# Appendix — Mountainside Butter & Egg Co. v. United States Department of Agriculture > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1105%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1984 - **Citation:** 465 U.S. 1066 ## Text 8 Supreme Court of The United "States: Ts OCTOBER TERM, 1983 JAN 13 1984 NO ALEXANDER L. STEVAS. CLERK IN RE: MOUNTAINSIDE BUTTER & EGG COMPANY, Petitioner Appendix to Petition for Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Justin P. Walder, Esq. WALDER, SONDAK, BERKELEY & BROGAN, P.A. Attorneys for Petitioner 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, New Jersey 07068 (201) 992-5300 a SR A Print Masters, Route 22, Union, New jersey 07083 (201) 964-7766 Ign TABLE OF CONTENTS Page - Judgement Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit......... la - Opinion of the United States District Court - District of New Jersey............... 2a - Order of the United States District Court - CUORICL OT UOWEOTOOY 6 on vice tcc te wedvwecs. 8a - Decision and Order of the United States Department of Agriculture .............005. 9a Reissuance of Decision and Order of the United States Departmeni of Agriculture ..... 28a - Stipulation and Consent Order............. 31a 2 CT as . ; The disputative attitude of the Goldsmans towards the inspectors apparently affected the employees in the transfer room who continued to allow ineligible eggs to be conveyed to the breaking room. Attempts to correct such practices were always short-lived and never per- manent. The Goidsmans failed to establish clear chains of responsibility for the various procedures required to safeguard the public from adulterated egg products. The regulations require that a denaturant, such as dye, must be mixed into the containers where rotten, moldy or other types of inedible eggs are deposited, in an amount sufficient to clearly identify the contents and preciude such adulterated eggs from later finding their way, accidentally or by design, to those who would use them to prepare food for human consumption. This responsibility was shared by nearly everyone associated with the plant and, as a result, was often per- formed by no one. Requisite sniffing of eggs and egg products prior to pasteurization to detect the presence of rotten eggs was a matter of happenstance at best. The inspectors have reported that valves which had to be closed for such ex- aminations to be made were repeatedly left open allow- ing the eggs broken by the machines to flow through unexamined. For these reasons, therefore, the following order shall be issued. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S REISSUANCE OF DECISION On March 17, 1978, | issued a decision and order in which | found that, during the period February through May 1977, respondent, a corporation which operates an egg products processing plant, committed numerous, repeated and substantial violations of applicable regula- 25a tions which would be a basis for withdrawal of egg prod- ucts inspection services from respondent's plant under 7 CFR 2859.160(f\1). It was concluded that a 12-month suspension, required under such circumstances by a prior consent order of January 10, 1977, should therefore be effectuated. On October 27, 1978, the Judicial Officer remanded this case for further proceedings to allow respondent’s counsel to cross-examine the inspectors complainant had called as witnesses in respect to various memoran- da not provided respondent until after the hearing had concluded. The remand order would also allow newly discovered evidence to be introduced concerning the reasons why respondent failed to appeal inspectors’ reports as specified in Finding 8. On April 29-30, 1980, subsequent to the conclusion of a lengthy investigation of charges lodged by respondent against complainant's personnel and subsequent to the granting of time to respondent to obtain new counsel after Messrs. McDonald and George each struck his ap- pearance, the remand hearing was held in Newark, New Jersey. At its opening, the remand order was reviewed with counsel and | advised that in my opinion, Finding 8 was not material to the essential issue in this pro- ceeding of whether respondent violated the terms of the consent order. Counsel for respondent was then permitted wide scope in cross-examining each of the inspectors who had previously testified respecting their attitudes towards the Goldsmans and whether it affected their in- spection activities. William Botelho, an inspector who had been to respondent's plant on an intermittent basis as a relief man during the period in question and who neither complainant nor respondent had called at the original hearing, was also examined by respondent’s counsel who was permitted to inquire into Mr. Botelho’s observations of the attitude of the other inspectors 26a respecting the Goldsmans. Mr. Leon Goldsman was also permitted to testify about inspector attitude. Having observed each of the inspectors undergo cross-examination for a second time by another trained and skillful trial attorney, | am, if anything, even more convinced that each inspector is credible and that each, under most trying and difficult circumstances, faithfully performed his or her duties and responsibilities. Their testimony that they observed repeated and numerous violations of the regulations of the sort that are substan- tial under the terms of the consent order is therefore ac- cepted as being true and trustworthy. Accordingly, except for the deletion of Finding 8, the decision of March 17, 1978, is herewith re-issued without modification and the following order will be entered. ORDER Egg Products Inspection Services under the Egg Products Inspection Act are hereby withdrawn from respondent, its officers, agents, servants, employees, rep-resentatives, and all persons in active concert or par- ticipation with it for a period of twelve (12) months. This Decision and Order shall beome effective thirty- five (35) days after service upon the respondent. Done at Washington, D.C. August 19, 1980 Donald A. Campbell Judicial Officer Office of the Secretary APPENDIX E Re-issuance of Decision and Order of The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE In re: MOUNTAINSIDE BUTTER & EGG COMPANY | & G Docket No. 64 (Dated — May 20, 1980) on March 17, 1978, | issued a decision and order in which | found that, during the period February through May 1977, respondent, a corporation which operates an egg products processing plant, committed numerous, repeated and substantial violations of applicable regula- tions which would be a basis for withdrawal of egg prod- ucts inspection services from respondent’s plant under 7 CFR 2859.160(f\1). It was concluded that a 12-month suspension, required under such circumstances by a prior consent order of January 10, 1977, should therefore be effectuated. On October 27, 1978, the Judicial Officer remanded this case for further proceedings to allow respondent's counsel to cross-examine the inspectors complainant had called as witnesses in respect to various memoran- da not provided respondent until after the hearing had concluded. The remand order would also allow newly discovered evidence to be introduced concerning the reasons why respondent failed to appeal inspectors’ reports as specified in Finding 8. On April 29-30, 1980, subsequent to the conclusion of a lengthy investigatiog.of charges lodged by respondent against complainant's personnel and subsequent to the granting of time to respondent to obtain new counsel after Messrs. McDonald and George each struck his ap- pearance, the remand hearing was held in Newark, New Jersey. At its opening, the remand order was reviewed with counsel and | advised that in my opinion, Finding 8 28a was not material to the essential issue in this pro- ceeding of whether respondent violated the terms of the consent order. ' Counsel for respondent was then permitted wide scope in cross-examining each of the inspectors who had previously testified respecting their attitudes towards the Goldsmans and whether it affected their in- spection activities. William Botelho, an inspector who had been to respondent's plant on an intermittent basis as a relief man during the period in question and who neither complianant nor respondent had called at the original hearing, was also examined by respondent's counsel who was permitted to inquire into Mr. Botelho's observations of the attitude of the other inspectors respecting the Goldsmasns. Mr. Leon Goldsman was also permitted to testify about inspector attitude. Having observed each of the inspectors undergo cross-examination for a second time by another trained and skillful trial attorney, | am, if anything, even more convinced that each inspector is credible and that each, under most trying and difficult circumstances, faithfully performed his or her duties and responsibilities. Their testimony that they observed repeated and numerous violations of the regulations of the sort that are substan- tial under the terms of the consent order is therefore ac- cepted as being true and trustworthy. Accordingly, except for the deletion of Finding 8, the decision of March 17, 1978, is herewith re-issued without modification and the foliowing order will be entered. ORDER Egg Products Inspection Services under the Egg Products Inspection Act are hereby withdrawn from respondent, its officers, agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all persons in active concert or par- ticipation with it for a period of twelve (12) months. 29a This Decision and Order shall become final and effec- tive thirty-five (35) days after service upon the respon- dent unless appealed to the Judicial Officer within thirty (30) days of service pursuant to section 1.145 of the rules of practice. Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties. Done at Washington, D.C. this 20th day of May 1980 Victor W. Palmer Administrative Law Judge APPENDIX F Stipulation and Consent Order and Motion For Insurance of the Order of The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE In re: MOUNTAINSIDE BUTTER & EGG COMPANY | & G Docket No. 64 (Dated — January 7, 1977) These are proceedings under the Egg Products In- spection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et. seq), and regulations promulgated thereunder (7 CFR Part 59) to withdraw Federal egg products inspection services from the respondent. The proceedings were commenced by a complaint issued by H. Connor Kennett, Jr., Director of the Poultry Division, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging that respondent has repeatedly used operating practices or procedures which are not in accordance with the regulations and that respondent failed to take corrective action within a specified period of time. Respondent's egg products inspection was suspended by the Director effective December 28, 1976, and respon- dent was granted through December 30, 1976, to take corrective action to insure that proper operating prac- tices and procedures as specified in the regulations will be followed at its plant on a continuing basis. The parties have determined that these proceedings should be terminated by a Stipulation and Consent Order. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the respondent by its duly authorized officer and attorney, and the Director, Poultry Division, AMS, and USDA counsel that: 1. Respondent, Mountainside Butter and Egg Company is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business located at 706 Trumball Street, 31a Elizabeth, New Jersey 07206, operating an official egg products processing plant (defined 21 U.S.C. 1033 (q) ). Pursuant to an application filed with the USDA by respondent, egg products inspection service was in- stituted on July 26, 1971, and has continued to date, ex- cept that said service is presently suspended pursuant to 7 CFR 59.160(f). 2. Only for purposes of this Stipulation and Consent Order, the respondent admits all of the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the Complaint and waives: (a) Any further procedural steps; (b) Any requirement that the final decision in these proceedings contain findings and conclusions with respect to all material issues of fact, law or discre- tion, as well as the reasons or bases therefor, and (c) All rights to seek judicial review or otherwise to challenge or contest the validity of the Order entered pursuant to this Stipulation and Motion. 3. This Stipulation and Consent Order and Motion is for settlement purposes in these proceedings only and does not constitute an admission or denial by the resoondent that it has violated any of the regulations or Statutes involved. 4. Respondent's inspection service has been suspended in the past (October 1 through 3, 1975, and March 29 through 30, 1976) based on allegations that it used operating practices and procedures which were not in accordance with the regulations. Respondent consistently denies the allegations upon which these suspensions were based, but does admit that the suspensions were terminated by the USDA as a result of assurances, both verbal and written, by respondent that it would operate its plant in compliance with the re quirements of the regulations in the future. 5. That on April 20, 1976, respondent consented to the issuance of an injunction against it by the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civil No. 32a 76-699), which enjoined and restrained respondent in part, from processing egg products without complying with the operating practices and procedures required by the regulations. 6. That egg products inspection service at respon- dents processing plant has been, and will continue to be, administered in a fair and reasonable manner con- sistent with the administration of the egg products in- spection service at all other official plants subject to such inspection. 7. The parties hereby move that the following Con- sent Order be issued as the final disposition of these proceedings: Consent Order 1. Egg products inspection services are hereby withdrawn from the respondent, its officers, agents, ser- vants, employees representatives, and all persons in ac- tive concert or participation with it, for a period fo twelve (12) months: Provided, however, That such withdrawal shail be held in abeyance and shall not become effec- tive unless, within one (1) year from the effective date of this Order, the respondent or any officer, employee, agent, servant, or representative of the respondent fails to comply with any provisions of this Order, or commits substantial violations which would be a basis for withdrawal of inspection services as currently specified in 7 CFR Part 59.160(f1). Such failure to comply or com- mission of any such offense shall be deemed to have been established only after opportunity for hearing and final decision in a formal adjudicatory proceeding before the Secretary with all rights of judicial review ex- hausted. In such event, inspection services shall be withdrawn for the full period of twelve (12) months, and such withdrawal shall become effective immediately without further procedure. 33a 2. Within 15 days from the effective date of this Order, the respondent shall submit to the Director, Poultry Division, AMS, a written statement of measures it will take, hereafter referred to as an affirmative action program, to insure that at all times in the future it will operate its egg products processing plant in com- pliance with the requirements of the regulations. Among other things, the written statement shall provide: (a) Assurances that respondent will operate its plant in accordance with the regulations; (b) An outline of proposed equipment and per- sonnel changes that respondent will make at its plant; and (c) An outline of instruction for respondent's employees concerning the proper operating practices and procedures set forth in the regulations that shall be followed at all times during egg products processing. The affirmative action program set up by respondent should be fully instituted within the 15-day time period provided for above, except as to equipment changes and modifications which should be completed by respondent as soon as practicable. Respondent shall provide a timetable for completion of such equipment changes and modifications. 3. The provisions of this Order shall be applicable to the respondent and its officers, directors, partners, agents, subsidiaries, or any business entity which, directly or through any corporate or other device, suc- ceeds to the business of the respondent or is assigned that business: Provided, however, That this Order shail not be applicable to a successor or assign which does not have any officer or director or substantial investor who is now or was prior to the effective date of this Order connected with the respondent. 4. This Order shall not be construed to prevent the in- stitution of action to withdraw egg products inspection services for any cause not covered in this Order. 5. This Order shall become effective upon service upon the respondent. Leon Goidsman, Pres. H. Connor Kennett, Jr. Mountainside Butter Director, and Egg Poultry Division, AMS Irving Tobin Thomas R. Clark Attorney for Respondent Attorney for Petitioner APPENDIX G Consent Order of The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE in re: MOUNTAINSIDE BUTTER & EGG COMPANY | & G Docket No. 64 (Dated — January 10, 1977) This is a proceeding under the Egg Products Inspec- tion Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the regulations thereunder (7 CFR Part 59) to withdraw Federal Egg Products Inspection Service from respondent. A formal complaint, signed by the Director, Poultry Division, Agricultural Marketing Ser- vice, was mailed to respondent by the Hearing Clerk on January 5, 1977, setting forth the allegations which con- stitute the grounds for this administrative proceeding and availing respondent the opportunity to answer said allegations. It being deemed desirable to the parties in this action to settle these matters, pursuant to section 50.21(b) a stipulation and the terms of the following consent order were agreed to by the parties, and a document entitled Stipulation and Consent Order and Motion for Issuance of the Order was signed by the parties and filed on January 7, 1977. A copy of that document is attached hereto and made a part hereof. In these circumstances, and consistent with the agreement of the parties: IT iS ORDERED THAT: 1. Egg Products Inspection Services are hereby withdrawn from the respondent, its officers, agents, ser- vants, employees, representatives, and all persons in ac- tive concert or participation with it for a period of twelve (12) months: Provided, however, That such withdrawal shall be held in abeyance and shail not become effec- 36a tive unless, within one (1) year from the effective date of this Order, the respondent or any officer, employee, agent, servant, or representative of respondent fails to comply with any provisions of this Order or commits substantial violations which would be a basis for withdrawal of inspection services as currently specified in 7 CFR 59.160(fX1). Such failure to comply or commis- sion of any such offense shall be deemed to have been established only after opportunity for hearing and final decision in a formal adjudicatory proceeding before the Secretary with all rights of judicial review exhausted. In such event, inspection services shall be withdrawn for the full period of twelve (12) months, and such withdrawal shall become effective immediately without further procedure. 2. Within fifteen (15) days from the effective date of this Order, the respondent shall submit to the Director, Poultry Division, AMS, a written statement of measures it will take, hereafter referred to as an affirmative action program, to insure that at all times in the future it will operate its egg products processing plant in com- pliance with the requirements of the regulations. Among other things, the written statement shall provide: (a) Assurances that respondent will operate its plant in accordance with the regulations; (b) An outline of proposed equipment and per- sonnel changes that respondent will make at its plant; and (c) An outline of instruction for respondent's employees concerning the proper operating practices and procedures set forth in the regulations that shall be followed at all times during egg products processing. The affirmative action program set up by respondent should be fully instituted within the 15-day time period provided for above, except as to equipment changes and modification which should be completed by respon- dent as soon as practicable. Respondent shall provide a 37a time-table for completion of such equipment changes and modifications. 3. The provisions of this Order shall be applicable to the respondent and its officers, directors, partners, agents, subsidiaries, or any business entity which, directly or through any corporate or other device, suc- ceeds to the business of the respondent or is assigned that business: Provided, however, That this Order shall not be applicable to a successor or assign which does not have any officer or director or substantial investor who is now or was prior to the effective date of this Order connected with the respondent. 4. This order shall not be construed to prevent the in- Stitution of action to withdraw egg products inspection services for any cause not covered in this order. 5. This Order shall become effective upon service on respondent. A copy of this Order shall be served on the complainant and respondent. Done at Washington, D.C. January 10, 1977 Donaid A. Campbell Administrative Law Judge APPENDIX H UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND UNITED STATES REGULATIONS UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT V — CAPITAL CRIMES; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; SELF-INCRIMINATION; DUE PROCESS; JUST COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY No person shail be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, nor shall any per- son be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. U.S. REGULATIONS 7 CFR §59.160(fX1) REFUSAL, SUSPENSION, OR WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICE (f} Suspension of plant approval and withdrawal of service. (1) Any plant approval given pursuant to these regulations may be suspended by the Administrator for (i) failure to maintain premises, facilities and equipment in a satisfactory state of repair, (ii) the use of operating procedures or practices which are not in accordance with the regulations; (iii) the alterations of buildings, 39a facilities, or equipment which have not been approved in accordance with the regulations; or (iv) assaulting, in- timidating, impending, obstructing, or interfering with any person engaged in or on account of the perfor- mance of his official duties. 7 CFR §504(c) GENERAL OPERATING PROCEDURES (c) All loss and inedible eggs or egg products shall be placed in a container clearly labeled “inedible” and containing a sufficient amount of approved denaturant or decharacterant, such as FD&C brown, biue, black, or green colors, meat and fish by-products, grain and milling by-products, or any other substance, as approved by the Administrator, that will accomplish the purposes of this section. Shell eggs shall be crushed and the substance shall be dispersed through the prod- uct in amounts sufficient to:give the product a distinc- tive appearance or odor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and upon permission of the Inspector, the applicant may hold inedible product in containers clearly labeled inedible which do not contain a denaturant if such inedi- ble product is denatured or decharacterized prior to shipment from the official plant: Provided, That such product is properly packaged, labeled, segregated, and inventory controls are maintained. In additon, product shipped from the official plant for industrial use or animal food need not be denatured or decharacterized if it is shipped under Government seal and is received by an inspector or grader as defined in this part. 7 CFR §59.510 CLASSIFICATION OF SHELL EGGS USED IN THE PROCESSING OF EGG PRODUCTS (a) The shell eggs shall be sorted and classified into the following categories in a manner approved by the National Supervisor. (1) Eggs listed in paragraph (d) of this section. (2) Dirty. (3) Leakers as described in paragraph (c) (2) of this section. (4) Eggs from other than chicken; duck, turkey, guinea, and goose eggs. (5) Other eggs - satisfactory for use as breaking stock. : (b) Shell eggs having strong odors or eggs received in cases having strong odors shall be candied and broken separately to determine their acceptability. (c) Shell eggs, when presented for breaking, shall be of edible interior quality and the shell shall be sound and free of adhering dirt and foreign material, ex- cept that: (1) Checks and eggs with a portion of the shell missing may be used when the shell is free of adhering dirt and foreign material and the shell membranes are not ruptured. (2) Eggs with clean shells which are damaged in candling and/or transfer and have a portion of the shell and shell membranes missing may be used only when the yolk is unbroken and the contents of the egg are not exuding over the outside shell. Such eggs shall be placed in leaker trays and be broken promptly. (3) Eggs with meat or blood spots may be used if the spots are removed in an acceptable manner. (d) All loss or inedible eggs shall be placed in a 41a designated container and be handled as required in §59.504(c). Inedible and loss eggs for the purpose of this section and §59.522 are defined to include biack rots, white rots, mixed rots, green whites, eggs with diffused blood in the albumen or on the yolk, crusted yolks, stuck yolks, developed embryos at or beyond the blood ring state, moldy eggs, sour eggs, any eggs that are adulterated as such term is defined pursuant io this part, and any other filthy and decomposed eggs in- cluding the following: (1) Any egg with visible foreign matter other than removable biood and meat spots in the egg meat. (2) Any egg with a portion of the shell and shell mem- branes missing and with egg meat adhering to or in con- tact with the outside of the shell. (3) Any egg with dirt or foreign matter adhering to the shell and with cracks in the shell and shell membranes. (4) Liquid egg recovered from shell egg containers and leaker trays. (5) Open leakers made in the washing operation. (6) Any egg which shows evidence that the contents are or have been exuded prior to tranfer from the case. (e) Incubator reject eggs shall not be brought in- to the official plant. 7 CFR §59.522 BREAKING ROOM OPERATIONS (a) The breaking room shall be kept in a dust- free clean condition and free from flies, insects, and rodents. The floor shall be kept clean and reasonably dry during breaking operations and free of egg meat and shells. (b) All breaking room personnel shall wash their hands thoroughly with odorless soap and water each time they enter the breaking room and prior to receiving 42a clean equipment after breaking an inedible egg. (c) Paper towels or tissues shall be used at breaking tables, and shall not be reused. Cloth towels are not permitted. - (d) Breakers shall use a complete set of clean equipment when starting work and after lunch periods. All table equipment shall be rotated with clean equip ment every 22 hours. (e) Cups shall not be filled to overflowing. (f) Each shell egg shall be broken in a satisfac- tory and sanitary manner and inspected for wholesomeness by smelling the shell or the egg meat and by visual examination at the time of breaking. All egg meat shall be reexamined by a person qualified to perform such functions before being emptied into the tank or churn, except as otherwise approved by the National Supervisor. (g) Shell particles, meat and blood spots, and other foreign material accidentally falling into the cups or trays shall be removed with a spoon or other approved instrument. (h) Whenever an inedible egg is broken, the af- fected breaking equipment shall be cleaned and sani- tized. (i) Inedible and loss eggs as defined in §59.510 apply to this section. (j) The contents of any cup or other liquid egg receptacle containing one or more inedible or loss eggs shall be rejected. (k) Contents of drip trays shall be emptied into a cup and smelled carefuly before pouring into liquid egg bucket. Drip trays shall be emptied at least once for each 15 dozen eggs or every 15 minutes. (I) Edible leakers as defined in §59.510(cX2f and checks which are liable to be smashed in the breaking operation shall be broken at a separate station by specially trained personnel. 43a (m) Ingredients and additives used in, or for, pro- cessing egg products, shall be handled in a clean and Sanitary manner. (n) Liquid egg containers shall not pass through the candling room. (o) Test kits shall be provided and used to deter- mine the strength of the sanitizing solution. (See §§59.515(aX9) and 59.552.) (p) Leaker trays shall be washed and sanitized whenever they become soiled and at the end of each shift. (q) Shell egg containers whenever dirty shall be cleaned and drained; and shall be cleaned, sanitized, and drained at the end of each shift. (rf) Belt-type shell egg conveyors shall be clean- ed and sanitized approximately every 4 hours in addition to continuous cleaning during operation. When not in use, belts shall be raised to permit air drying. (s) Cups, knives, racks, separators, trays, spoons, liquid egg pails, and other breaking equipment, except for mechanical egg breaking equipment, shall be cleaned and sanitized at least every 22 hours. This equipment shall be cleaned at the end of each shift and shall be clean and sanitized immediately prior to use. (t) Utensils and dismantied equipment shall be drained and air dried on approved self-draining metal racks and shall not be nested. (u) Dump tanks, drawoff tanks, and churns shall be cleaned approximately every 4 hours. All such equip- ment and ail other liquid handling equipment, unless cleaned by acceptable cleaned in-place methods, shall be dismantied and cleaned after each shift. Pasteuriza- tion equipment shall be cleaned at the end of each day's use or more often if necessary. All such equipment shail be clean and shail be sanitized prior to piacing in use. (v) Strainers, clarifiers, filtering and other devices used for removal of shell particles and other 44a foreign material shall be cleaned and sanitized each time it is necessary to change such equipment, but at least once every 4 hours of operation. (w) Breaking room processing equipment shail not be stored on the floor. (x) Metal containers and lids for other than dried products shall be thoroughly washed, rinsed, sanitized and drained immediately prior to filling. The foregoing sequence shail not be required if equally effective measures approved by the National Supervisor in writing are followed to assure clean and sanitary con- tainers at the time of filling. (y) Liquid egg holding vats and containers (in- cluding tank trucks) used for transporting liquid eggs shall be cleaned after each use. Such equipment shall be clean and sanitized immediately prior tc placing in use. (z) Tables, shell conveyors, and containers for inedible egg product shall be cleaned at the end of each shift. (aa) Mechanical egg breaking machines shall be operated at a rate to maintain complete control and accurately inspect and segregate each egg to insure the removal of all loss and inedible eggs. The machine shall be operated in a sanitary manner. (1) When an inedible egg is encountered on mechanical egg breaking equipment, the inedible egg and contaminated liquid shall be removed. The machine shall be cleaned and sanitized, or contaminated parts replaced with clean ones in a manner prescribed by the Administrator for the type of inedible egg encountered and the kind of egg breaking machine. (2) Systems for pumping egg liquid directly from egg breaking machines shall be of approved sanitary design and contruction, and designed to minimize the entrance of shells into the systern and be disconnected when inedible eggs are encountered. The pipelines of 45a the pumping system shall be cleaned or flushed as often as needed to maintain them in a sanitary condi- tion, and they shall be cleaned and sanitized at the end of each shift. Other pumping system equipment shall be cleaned and sanitized approximately every 4 hours or as often as needed to maintain it in a sanitary condition. All liquid egg pumped directly from egg breaking machines shall be reexamined, except as otherwise prescribed and approved by the Administrator. (3) Mechanical egg breaking equipment shall be Clean and sanitized prior to use, and during operations the machines shall be cleaned and sanitized approx- amtely every 4 hours or more often if needed to maintain them in a sanitary condition. This equipment shall be cleaned at the end of each shift. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1105%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.