
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

• 

-

1111 

1111 

-

#2 - Poultry Slaughter/Processing Scenario 

P-3Background: You are a CSI assigned to a large chicken slaughter establishment, P1357. The 

establishment slaughters Monday through Saturday. Finished products include whole birds and poultry 

parts. You're at the establishment bright and early this morning, because you are going to conduct a 

Pre-Operational SSOP Review and Observation task. 

A. Poultry Scenario Part I – Familiarize 

P-4Review FSIS Directive 5000.4 for information on how to conduct the Pre-Op task. 

Questions to consider: 

What type of verification activities will you use when conducting a Pre-Op SSOP Review and 

Observation task? 

How much equipment should you inspect? What equipment should you inspect? 

What will you take with you when you conduct Pre-Op? 

P-5 Review the establishment’s Sanitation SOP program. Notes: 

P-11 Review recent NRs. Do you notice any trends? How will you apply this information to Pre-Op? 

Notes: 

P-12 Choose which equipment you will bring to conduct Pre-Op. Notes: 

P-14/15 Make Pre-Op observations. What do you see? What will you do? Notes: 

119
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1111 

1111 

1111 

1111 

1111 

1111 

1111 

P-16 Review the establishment’s Pre-Op records. Compare their findings to yours. Notes: 

P-21 After your Pre-Op observations, consider how your observations will be documented. Review 

FSIS Directive 5000.1 on how to associate noncompliance. 

Questions to consider: 

Why is it important to associate NRs? 

What should you include in the narrative of an NR when documenting an association? 

P-24 Review an example NR documenting your Pre-Op observations. Notes: 

P-26 Review FSIS Directive 10,250.2 for information on actions you should take when an 

establishment is assigned to Category 3 for Salmonella positive results. 

Questions to consider: 

Where can you go to learn more about conducting poultry follow-up sampling? 

When should you schedule and conduct poultry follow-up sampling? 

P-32 Which topics will you discuss at the weekly meeting? Notes: 

P-33 Review the MOI documented from your weekly meeting. Notes: 

P-34 Review FSIS Directive 5010.1 for information on other topics you may consider discussing at 

weekly meetings. 

120
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1111 

1111 

1111 

B. Poultry Scenario Part II – Complete 2 inspection tasks 

P-35 Choose which task to complete first: Poultry Zero Tolerance or Slaughter HACCP. 

Note: you can choose any task first. Prior to completing the scenario, you will complete all three tasks. 

Poultry Zero Tolerance task 

P-36 Review Directive 6420.5 for information on how to conduct the Poultry Zero Tolerance task. 

Questions to consider: 

How do you determine how often to conduct a Poultry Zero Tolerance task? Where do you conduct the 

Poultry Zero Tolerance task? 

How many carcasses will you inspect during the Poultry Zero Tolerance task? What procedures will 

you follow to conduct the Poultry Zero Tolerance task? 

What contaminants are you looking for during your Poultry Zero Tolerance task? Which finding will 

result in noncompliance? What regulations would you cite? 

P-42 You perform your Zero Tolerance inspection and identify ingesta on a carcass. What should you 

do? Notes: 

121
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1111 

1111 

1111 

1111 

1111 

Slaughter HACCP Verification task 

P-45 Review the Slaughter HACCP plan. Review FSIS Directive 5000.1 for information on how to 

conduct a HACCP task. 

Questions to consider: 

What CCPs will you verify regulatory requirements for? 

What Prerequisite programs will you verify regulatory requirements for? What regulations are you 

verifying when conducting HACCP tasks? 

What are examples of compliance with the HACCP regulatory requirements? With CCP monitoring? 

Verification? Recordkeeping? Corrective Actions? 

P-59 Match the recordkeeping regulation to the HACCP regulatory requirements. Notes: 

P-61 Review the establishment’s prerequisite programs. Notes: 

P-62 Review the establishment’s prerequisite program records. Notes: 

P-66 Review the establishment’s corrective actions record. Notes: 

Once you have completed the Poultry Zero Tolerance and Slaughter HACCP tasks, you have 

completed the scenario. Add any additional notes or questions below. 

Notes: 

122
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

• 

• 

1111 

1111 

1111 

1111 

#3 - Ready-to-eat (RTE) Heat-Treated Shelf-Stable Scenario 

R-3 Background: You are a CSI at Establishment M/P 1234, Riverton Foods. You've just come back 

from two weeks of annual leave, and you are excited to be back at work! Previously, you and the 

establishment agreed upon having your weekly meeting every Monday at 10am. You decide to get 

prepared for the weekly meeting. To catch up on what has happened since you are gone, you decide 

to see if the Coverage CSI placed any information in the Inspection Notes in PHIS. 

A. RTE Scenario Part I – Familiarize 

R-4 Review the inspector notes. Notes: 

R-7 Review FSIS Directive 5300.1 for information on updating the establishment profile. 

Questions to consider: 

How do you know what to review for accuracy in the PHIS profile each month? 

After you conduct the update establishment profile task, what do you need to provide the 

establishment? 

R-10 Review the labels for the new jerky products. What do you note about the ingredients? Notes: 

R-12 Review the establishment’s HACCP system. Notes: 

R-13 Match the HACCP regulations to the corresponding part of the HACCP plan. Notes: 

B. RTE Scenario Part II – Complete 3 inspection tasks 

R-15 Choose which task to complete first: Heat Treated Shelf Stable HACCP, Operational SSOP 

Record Review, or SPS Verification. 

Note: you can choose any task first. Prior to completing the scenario, you will complete all three tasks. 

123
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1111 

1111 

1111 

-

SPS Verification task 

R-51 Review FSIS Directive 5000.1 for information on verifying SPS regulatory requirements. 

Questions to consider: 

What are some examples of SPS noncompliance? 

What should you do if you observe SPS noncompliance? 

What regulations would you site in SPS noncompliance reports? 

What actions should you take after documenting a noncompliance in PHIS? 

R-52 Match the SPS regulation with the SPS findings. Notes: 

R-53 Conduct SPS observations. What do you observe? What will you do next? Notes: 

R-18/19 Document a SPS noncompliance report. Compare your NR to the example. Notes: 

124
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

1111 

1111 

-

1111 

1111 

1111 

Heat Treated Shelf Stable HACCP task 

R-23 Review your Inspection Methods student notebook for information on the steps to conduct a 

HACCP verification task. 

R-24 Match the steps used to conduct a HACCP verification task. Notes: 

R-25 Review FSIS Directive 5000.1 for information on what activities you could conduct to verify 

compliance with HACCP regulatory requirements. 

Questions to consider: 

What activities could you perform to verify HACCP regulatory requirements (monitoring, verification, 

recordkeeping, corrective actions)? 

What regulations will you be verifying when conducting the HACCP verification task? 

What are examples of noncompliance with HACCP regulatory requirements? 

R-29/33 Review the establishment’s HACCP records for compliance. Notes: 

R-35 Review FSIS Directive 5000.1 for information on how to verify regulatory requirements associated 

with prerequisite programs. 

Questions to consider: 

What activities will you use to verify regulatory requirements with Prerequisite programs? What 

regulations will you verify? 

How can you verify that pre-shipment review is being conducted per regulation? What regulatory 

requirement is associated with this activity? 

R-36 Review the establishment’s Prerequisite programs. Notes: 

R-37 Review the establishment’s Prerequisite program records. What do you determine? Notes: 

125
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

-

-

Operational SSOP Record Review task 

R-43 Review Directive 5000.1 for information on how to conduct an Operational SSOP Record Review task. 

Questions to consider: 

What actions should you take to conduct an Operational SSOP Record Review task? 

What are examples of noncompliance with SSOP recordkeeping regulatory requirements? 

What regulations are you verifying when conducting an Operational SSOP Record Review task? 

What are establishments required to take when product or food contact surfaces become adulterated? 

R-44 Review the establishment’s Sanitation SOPs. Notes: 

R-45 Review the establishment’s Sanitation SOP records. Notes: 

Once you have completed the Heat Treated Shelf Stable HACCP, Operational SSOP Record Review and 

SPS Verification tasks, you have completed the scenario. Add any additional notes or questions below. 

Notes: 

126