Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21956-22009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08023]

[[Page 21955]]

Vol. 81

Wednesday,

No. 71

April 13, 2016

Part II

Department of Agriculture

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Agricultural Marketing Service

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

7 CFR Part 205

National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices;
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 21956]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 205

[Document Number AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06PR]
RIN 0581-AD44

National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposes to amend the organic
livestock and poultry production requirements by: adding new provisions
for livestock handling and transport for slaughter and avian living
conditions; and expanding and clarifying existing requirements covering
livestock health care practices and mammalian living conditions.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments on this
proposed rule using one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Paul Lewis Ph.D., Director Standards Division,
National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-NOP, Room 2646-So., Ag Stop 0268,
1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0268.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the docket
number AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06PR, and/or Regulatory Information
Number (RIN) 0581-AD44 for this rulemaking. Commenters should identify
the topic and section of the proposed rule to which their comment
refers. All commenters should refer to the GENERAL INFORMATION section
for more information on preparing your comments. All comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket, including background documents
and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Comments
submitted in response to this proposed rule will also be available for
viewing in person at USDA-AMS, National Organic Program, Room 2646-
South Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC, from 9 a.m.
to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday (except
official Federal holidays). Persons wanting to visit the USDA South
Building to view comments received in response to this proposed rule
are requested to make an appointment in advance by calling (202) 720-
3252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Lewis, Ph.D., Director of
Standards Division, Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax: (202) 205-7808.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Proposed Rule

This proposed rule would create greater consistency in organic
livestock practices. AMS has determined that the current USDA organic
regulations (7 CFR part 205) covering livestock health care practices
and living conditions need additional specificity and clarity to better
ensure consistent compliance by certified organic operations and to
provide for more effective administration of the National Organic
Program (NOP) by AMS. One purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act
of 1990 (OFPA) (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522) is to assure consumers that
organically produced products meet a consistent and uniform standard (7
U.S.C. 6501). By facilitating improved compliance and enforcement of
the USDA organic regulations, the proposed regulations would better
satisfy consumer expectations that organic livestock meet a uniform and
verifiable animal welfare standard.
Specifically, this proposed action would:
1. Clarify how producers and handlers must treat livestock and
poultry to ensure their health and wellbeing.
2. Clarify when and how certain physical alterations may be
performed on organic livestock and poultry in order to minimize stress.
Additionally, some forms of physical alterations would be prohibited.
3. Set maximum indoor and outdoor stocking density for avian
species, which would vary depending on the type of production and stage
of life.
4. Define outdoor access to exclude the use of structures with
solid roofing for outdoor access and require livestock and poultry to
have contact with soil.
5. Add new requirements for transporting livestock and poultry to
sale or slaughter.
6. Clarify the application of USDA Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) requirements regarding the handling of livestock and
poultry in connection with slaughter to certified organic livestock and
poultry establishments and provide for the enforcement of USDA organic
regulations based on FSIS inspection findings.

B. Summary of Provisions

This proposed rule would provide specificity on livestock health
care practices, such as which physical alteration procedures are
prohibited or restricted for use on organic livestock. The proposed
livestock health care practice standards include requirements for
euthanasia to reduce suffering of any sick or disabled livestock. To
improve upon the current standards, this proposed rule would set
separate standards for mammalian and avian livestock living conditions
to better reflect the needs and behaviors of the different species, as
well as related consumer expectations. The proposed mammalian livestock
standards would cover both ruminants and swine. The proposed avian
living standards would set maximum indoor and outdoor stocking
densities to ensure the birds have sufficient space to engage in
natural behaviors. This proposed rule would add new requirements on the
transport of organic livestock to sale or slaughter. This proposed rule
would also add a new section to clarify how organic slaughter facility
practices and FSIS regulations work together to support animal welfare.

C. Costs and Benefits

AMS estimates the following costs and benefits of this proposed
rule.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production: $9.5-24.1 million per year Qualitative:
(annualized over 13 years). Establishes a clear standard
Paperwork burden: $3.6 million protecting the value of the
annually.. USDA organic seal to
consumers.
Facilitates level enforcement
of organic livestock and
poultry standards.

[[Page 21957]]

Quantitative:
$14.7-62.6 million per year
(annualized over 13 years).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for AMS?
II. Background
A. Current Organic Livestock Standards
B. NOSB Recommendations
C. AMS Policy
D. Related Issues
III. Overview of Proposed Amendments
A. Livestock Health Care Practice Standard
B. Mammalian Living Conditions
C. Avian Living Conditions
D. Transport to Sale and Slaughter
E. Slaughter Requirements
F. Other Amendments Considered
IV. Related Documents
V. Statutory and Regulatory Authority
A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563
i. Need for the Rule
ii. Baseline
iii. Alternatives Considered
iv. Costs of Proposed Rule
v. Benefits of Proposed Rule
vi. Conclusions
B. Executive Order 12988
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Executive Order 13175
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Civil Rights Impact Analysis

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are engaged
in the meat, egg, poultry, dairy, or animal fiber industries.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Individuals or business entities that are considering
organic certification for a new or existing livestock farm or slaughter
facility.
Existing livestock farms and slaughter facilities that are
currently certified organic under the USDA organic regulations.
Certifying agents accredited by USDA to certify organic
livestock operations and organic livestock handling operations.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but identifies key
entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities
could also be affected. To determine whether you or your business may
be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the proposed
regulatory text. If you have questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for AMS?

Your comments should clearly indicate whether or not they support
the proposed action for any or all of the items in this proposed rule.
You should clearly indicate the reason(s) for the stated position. Your
comments should also offer any recommended language changes that would
be appropriate for your position. Please include relevant information
and data to further support your position (e.g. scientific,
environmental, industry impact information, etc.).
Specifically, AMS is requesting comments on the following topics:
1. The clarity of the proposed requirements: Can farmers, handlers,
and certifying agents readily determine how to comply with the proposed
regulations?
2. The accuracy of the assumptions and estimates in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis pertaining to
organic poultry and egg production. In addition, the accuracy of AMS'
assertion that the proposed requirements pertaining to mammalian
livestock codify current practices among these organic producers
3. The implementation approach and timeframe. AMS is proposing that
all provisions of this rule must be implemented within one year of the
publication date of the final rule except for the outdoor space
requirements for avian species. AMS is proposing two distinct
implementation timeframes for the outdoor space requirements for
poultry: (1) Three years after the publication of the final rule any
non-certified facility would need to comply in order to obtain
certification; (2) all facilities certified prior to that three-year
mark would need to comply within five years of the publication of the
final rule.

II. Background

This proposed rule addresses health care, transport, slaughter and
living conditions for organic livestock. However, the provisions for
outdoor access for poultry have a long history of agency and NOSB
actions and are a focal issue. Outdoor access practices, particularly
for organic layers, vary; some operations provide large, open-air
outdoor areas, while others provide minimal outdoor space or use
screened, covered enclosures commonly called ``porches'' to provide
outdoor space. An audit in 2010 conducted by the USDA Office of the
Inspector General identified inconsistencies in certification practices
regarding the use of porches as outdoor space. To address that finding,
AMS issued draft guidance. However, after public comment, AMS
determined that rulemaking was necessary to resolve the divergent
outdoor access practices for organic poultry and did not finalize the
guidance. To assist with the rulemaking, the National Organic Standards
Board (NOSB) developed a series of recommendations to clarify organic
livestock healthcare, transport, slaughter, and living conditions,
including outdoor access for poultry. The NOSB deliberation process
revealed broad support within the organic community and consumer
expectations for specific guidelines for animal care, including
meaningful outdoor access for poultry.

A. Current Organic Livestock Standards

OFPA authorizes the establishment of national standards for the
marketing of organically produced agricultural products. AMS
administers the National Organic Program (NOP), which oversees the
development and implementation of the national standards for the
production, handling and marketing of organically produced agricultural
products. Section 6509 of OFPA authorizes the USDA to implement
regulations regarding standards for organic livestock products.
Furthermore, OFPA authorizes the creation of the NOSB to advise USDA
about the implementation of standards and practices for organic
production (7 U.S.C. 6518). The NOSB is a 15-member Federal Advisory
Board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture which meets in public
twice annually. OFPA specifies the composition of the NOSB and reserves
four NOSB seats for producers/growers, two seats for handlers/
processors. The NOSB solicits public comment on topics related to the
USDA organic regulations to inform its public deliberations and
decision making at the open meetings. Any NOSB recommendations to amend
the USDA organic regulations must be implemented through the notice and
comment rulemaking process.
The current USDA organic regulations have broad and general
requirements for

[[Page 21958]]

ensuring the welfare of certified organic livestock and poultry. These
regulations accommodate various livestock production situations. For
all livestock, the regulations require: an environment that allows
animals to express natural behaviors; preventive health care to reduce
the likelihood of illness; and protection from conditions that
jeopardize an animal's well-being, such as predators and adverse
weather.
The management of domesticated animals requires that they be
contained in some manner, either to prevent them from running away or
to protect them from harm. In organic management systems, securing
animal access areas is important to ensure animals do not come into
contact with prohibited substances or eat nonorganic feed. However, the
degree to which animals are restrained or contained in pens, cages,
paddocks, or other enclosures, may affect their ability to exercise
their natural behaviors.
Consistent with organic farming principles, the USDA organic
regulations require housing and living conditions that allow animals to
freely exercise their natural behaviors. Natural behaviors are species-
specific. Therefore, for example, the USDA organic regulations require
that ruminants graze at least 120 days per year and receive 30 percent
of dry matter intake from grazing. The regulations also describe
situations that warrant denying ruminant animals access to pasture or
the outdoors, e.g., for newborn dairy cattle up to six months. This
level of specificity, however, is not currently provided for avian
species and some mammalian, non-ruminant livestock.
Further, certifying agents inspect each organic operation and
decide whether or not to certify the operation. Certifying agents must
consider site-specific conditions, including prevalent pests and
diseases, weather, and natural resources of the operation when
determining the acceptability of a particular management practice. This
flexibility, combined with numerous combinations of environmental,
cultural, and economic factors, results in variation in the manner in
which the regulations are applied. For example, in organic poultry
production, outdoor access ranges from extensive pasture to roofed
enclosures, i.e., porches with no access to soil or vegetation. This
disparity in amounts of outdoor access has economic implications for
producers and lessens consumer confidence in the organic label.

B. NOSB Recommendations

Between 1994 and 2011, the NOSB made nine recommendations regarding
livestock health and welfare in organic production. Between 1997 and
2000, AMS issued two proposed rules and a final rule regarding national
standards for the production and handling of organic products,
including livestock and their products. The NOSB as well as members of
the public commented on these rulemakings with regard to the health and
welfare of livestock. Key actions from that period, which led to the
development of the existing standards on organic livestock, are
summarized below.
(1) In June 1994, the NOSB recommended a series of provisions to
address the care and handling of livestock on organic farms. Within
this recommendation, the NOSB developed much of the framework for
organic care and welfare of animals, including health care standards,
living conditions and transportation of livestock practices.
(2) In April and October 1995, the NOSB made a series of
recommendations as addendums to the June 1994 recommendations. These
recommendations further addressed various health care practices, a
requirement for outside access, and the use of vaccines.
(3) On December 16, 1997, AMS responded to the 1994 and 1995 NOSB
recommendations in a proposed rule to establish the NOP (62 FR 65850).
Consistent with the NOSB's recommendation, the proposed language would
have required that organic livestock producers develop a preventive
health care plan and use synthetic drugs only if preventive measures
failed. The 1997 proposed rule also included standards for livestock
living conditions, including when animals would be permitted to be
confined. This proposed rule was not finalized.
(4) In March 1998, the NOSB reaffirmed its earlier recommendations
on animal health care and living conditions. The 1998 NOSB
recommendation also stressed the importance of treating sick livestock
by recommending that any organic producer who did not take specified
actions to provide care for a diseased animal would lose certification.
This recommendation also included provisions to clarify when livestock
could be confined indoors and defined ``outdoors'' as having direct
access to sunshine.
(5) On March 13, 2000, AMS published a second proposed rule to
establish the National Organic Program (65 FR 13512). AMS responded to
the NOSB's March 1998 recommendation on animal health care and living
conditions in this proposed rule. AMS proposed that organic producers
must use disease prevention practices first, then approved synthetic
medications only if preventive measures failed. However, a producer
would need to use all appropriate measures to save the animal even if
the animal lost organic status. In addition, AMS proposed that the
living conditions for organic livestock must maintain the health of the
animals and allow for natural behaviors, including access to the
outdoors.
(6) On December 21, 2000, AMS published a final rule establishing
the USDA organic regulations (65 FR 80548). Through this action, AMS
finalized the standards for health care practices and livestock living
conditions. That rule became effective on February 20, 2001, and was
fully implemented on October 21, 2002.
(7) In May 2002, the NOSB again addressed outdoor access, stating
this should include open air and direct access to sunshine.\1\ In
addition, the May 2002 recommendation stated that bare surfaces other
than soil do not meet the intent of outdoor access for poultry. This
recommendation also included clarifications as to when livestock could
be temporarily confined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ NOSB, 2002. Recommendation Access to Outdoors for Poultry.
Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(8) In March 2005, the NOSB recommended that the temporary
confinement provision for ``stage of production'' be changed to ``stage
of life.'' \2\ The NOSB reasoned that ``stage of life'' would more
appropriately allow livestock to be temporarily confined even if they
were not producing milk or eggs at the time of confinement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ NOSB, 2005. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to the NOP.
NOSB recommendation for Rule change--``Stage of Production'' to
``Stage of Life.'' Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(9) On October 24, 2008, AMS published a proposed rule on access to
pasture for ruminant livestock (73 FR 63584). AMS published the final
rule, Access to Pasture (Livestock) (75 FR 7154), on February 17, 2010
(75 FR 7154). This rule was based on several NOSB recommendations
regarding ruminant livestock feed and living conditions. This rule set
a requirement that ruminants obtain a minimum of 30 percent dry matter
intake from grazing during the grazing season.
(10) Between 2009 and 2011, the NOSB issued a series of

[[Page 21959]]

recommendations on animal welfare. These were intended to incorporate
prior NOSB recommendations that AMS had not addressed. The November
2009 recommendation suggested revisions and additions to the livestock
health care practice standards and living conditions standards.\3\ The
NOSB recommended banning or restricting certain physical alterations
and requiring organic producers to keep records on animals which were
lame and/or sick and how they were treated. This recommendation
proposed to separate mammalian living conditions from avian living
conditions sections of the USDA organic regulations so that the
provisions could be more directly tailored to various livestock
species. In the mammalian section, the NOSB proposed mandatory group
housing of swine and a requirement for rooting materials for swine. In
the avian section, the NOSB proposed a variety of provisions, including
maximum ammonia levels, perch space requirements and outdoor access
clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ NOSB, 2009. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to the NOP,
Animal Welfare. Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(11) In October 2010, the NOSB passed a recommendation on the use
of drugs for pain relief.\4\ The NOSB recommended changing the health
care practice standards to allow the administration of drugs in the
absence of illness to prevent disease or alleviate pain. The NOSB
stated that such a change would improve the welfare of organic
livestock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ NOSB, 2010. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to the NOP,
Clarification of 205.238(c)(2). Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12) In December 2011, the NOSB passed an additional animal welfare
recommendation.\5\ The 2011 recommendation added definitions for terms
related to livestock production and provisions for health care standard
and living conditions. The NOSB also revised its prior recommendation
on physical alterations to provide a more inclusive list of banned
procedures. In the mammalian living conditions section, the NOSB
recommended that outdoor access for swine include a minimum of 25
percent vegetative cover at all times. For avian species, the NOSB
recommended specific indoor and outdoor space requirements, e.g.,
stocking densities, among other provisions for living conditions
specific to poultry. For layers, the NOSB recommended a minimum of 2.0
ft\2\ per bird indoors and outdoors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ NOSB, 2011. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to the NOP,
Animal Welfare and Stocking Rates. Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(13) In December 2011, the NOSB passed a separate recommendation to
add standards for transportation of livestock to slaughter facilities
and the slaughter process.\6\ The NOSB's recommendation for transport
included provisions for veal calves and the trailers/trucks used to
transport animals to ensure continuous organic management. The NOSB
recommended that slaughter facilities must meet certain performance-
based standards assessed via observations of animal handling and any
slips, falls or vocalizations before and during slaughter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ NOSB, 2011. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to the NOP,
Animal Handling and Transport to Slaughter. Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. AMS Policy

On October 29, 2002, AMS issued a memorandum to clarify outdoor
access and temporary confinement requirements for livestock under the
USDA organic regulations.\7\ The memorandum stated that producers are
required to balance accommodations for an animal's health and natural
behavior with measures to ensure an animal's safety and well-being. The
memorandum further explained that the USDA organic regulations do not
specify an outdoor space allowance or stocking rate, nor do they
require that all animals in the herd or flock have access to the
outdoors at the same time. This memorandum explained how producers
could provide evidence of compliance to support temporary confinement.
This memorandum was incorporated into the NOP Handbook on January 31,
2011, and is retained as current policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ National Organic Program, 2002. Access to the Outdoors for
Livestock. Retained as Policy Memo 11-5. Available in the NOP
Handbook: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/handbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On February 17, 2010, AMS published a final rule on Access to
Pasture (Livestock). The final rule was in response to the 2005 NOSB
recommendation and extensive public input requesting clear outdoor
access requirements for ruminant livestock. The final rule established
that ruminants obtain at least 30 percent dry matter intake from
grazing during the grazing season. The rule provided clarity to correct
inconsistent application and enforcement of the outdoor access
provisions for ruminant livestock.
In March 2010, the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
issued a report concerning, in part, AMS guidance on outdoor access for
organic livestock.\8\ The OIG found inconsistent certification
practices regarding outdoor access for poultry. The OIG recommended
that AMS issue guidance on outdoor access for livestock and poultry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ USDA, Office of the Inspector General. March 2010. Audit
Report 01601-03-Hy, Oversight of the National Organic Program.
Available at: http://www.usda.gov/oig/rptsauditsams.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On October 13, 2010, AMS published draft guidance, Outdoor Access
for Organic Poultry, for public comment.\9\ The draft guidance advised
certifying agents to use the 2002 and 2009 NOSB recommendations as the
basis for certification decisions regarding outdoor access for
poultry.\10\ The draft guidance informed certifying agents and
producers that maintaining poultry on soil or outdoor runs would
demonstrate compliance with the outdoor access requirement in Sec.
205.239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ On October 13, 2010, AMS also published a Notice of
Availability of Draft Guidance and Request for Comments in the
Federal Register (75 FR 62693).
\10\ The 2002 and 2009 NOSB recommendations included daily
outdoor access from an early age and access to direct sunlight, open
air and soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS received 69 comments on the draft guidance. Comments varied
widely. Some supported more specific and stringent stocking densities
and soil-based outdoor access, citing animal health and environmental
benefits. Other comments favored maintaining an allowance for porches
as acceptable outdoor access, citing biosecurity and animal health
concerns.
Commenters stated that the draft guidance was unenforceable and
would not ensure year-round outside access for poultry. These
commenters suggested a minimum stocking rate of 1.75 square feet per
bird in henhouses that also provide access to perches, with an
additional 5 square feet per bird available in vegetated outdoor runs,
which should be accessible to all birds at the same time. A number of
commenters, including poultry producers, supported outdoor access on
soil, pasture or other vegetation, and described health benefits and
protection of the environment that a pasture or other vegetated outdoor
access area would afford.
One trade association, some organic egg producers, and consultants
described the use of production systems that limit outdoor access via
the use of enclosed porches so that poultry are not in contact with
soil or pasture. These commenters described the benefits of these
systems: Protection from predation, pathogens that cause food safety
problems, exposure to parasites,

[[Page 21960]]

and contact with wild birds that could carry diseases. The commenters
asserted that these systems are consistent with the 2002 NOSB
recommendation. They noted that organic egg producers have made
substantial investments in facilities with porches. Some also expressed
concerns that placing birds on soil would affect their ability to
comply with the Food and Drug Administration's salmonella prevention
food safety regulations (21 CFR part 118). Several producers expressed
concern with the 2009 NOSB recommendation that pullets be given outdoor
access at 6 weeks of age, because pullets are not fully immunized
(including for protection against salmonella) until 16 weeks of age,
and should not be exposed to uncontrolled environments until that time.
Given the comments and the request for rulemaking, AMS determined
to pursue rulemaking to clarify outdoor access for poultry and did not
finalize the draft guidance. Because the current regulations permit a
range of practices for providing outdoor access for livestock, AMS
could not enforce a narrower interpretation through guidance or
additional training for certifying agents. Instructing certifiers to
compel compliance with requirements that are more specific than the
regulations could only be resolved through rulemaking.

D. Related Issues

Some organic poultry operations provide outdoor access through
porches. These porch systems proliferated after a 2002 AMS
administrative appeal decision ordering the certification of an
operation that provided porches exclusively for outdoor access. If
finalized, this rule would supersede the 2002 appeal decision.
On July 15, 2002, an operation applied for organic certification of
its egg laying operation with a USDA accredited certifying agent. As
part of the application, the operation's Organic System Plan (OSP)
stated that outdoor access would be provided through covered and
screened porches. The certifying agent denied certification for failure
to provide hens with access to the outdoors. The certifying agent
stated that a porch did not provide outdoor access as required by the
USDA organic regulations. The operation appealed the Denial of
Certification to the AMS Administrator on October 22, 2002. The
Administrator determined that poultry porches could be allowed because
the regulations do not specify outdoor space requirements. The appeal
was sustained on October 25, 2002, and the certifying agent was
directed to grant organic certification to the operation retroactively
to October 21, 2002.
The certifying agent objected to the Administrator's decision and
appealed to the USDA Office of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On
November 4, 2003, the USDA ALJ dismissed the appeal. On December 11,
2003, the certifying agent appealed to the USDA Judicial Officer. On
April 21, 2004, the USDA Judicial Officer dismissed the appeal. On
September 27, 2005, the certifying agent filed an appeal with the U.S.
District Court, District of Massachusetts. On March 30, 2007, the U.S.
District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing (Massachusetts
Independent Certification, Inc v. Johanns. 486 F.Supp.2d 105).

III. Overview of Proposed Amendments

A. Definitions in Sec. 205.2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section title Current wording Type of action Proposed action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
205.2............................. Terms Defined...........
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Beak trimming. The
removal of the curved
tip of the beak.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Caponization. Castration
of chickens, turkeys,
pheasants and other
avian species.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Cattle wattling. The
surgical separation of
two layers of the skin
from the connective
tissue along a 2 to 4
inch path on the dewlap,
neck or shoulders used
for ownership
identification.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... De-beaking. The removal
of more than the beak
tip.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... De-snooding. The removal
of the turkey snood (a
fleshy protuberance on
the forehead of male
turkeys).
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Dubbing. The removal of
poultry combs and
wattles.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Indoors. The flat space
or platform area which
is under a solid roof.
On each level the
animals have access to
food and water and can
be confined if
necessary. Indoor space
for avian species
includes, but is not
limited to:
Pasture housing. A mobile
structure for avian
species with 70 percent
perforated flooring.
Aviary housing. A fixed
structure for avian
species which has
multiple tiers/levels
with feed and water on
each level.
Slatted/mesh floor
housing. A fixed
structure for avian
species which has both:
(1) A slatted floor
where perches, feed and
water are provided over
a pit or belt for manure
collection; and (2)
litter covering the
remaining solid floor.
Floor litter housing. A
fixed structure for
avian species which has
absorbent litter
covering the entire
floor.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Mulesing. The removal of
skin from the buttocks
of sheep, approximately
2 to 4 inches wide and
running away from the
anus to the hock to
prevent fly strike.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Outdoors. Any area in the
open air with at least
50 percent soil, outside
a building or shelter
where there are no solid
walls or solid roof
attached to the indoor
living space structure.
Fencing or netting that
does not block sunlight
or rain may be used as
necessary.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Perch. A rod or branch
type structure that
serves as a roost and
allows birds to utilize
vertical space in the
house.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New Term............... Pullet. A female chicken
or other avian species
being raised for egg
production that has not
yet started to lay eggs.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Roost. A flat structure
over a manure pit that
allows birds to grip
with their toes as they
would on a perch.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Soil. The outermost layer
of the earth comprised
of minerals, water, air,
organic matter, fungi
and bacteria in which
plants may grow roots.
205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Stocking density. The
weight of animals on a
given unit of land at
any one time.

[[Page 21961]]

205.2............................. N/A..................... New term............... Toe clipping. The removal
of the nail and distal
joint of the back two
toes of a male bird.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS is proposing to add fifteen new terms to Sec. 205.2: Beak
trimming, caponization, cattle wattling, de-beaking, de-snooding,
dubbing, indoors, mulesing, outdoors, perch, pullet, roost, soil,
stocking density and toe clipping.
AMS is proposing to prohibit several physical alterations on
organic livestock. AMS is proposing to define eight terms, below,
related to these physical alterations so that certifying agents and
producers may ensure that they do not inadvertently perform a
prohibited physical alteration which may be known by a different name
locally.
Beak trimming would be defined as the removal of the curved tip of
the beak.
Caponization would be defined as the castration of chickens,
turkeys, pheasants and other avian species.
Cattle wattling would be defined as the surgical separation of two
layers of the skin from the connective tissue along a 2 to 4 inch path
on the dewlap, neck, or shoulders used for ownership identification.
De-beaking would be defined as the removal of more than the beak
tip.
De-snooding would be defined as the removal of the turkey snood (a
fleshy protuberance on the forehead of male turkeys).
Dubbing would be defined as the removal of poultry combs and
wattles.
Mulesing would be defined as the removal of skin from the buttocks
of sheep, approximately 2 to 4 inches wide and running away from the
anus to the hock to prevent fly strike.
Toe clipping would be defined as the removal of the nail and distal
joint of the back two toes of a male bird.
AMS is proposing to define ``outdoors'' to add more specificity to
the existing requirement in the livestock living conditions section (7
CFR 205.239(a)(1)) that livestock have access to the outdoors.
``Outdoors'' would be defined as any area in the open air with at least
50 percent soil, outside a building or shelter where there are no solid
walls or solid roof attached to the indoor living space structure.
Fencing or netting that does not block sunlight or rain may be used as
necessary. Consistent with the NOSB recommendation, this definition
would exclude porches and other structures attached to the indoor
living space as outdoor areas. For biosafety and animal welfare
purposes, fencing or overhead netting that does not block sunlight or
rain would be permitted to prevent predators and other wild birds from
entering the outdoor area.
Structures for shade are permitted in the outdoor space. The area
within a standalone, roofed, shade structure could be included as
outdoor space area, provided it is not attached to the indoor space
structure. Roofed areas attached to the building are not considered
outdoor areas. This is consistent with the 2011 NOSB recommendation
that stated that covered porches should not be considered outdoor
access. This is also consistent with FDA's draft guidance on outdoor
access under the FDA Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs
regulations \11\ which states that covered porches are part of the
poultry house. Many producers use portable or permanent shade
structures throughout their pastures. The area under these shade
structures, as long as it is not attached to the structure used for
indoor access, could be an allowed area under the outdoor access space
requirement. The area under the eaves or under structures attached to
the indoor space structure is not to be calculated as outdoor space
area to ensure that porches and similar structures are not construed as
outdoor space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Draft Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers
Regarding the Final Rule, Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in
Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and Transportation (Layers
with Outdoor Access) http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/eggs/ucm360028.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed definition of ``outdoors'' would specify that outdoor
areas for all livestock have access to the soil. This supports natural
behaviors across species. For example, soil-based outdoor access will
encourage rooting and wallowing among swine and dust bathing and
foraging among poultry.
AMS is proposing to define ``soil'' as the outermost layer of the
earth comprised of minerals, water, air, organic matter, fungi, and
bacteria, in which plants may grow roots. Livestock producers must
include contact with soil when providing outdoor access to livestock in
a manner that maintains and improves natural resources.
AMS is proposing to define ``stocking density'' as the maximum
weight of animals on a given unit of land at any one time.
Specifically, the minimum outdoor space requirements for poultry are
based on stocking density as measured by the maximum pounds of bird on
a square foot of land at a given time. AMS also considered basing the
stocking density requirements on the minimum area per bird (i.e.,
square feet per animal). AMS proposes to measure stocking density using
weight to compensate for different-sized avian species (chickens,
turkeys) and varieties (e.g., different breeds of layers). Stocking
density would be calculated on the given size of the outdoor land to
which the birds are provided access. As an example, if one acre of land
is divided into two half acre parcels and the birds are rotated between
the two parcels, then the stocking density would be calculated using
the one-half acre to which the birds have access.
AMS is proposing to define ``indoors'' as the flat space or
platform area under a solid roof where the animals have access to both
food and water and can be confined if necessary. Indoor space would be
calculated by adding the square footage of the following roofed areas:
(1) Ground level, which may have perches embedded or placed on the
ground; (2) multi-level platforms, which provide water and feed on each
elevation from which the birds can freely access the outdoors; (3)
porches, which are accessible to the birds at all times. Space in
porches may not be included in the calculation for indoor space if the
doors are closed due to inclement weather or threat of diseases.
AMS is further clarifying the indoor living space requirements by
defining several elements that will need to be included in that area.
This proposal would define a ``perch'' as a rod- or branch-type
structure that serves as a roost and allows birds to utilize vertical
space in the house. This proposal would define a ``roost'' as a flat
structure over a manure pit that allows birds to grip with their toes
as they would on a perch.
AMS is proposing to define ``pullet'' as a female chicken or other
avian species being raised for egg production that has not yet started
to lay eggs. While pullet is sometimes used to describe young broilers
which are used for meat production, AMS is using the

[[Page 21962]]

term pullet to describe females of avian species which are being raised
to produce eggs in the future but have not yet reached sexual maturity
and have not begun producing eggs. Once avian females begin laying
eggs, AMS refers to them as layers. AMS modified the definition of
pullet, which is used by the AMS Livestock, Poultry and Seed Program,
to include species other than chickens.

B. Livestock Health Care Practice Standard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section title Current wording Proposed action Proposed wording
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
205.238........................... Livestock Health Care No Change. .........................
Practice Standard.
205.238(a)........................ (a) The producer must No change............
establish and maintain
preventive livestock
health care practices,
including:
205.238(a)(1)..................... (1) Selection of species No change............
and types of livestock
with regard to
suitability for site-
specific conditions and
resistance to prevalent
diseases and parasites;
205.238(a)(2)..................... (2) Provision of a feed Revision............. (2) Provision of a feed
ration sufficient to meet ration sufficient to
nutritional requirements, meet nutritional
including vitamins, requirements, including
minerals, protein and/or vitamins, minerals,
amino acids, fatty acids, protein and/or amino
energy sources, and fiber acids, fatty acids,
(ruminants); energy sources, and
fiber (ruminants),
resulting in appropriate
body condition.
205.238(a)(3)..................... (3) Establishment of No change............
appropriate housing,
pasture conditions, and
sanitation practices to
minimize the occurrence
and spread of diseases
and parasites;
205.238(a)(4)..................... (4) Provision of No change............
conditions which allow
for exercise, freedom of
movement, and reduction
of stress appropriate to
the species;
205.238(a)(5)..................... (5) Performance of Revision............. (5) Physical alterations
physical alterations as may be performed to
needed to promote the benefit the welfare or
animal's welfare and in a hygiene of the animals,
manner that minimizes or for identification
pain and stress; and purposes or safety.
Physical alterations
must be performed on
livestock at a
reasonably young age,
with minimal stress and
pain and by a competent
person.
205.238(a)(5)(i).................. .......................... New.................. (i) The following
practices may not be
routinely used and must
be used only with
documentation that
alternatives methods to
prevent harm failed:
needle teeth trimming
(no more than top 1/3rd
of the tooth) in pigs
and tail docking in
pigs.
205.238(a)(5)(ii)................. .......................... New.................. (ii) The following
practices must not be
performed on a certified
operation: de-beaking,
de-snooding,
caponization, dubbing,
toe trimming of
chickens, toe trimming
of turkeys unless with
infra-red at hatchery,
beak trimming after 10
days of age, tail
docking of cattle,
wattling of cattle, face
branding of cattle, tail
docking of sheep shorter
than the distal end of
the caudal fold, and
mulesing of sheep.
205.238(a)(6)..................... (6) Administration of No change............
vaccines and other
veterinary biologics.
205.238(a)(7)..................... .......................... New.................. (7) All surgical
procedures necessary to
treat an illness shall
be undertaken in a
manner that employs best
management practices in
order to minimize pain,
stress, and suffering,
with the use of
appropriate and allowed
anesthetics, analgesics,
and sedatives.
205.238(a)(8)..................... .......................... New.................. (8) Monitoring of
lameness and keeping
records of the percent
of the herd or flock
suffering from lameness
and the causes.

[[Page 21963]]

205.238(a)(9)..................... .......................... New.................. (9) Ammonia levels in
poultry houses must be
less than 25 parts per
million indoors. When
ammonia levels in
poultry houses exceed 10
parts per million, an
operation must implement
additional practices to
reduce the ammonia
levels below 10 parts
per million.
205.238(b)........................ (b) When preventive No change............
practices and veterinary
biologics are inadequate
to prevent sickness, a
producer may administer
synthetic medications:
Provided, that, such
medications are allowed
under Sec. 205.603.
Parasiticides allowed
under Sec. 205.603 may
be used on:
205.238(b)(1)..................... (1) Breeder stock, when No change............
used prior to the last
third of gestation but
not during lactation for
progeny that are to be
sold, labeled, or
represented as
organically produced; and
205.238(b)(2)..................... (2) Dairy stock, when used No change............
a minimum of 90 days
prior to the production
of milk or milk products
that are to be sold,
labeled, or represented
as organic
205.238(b)(3)..................... .......................... New.................. (3) Synthetic medications
may be administered in
the presence of illness
or to alleviate pain and
suffering: Provided,
that such medications
are allowed under Sec.
205.603.
205.238(c)........................ (c) The producer of an No change............
organic livestock
operation must not:
205.238(c)(1)..................... (1) Sell, label, or Revision............. (1) Sell, label, or
represent as organic any represent as organic any
animal or edible product animal or edible product
derived from any animal derived from any animal
treated with antibiotics, treated with
any substance that antibiotics, any
contains a synthetic substance that contains
substance not allowed a synthetic substance
under Sec. 205.603, or not allowed under Sec.
any substance that 205.603, or any
contains a nonsynthetic substance that contains
substance prohibited in a nonsynthetic substance
Sec. 205.604. prohibited in Sec.
205.604. Milk from
animals undergoing
treatment with synthetic
substances allowed under
Sec. 205.603 having
withholding time, cannot
be sold as organic but
may be fed to their own
offspring. Milk from
animals undergoing
treatment with
prohibited substances
cannot be sold as
organic or fed to
organic livestock.
205.238(c)(2)..................... (2) Administer any animal Revision............. (2) Administer any animal
drug, other than drug in the absence of
vaccinations, in the illness or to alleviate
absence of illness; pain or suffering, with
the exception of
vaccinations and other
veterinary biologics.
205.238(c)(3)..................... (3) Administer hormones Revision............. (3) Administer hormones
for growth promotion; for growth promotion,
production or
reproduction.
205.238(c)(4)..................... (4) Administer synthetic No change............
parasiticides on a
routine basis;
205.238(c)(5)..................... (5) Administer synthetic No change............
parasiticides to
slaughter stock;
205.238(c)(6)..................... (6) Administer animal No change............
drugs in violation of the
Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act; or
205.238(c)(7)..................... (7) Withhold medical No change............
treatment from a sick
animal in an effort to
preserve its organic
status. All appropriate
medications must be used
to restore an animal to
health when methods
acceptable to organic
production fail.
Livestock treated with a
prohibited substance must
be clearly identified and
shall not be sold,
labeled, or represented
as organically produced.

[[Page 21964]]

205.238(c)(8)..................... .......................... New.................. (8) Withhold individual
treatment designed to
minimize pain and
suffering for injured,
diseased, or sick
animals, which may
include forms of
euthanasia as
recommended by the
American Veterinary
Medical Association.
205.238(c)(9)..................... .......................... New.................. (9) Neglect to identify
and record treatment of
sick and injured animals
in animal health
records.
205.238(c)(10).................... .......................... New.................. (10) Practice forced
molting or withdrawal of
feed to induce molting.
205.238(d)........................ .......................... New.................. (d) Organic livestock
operations must have
comprehensive plans to
minimize internal
parasite problems in
livestock. The plan will
include preventive
measures such as pasture
management, fecal
monitoring, and
emergency measures in
the event of a parasite
outbreak. Parasite
control plans shall be
approved by the
certifying agent.
205.238(e)........................ .......................... New.................. (e) Euthanasia.
205.238(e)(1)..................... .......................... New.................. (1) Organic livestock
producers must have
written plans for
prompt, humane
euthanasia for sick or
injured livestock.
205.238(e)(2)..................... .......................... New.................. (2) The following methods
of euthanasia are not
permitted: suffocation;
blow to the head by
blunt instrument; and
the use of equipment
that crushes the neck,
including killing pliers
or burdizzo clamps.
205.238(e)(3)..................... .......................... New.................. (3) Following a
euthanasia procedure,
livestock must be
carefully examined to
ensure that they are
dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS is proposing to amend current provisions in and add new
provisions to the health care practice standards. The proposed
amendment to Sec. 205.238(a)(2) would specify that the sufficiency of
the feed ration would be demonstrated by appropriate body condition of
the livestock. Livestock producers would need to monitor their animals
to ensure body condition is being maintained. In addition, certifying
agents would need to verify the nutritional adequacy of the animals'
diet by assessing the body condition of organic livestock during
inspection. Suitable body condition varies between species, between
breeds, and between production types. A suitable condition for dairy
cattle may be considered too thin in beef cattle. Producers who
routinely monitor body condition of their livestock will be more likely
to discover a health or feed issue early, before the animal suffers.
AMS plans to provide further information about body condition
assessment through published guidance to assist certifiers, inspectors,
and producers assess body condition in different species.
AMS proposes to revise Sec. 205.238(a)(5) to clarify the
conditions under which physical alterations may be performed on
livestock. Physical alterations may be performed for only certain
reasons, including an animal's welfare, hygiene, identification, or
safety. Alterations must be done at a reasonably young age with minimal
pain or stress to the animal, and only by a person who is competent to
perform the procedure. Competency may be demonstrated by training or
experience of the person performing the alterations or may be
demonstrated by the training or experience of the person training the
person performing the alterations.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.238(a)(5)(i) to list the
physical alterations that are not allowed on a routine basis, but may
be performed on an as-needed basis. Needle teeth trimming and tail
docking in pigs may only be performed in response to documented animal
welfare reasons when alternative steps to prevent harm fail. Teeth
clipping, if performed, would be limited to the top third of the each
needle tooth. For example, an organic swine producer who clipped needle
teeth or performed tail docking would need to document excessive needle
teeth scarring on the underline of the sow or piglets or document tail
biting on piglets in the litter. Swine producers would also need to
document that alternative methods failed. Such alternative methods may
include, but are not limited to, cross-fostering prior to teat fidelity
across litters to minimize weight variation, providing sufficient
enrichment materials, and providing vegetation for rooting.
In the 2009 recommendation, the NOSB recommended that needle teeth
clipping and piglet tail docking be allowed, but retracted that in its
2011 recommendation. In consideration of NOSB preferences and producer
needs, AMS is proposing to restrict the use of these procedures to
situations when alternative methods of preventing injury fail and the
producer documents the harm to animals prior to performing either
physical alteration.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.238(a)(5)(ii) to list the
physical alterations that are prohibited in an organic operation. The
following physical alterations would be prohibited under this proposal:
De-beaking, de-snooding, caponization, dubbing, toe trimming of
chickens, toe trimming of turkeys unless with infra-red at hatchery,
beak trimming after 10 days of age, tail docking of cattle, wattling of
cattle, face branding of cattle, tail docking of sheep shorter than the
distal end of the caudal fold, and mulesing of sheep.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.238(a)(7) which would
specify that surgical procedures on livestock to

[[Page 21965]]

treat an illness must be done in a manner which minimizes pain, stress,
and suffering. The NOSB recommended that all surgical procedures for
livestock be done with the use of anesthetics, analgesics, and
sedatives. AMS is proposing that all surgical procedures for treatment
of disease shall be undertaken in a manner that employs best management
practices in order to minimize pain, stress, and suffering, and only
with the use of anesthetics, analgesics, and sedatives listed in Sec.
205.603.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.238(a)(8) to require
organic producers to actively monitor lameness within the herd or flock
and to document the cases of lameness. Lameness can be an issue in
various livestock species including broilers, sheep, and dairy cattle.
The requirement for producers to create a plan for monitoring and
recording instances of lameness in the Organic System Plan will enable
organic livestock producers to identify and address a problem before it
becomes widespread among the animals. In addition, the records will
provide an auditable trail for certifying agents to verify that
livestock producers are monitoring this potential cause of animal
suffering.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.238(b)(3) to state that
synthetic medications may be administered in the presence of an illness
to reduce pain and suffering, as long as those medications are allowed
under Sec. 205.603. OFPA limits the use of synthetic medications in
the absence of illness. AMS is proposing to follow the NOSB
recommendation to allow the use of synthetic substances to alleviate
pain and suffering for animals if the substances appear on the National
List. AMS is proposing to take a broad view of illness to encompass not
just instances of disease or injury, but also cases of inflammation due
to physical alterations. By providing pain relief prior to performing a
physical alteration, animal welfare is improved. In addition, by
providing pain relief, the animal undergoing the physical alteration is
less likely to make a sudden movement. Such movements can cause
infection or a more severe injury. Again, the use of pain relief prior
to the physical alteration can reduce serious complications. Physical
alterations such as dehorning result in trauma to the target tissue.
This trauma causes localized bleeding and inflammation, resulting in an
illness state.
AMS is proposing to amend Sec. 205.238(c)(1) to clarify that milk
from an animal treated with an allowed substance in Sec. 205.603,
which has a withholding time, may not be sold, labeled, or represented
as organic during that holding time. However, milk from an organic
animal or breeder stock may continue to provide milk for its own
offspring during the withholding time. As an example, if an organic
beef cow was nursing her organic offspring, was injured and then
stitched by a veterinarian using lidocaine to minimize pain and stress,
her calf could continue to nurse the dam even during the 7-day
withholding period for lidocaine (Sec. 205.603(b)(4)), without loss of
the calf's organic status. This means that the calf would still be
eligible to be organic slaughter stock. This is consistent with the
April 2010 NOSB recommendation that a calf nursing a dam treated
topically with lidocaine, or other approved synthetic with a withdrawal
time would not lose organic status.
AMS is proposing to revise Sec. 205.238(c)(2) to clarify that
other veterinary biologics, in addition to vaccines, are exempt from
the prohibition on administering animal drugs in the absence of
illness. The Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) regulates vaccines
and all other veterinary biologics. While vaccines are commonly used to
describe many of these products, CVB has additional categories such as
bacterins and toxoids. In addition, this change reflects the definition
for biologicals in Sec. 205.2. This supports Sec. 205.238(a)(6),
which identifies the use of vaccines and other veterinary biologics as
a required practice to improve animal health. This section again
asserts that pain relief may be administered in the absence of illness
prior to physical alterations.
AMS is proposing to amend Sec. 205.238(c)(3) to clarify that
organic livestock producers are prohibited from administering synthetic
or nonsynthetic hormones to promote growth or for production and
reproductive purposes. Hormones listed in Sec. 205.603 (e.g.,
oxytocin) may continue to be used to treat illnesses. Stakeholders have
noted that the USDA organic regulations are silent on the use of
hormones to stimulate production or for reproductive purposes. This
addition would clarify that all hormones, unless used to treat an
illness, are prohibited in organic production.
AMS is proposing to add a new provision in Sec. 205.238(c)(8) to
prohibit organic livestock producers from withholding treatment
designed to minimize pain and suffering for injured, diseased, or sick
animals. Injured, diseased, or sick animals may be treated with any
allowed natural substance or synthetic medication which appears on the
National List. However, if no appropriate medication is allowed for
organic production, organic livestock producers would be required to
administer treatments, even if the animals would lose their organic
status. Furthermore, euthanasia could be an acceptable practice for
minimizing pain and suffering.
AMS is proposing to add new Sec. 205.238(c)(9) to require
livestock producers to identify and record treatment of sick and
injured animals in animal health records. These records can enable
producers and certifying agents to quickly identify a particular
disease or ailment in an animal. Early identification can lead to more
effective prevention or treatment, which will enhance the overall
health of the livestock on that farm.
AMS is proposing to add a new provision in Sec. 205.238(c)(10) to
explicitly prohibit the practice of forced molting or withdrawal of
feed to induce molting in poultry. Forced molting, in which feed is
severely restricted for a period of time in order to rejuvenate egg
production, is prohibited under Sec. 205.238(a)(2), which requires a
nutritionally sufficient feed ration. However, forced molting was never
explicitly prohibited under the USDA organic regulations. This change
is consistent with the NOSB recommendation and a number of other third-
party animal welfare certification programs.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.238(e) to address
euthanasia. In certain cases, livestock may be suffering from an
illness from which recovery is unlikely. For these situations, organic
livestock producers must maintain written plans for euthanizing sick or
injured livestock (Sec. 205.238(e)(1)). In new a Sec. 205.238(e)(2),
AMS is proposing to prohibit certain methods of euthanasia, including:
Suffocation, blow(s) to the head by blunt instrument, and use of
equipment that crushes the neck, (e.g., killing pliers or burdizo
clamps). In the event of an emergency situation where a local, state or
federal government agency requires the use of non-organically approved
method of euthanasia, organic livestock operations will not lose
organic certification or face other penalties for the use of non-
organically approved methods of euthanasia.
AMS is further proposing, in Sec. 205.238(e)(3), that after the
euthanasia procedure, producers must carefully examine the body to
ensure death. The NOSB recommended listing the allowable methods of
euthanasia. However, given that new humane euthanasia methods may
emerge, AMS

[[Page 21966]]

would not intend to discourage producer adoption of these techniques.
Therefore, AMS is proposing to allow organic livestock producers to use
any method of euthanasia, except for those prohibited in Sec.
205.238(e)(2). The list of prohibited methods could be amended to
include other techniques, if needed, through future rulemaking.

C. Mammalian Living Conditions

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
205.239........................... Livestock Living Revision............. Mammalian Livestock
Conditions. Living Conditions.
205.239(a)........................ (a) The producer of an No change............
organic livestock
operation must establish
and maintain year-round
livestock living
conditions which
accommodate the health
and natural behavior of
animals, including:
205.239(a)(1)..................... (1) Year-round access for Revision............. (1) Year-round access for
all animals to the all animals to the
outdoors, shade, shelter, outdoors, soil, shade,
exercise areas, fresh shelter, exercise areas,
air, clean water for fresh air, clean water
drinking, and direct for drinking, and direct
sunlight, suitable to the sunlight, suitable to
species, its stage of the species, its stage
life, the climate, and of life, the climate,
the environment: Except, and the environment:
that, animals may be Except, that, animals
temporarily denied access may be temporarily
to the outdoors in denied access to the
accordance with Sec. outdoors in accordance
Sec. 205.239(b) and with Sec. Sec.
(c). Yards, feeding pads, 205.239(b) and (c).
and feedlots may be used Yards, feeding pads, and
to provide ruminants with feedlots may be used to
access to the outdoors provide ruminants with
during the non-grazing access to the outdoors
season and supplemental during the non-grazing
feeding during the season and supplemental
grazing season. Yards, feeding during the
feeding pads, and grazing season. Yards,
feedlots shall be large feeding pads, and
enough to allow all feedlots shall be large
ruminant livestock enough to allow all
occupying the yard, ruminant livestock
feeding pad, or feedlot occupying the yard,
to feed simultaneously feeding pad, or feedlot
without crowding and to feed without
without competition for competition for food in
food. Continuous total a manner that maintains
confinement of any animal all animals in a good
indoors is prohibited. body condition.
Continuous total Continuous total
confinement of ruminants confinement of any
in yards, feeding pads, animal indoors is
and feedlots is prohibited. Continuous
prohibited. total confinement of
ruminants in yards,
feeding pads, and
feedlots is prohibited.
205.239(a)(2)..................... (2) For all ruminants, No change............
management on pasture and
daily grazing throughout
the grazing season(s) to
meet the requirements of
Sec. 205.237, except as
provided for in
paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d) of this section.
205.239(a)(3)..................... (3) Appropriate clean, dry Revision............. (3) Animals must be kept
bedding. When roughages clean during all stages
are used as bedding, they of life with the use of
shall have been appropriate, clean, dry
organically produced in bedding, as appropriate
accordance with this part for the species. When
by an operation certified roughages are used as
under this part, except bedding, they must be
as provided in Sec. organically produced and
205.236(a)(2)(i), and, if handled in accordance
applicable, organically with this part by an
handled by operations operation certified
certified to the NOP. under this part, except
as provided in Sec.
205.236(a)(2)(i), and,
if applicable,
organically handled by
operations certified to
the NOP.
205.239(a)(4)..................... (4) Shelter designed to No change............
allow for:
205.239(a)(4)(i).................. (i) Natural maintenance, Revision............. (i) Sufficient space and
comfort behaviors, and freedom to lie down in
opportunity to exercise; full lateral recumbence,
turn around, stand up,
fully stretch their
limbs without touching
other animals or the
sides of the enclosure,
and express normal
patterns of behavior;
205.239(a)(4)(ii)................. (ii) Temperature level, No change............
ventilation, and air
circulation suitable to
the species;
205.239(a)(4)(iii)................ (iii) Reduction of No change............
potential for livestock
injury.
205.239(a)(4)(iv)................. .......................... New.................. (iv) Areas for bedding
and resting that are
sufficiently large,
solidly built, and
comfortable so that
animals are kept clean,
dry, and free of
lesions.
205.239(a)(5)..................... The use of yards, feeding No change............
pads, feedlots and
laneways that shall be
well-drained, kept in
good condition (including
frequent removal of
wastes), and managed to
prevent runoff of wastes
and contaminated waters
to adjoining or nearby
surface water and across
property boundaries.
205.239(a)(6)..................... .......................... New.................. (6) Housing, pens, runs,
equipment, and utensils
shall be properly
cleaned and disinfected
as needed to prevent
cross infection and
build-up of disease-
carrying organisms.
205.239(a)(7)..................... .......................... New.................. (7) Dairy young stock may
be housed in individual
pens under the following
conditions:

[[Page 21967]]

205.239(a)(7)(i).................. .......................... New.................. (i) Until weaning,
providing that they have
enough room to turn
around, lie down,
stretch out when lying
down, get up, rest, and
groom themselves;
individual animal pens
shall be designed and
located so that each
animal can see, smell,
and hear other calves.
205.239(a)(7)(ii)................. .......................... New.................. (ii) Dairy young stock
shall be group-housed
after weaning.
205.239(a)(7)(iii)................ .......................... New.................. (iii) Dairy young stock
over six months of age
shall have access to the
outdoors at all times,
including access to
pasture during the
grazing season, except
as allowed under
205.239(c).
205.239(a)(8)..................... .......................... New.................. (8) Swine must be housed
in a group, except:
205.239(a)(8)(i).................. .......................... New.................. (i) Sows may be housed
individually at
farrowing and during the
suckling period;
205.239(a)(8)(ii)................. .......................... New.................. (ii) Boars.
205.239(a)(8)(iii)................ .......................... New.................. (iii) Swine with
documented instances of
aggression or recovery
from an illness.
205.239(a)(9)..................... .......................... New.................. (10) Piglets shall not be
kept on flat decks or in
piglet cages.
205.239(a)(10).................... .......................... New.................. (11) Exercise areas for
swine, whether indoors
or outdoors, must permit
rooting, including
during temporary
confinement events.
205.239(a)(11).................... .......................... New.................. (12) In confined housing
with stalls, at least
one stall must be
provided for each animal
in the facility at any
given time. A cage must
not be called a stall.
For group-housed swine,
the number of individual
feeding stalls may be
less than the number of
animals, as long as all
animals are fed
routinely over a 24-hour
period.
205.239(a)(12).................... .......................... New.................. (13) At least 50 percent
of outdoor access space
must be soil, except for
temporary conditions
which would threaten the
soil or water quality
when outdoor access must
be provided without
contact to the soil.
205.239(b)........................ (b) The producer of an No change............
organic livestock
operation may provide
temporary confinement or
shelter for an animal
because of:
205.239(b)(1)..................... (1) Inclement weather; No change............
205.239(b)(2)..................... (2) The animal's stage of No change............
life: Except, that
lactation is not a stage
of life that would exempt
ruminants from any of the
mandates set forth in
this regulation.
205.239(b)(3)..................... (3) Conditions under which No change............
the health, safety, or
well-being of the animal
could be jeopardized
205.239(b)(4)..................... (4) Risk to soil or water No change............
quality;
205.239(b)(5)..................... (5) Preventive healthcare No change............
procedures or for the
treatment of illness or
injury (neither the
various life stages nor
lactation is an illness
or injury);
205.239(b)(6)..................... (6) Sorting or shipping No change............
animals and livestock
sales: Provided, that,
the animals shall be
maintained under
continuous organic
management, including
organic feed, throughout
the extent of their
allowed confinement;
205.239(b)(7)..................... (7) Breeding: Except, Revision............. (7) Breeding: Except,
that, bred animals shall that, animals shall not
not be denied access to be confined any longer
the outdoors and, once than necessary to
bred, ruminants shall not perform the natural or
be denied access to artificial insemination.
pasture during the Animals may not be
grazing season; confined to observe
estrus; and
205.239(b)(8)..................... (8) 4-H, Future Farmers of Revision............. (8) 4-H, National FFA
America and other youth Organization, and other
projects, for no more youth projects, for no
than one week prior to a more than one week prior
fair or other to a fair or other
demonstration, through demonstration, through
the event and up to 24 the event, and up to 24
hours after the animals hours after the animals
have arrived home at the have arrived home at the
conclusion of the event. conclusion of the event.
These animals must have These animals must have
been maintained under been maintained under
continuous organic continuous organic
management, including management, including
organic feed, during the organic feed, during the
extent of their allowed extent of their allowed
confinement for the event. confinement for the
event. Notwithstanding
the requirements in Sec.
205.239 (b)(6),
facilities where 4-H,
National FFA
Organization, and other
youth events are held
are not required to be
certified organic for
the participating
animals to be sold as
organic, provided all
other organic management
practices are followed.

[[Page 21968]]

205.239(c)........................ (c) The producer of an No change............
organic livestock
operation may, in
addition to the times
permitted under Sec.
205.239(b), temporarily
deny a ruminant animal
pasture or outdoor access
under the following
conditions:
205.239(c)(1)..................... (1) One week at the end of No change............
a lactation for dry off
(for denial of access to
pasture only), three
weeks prior to
parturition (birthing),
parturition, and up to
one week after
parturition;
205.239(c)(2)..................... (2) In the case of newborn No change............
dairy cattle for up to
six months, after which
they must be on pasture
during the grazing season
and may no longer be
individually housed:
Provided, That, an animal
shall not be confined or
tethered in a way that
prevents the animal from
lying down, standing up,
fully extending its
limbs, and moving about
freely;
205.239(c)(3)..................... (3) In the case of fiber No change............
bearing animals, for
short periods for
shearing; and
205.239(c)(4)..................... (4) In the case of dairy No change............
animals, for short
periods daily for
milking. Milking must be
scheduled in a manner to
ensure sufficient grazing
time to provide each
animal with an average of
at least 30 percent DMI
from grazing throughout
the grazing season.
Milking frequencies or
duration practices cannot
be used to deny dairy
animals pasture.
205.239(d)........................ (d) Ruminant slaughter Revision............. (d) Ruminant slaughter
stock, typically grain stock, typically grain
finished, shall be finished, shall be
maintained on pasture for maintained on pasture
each day that the for each day that the
finishing period finishing period
corresponds with the corresponds with the
grazing season for the grazing season for the
geographical location: geographical location:
Except, that, yards, Except, that, yards,
feeding pads, or feedlots feeding pads, or
may be used to provide feedlots may be used to
finish feeding rations. provide finish feeding
During the finishing rations. During the
period, ruminant finishing period,
slaughter stock shall be ruminant slaughter stock
exempt from the minimum shall be exempt from the
30 percent DMI minimum 30 percent DMI
requirement from grazing. requirement from
Yards, feeding pads, or grazing. Yards, feeding
feedlots used to provide pads, or feedlots used
finish feeding rations to provide finish
shall be large enough to feeding rations shall be
allow all ruminant large enough to allow
slaughter stock occupying all ruminant slaughter
the yard, feeding pad, or stock occupying the
feed lot to feed yard, feeding pad, or
simultaneously without feedlot to feed without
crowding and without competition for food.
competition for food. The The finishing period
finishing period shall shall not exceed one-
not exceed one-fifth (\1/ fifth (\1/5\) of the
5\) of the animal's total animal's total life or
life or 120 days, 120 days, whichever is
whichever is shorter. shorter.
205.239(e)........................ (e) The producer of an No change............
organic livestock
operation must manage
manure in a manner that
does not contribute to
contamination of crops,
soil, or water by plant
nutrients, heavy metals,
or pathogenic organisms
and optimizes recycling
of nutrients and must
manage pastures and other
outdoor access areas in a
manner that does not put
soil or water quality at
risk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS is proposing to separate mammalian living conditions from avian
living conditions, due to the different physiology and husbandry
practices for birds and mammals. Under this proposal, AMS would revise
the title of Sec. 205.239 from ``Livestock living conditions'' to
``Mammalian Livestock Living Conditions''. Avian living conditions
would be addressed in new Sec. 205.241. By creating clear requirements
for mammalian livestock and avian livestock, animal health and
wellbeing can be enhanced and consumers can be assured of the integrity
of the USDA organic seal.
AMS is proposing to revise Sec. 205.239(a)(1) to require that food
is provided in a manner that maintains all animals in good body
condition while removing the requirement that all ruminant livestock
must be able to feed simultaneously. This would support animal welfare
by ensuring that feed rations are available to all animals so that they
maintain good body condition. One method of feeding livestock,
including ruminants, is the use of a self-feeder or a creep-feeder.
With creep-feeding and self-feeding, feed is accessible to all animals
at all times though they may not feed at the exact same time. Self-
feeding and creep-feeding provides organic ruminant producers with more
flexibility and options to manage their farm and livestock in farm-
specific methods.
AMS is proposing to revise Sec. 205.239(a)(3) to clarify that
livestock producers must keep animals clean during all stages of life
with the use of appropriate, clean, dry bedding. Ensuring animals are
clean is a disease prevention practice. Clean animals are less likely
to develop lesions, transmit diseases, or become cold due to matted
hair coats. The requirement for clean animals is relative to the
species. Swine would be allowed to exhibit natural behavior and wallow
in mud, and ruminants grazing on lush spring grass would be expected to
have some

[[Page 21969]]

manure on their hind quarters due to the natural behavior of grazing.
AMS is proposing to revise Sec. 205.239(a)(4)(i) to specify that
shelter must be designed to accommodate natural behaviors. Shelter must
have sufficient space for the animals to lie down, stand up, and fully
stretch their limbs without touching other animals or the sides of the
shelter. Shelter must be designed to allow livestock to express their
normal patterns of behavior.
AMS is proposing to add Sec. 205.239(a)(4)(iv) to require a
sheltered area for bedding and resting, which is sufficiently large and
comfortable to keep the animals clean, dry, and free of lesions. This
supports the proposed revision in Sec. 205.239(a)(3), which would
require producers to keep livestock clean. Not all shelters would need
to be designed to hold bedding. As an example, a shelter designed to
provide shade may be portable, and thus incompatible with holding
bedding.
AMS is proposing to add new requirements in Sec. 205.239(a)(7)
concerning the individual housing of dairy young stock. Section
205.239(a)(7)(i) would allow for the individual housing of animals
until weaning, as long as the animals had sufficient room to turn
around, lie down, stretch out while lying down, get up, rest, and groom
themselves. In addition, the individual housing of young stock would
need to be designed so that animals could see, smell, and hear other
animals. Furthermore, new Sec. 205.239(a)(7)(ii) would require that
dairy young stock are group-housed after weaning, and new Sec.
205.239(a)(7)(iii) would require that animals over six months of age
must have access to the outdoors at all times, including access to
pasture during the grazing season, except as allowed under Sec.
205.239 (b) and (c). Weaning is the time at which the young are taken
off of milk or milk replacers.
AMS is proposing to add three new provisions in Sec. 205.239(a)(8)
to require the group housing of swine, with several listed exceptions.
Section 205.239(a)(8)(i) would allow for sows to be individually housed
at farrowing and during the suckling period. Section 205.239(a)(8)(ii)
would allow for boars to be individually housed to reduce the
likelihood of fights and injuries. Section 205.239(a)(8)(iii) would
allow for swine to be individually housed after documented multiple
instances of aggression or to allow an individual pig to recover from a
documented illness.
AMS is proposing to add two new provisions in Sec. 205.239(a)(9)
and (10) concerning swine housing. Section 205.239(a)(9) would prohibit
the use of flat decks or piglet cages. This provision would prohibit
the stacking of piglets in flat decks in multiple layers. In addition,
Sec. 205.239(a)(10) would require that both indoor and outdoor areas
for swine would have some space which would permit rooting. Rooting is
a natural behavior which must be accommodated by organic swine
producers and could be done in soil, deep packed straw, or other
materials. Organic swine producers must also demonstrate how swine will
be allowed to root during temporary confinement events.
AMS is proposing to add a new provision in Sec. 205.239(a)(11) to
further define barns or other structures with stalls. If indoor shelter
is provided by a structure with stalls, then one stall must be provided
for each animal at any given time. This allows for all animals to rest
or lie down at the same time and provides a space for less dominant
animals to escape from aggressive animals. In no case may a cage be
considered a stall. One exception is provided for this provision. In
group-housed swine, more animals than feeding stalls may be allowed, as
long as all animals are able to consume sufficient quantities of feed
to maintain good body condition. AMS is aware of some enhanced swine
welfare systems, in which animals are robotically fed once they enter
an individual feeding stall. Once finished, the animal may leave the
stall and another animal enter the stall for its specific quantity of
feed. AMS did not intend to prohibit such systems, which enhance the
health and wellbeing of organic animals.
AMS is proposing to add a new requirement for outdoor access in
Sec. 205.239(a)(12). Organic livestock are required to have
unencumbered access to the outdoors at all times, unless temporary
confinement is justified under a specific reason described in the
regulations (e.g., nighttime confinement for protection from
predators). As part of the definition of the outdoors, livestock must
have access to the soil in a manner that maintains or improves the
natural resources of the farm, and does not degrade soil or water
quality. To make access to soil meaningful, at least 50 percent of all
the outdoor access area must be comprised of soil. This will benefit
mammals, as surfaces such as concrete may lead to more joint problems
and resulting lameness. Soil also provides an opportunity for swine to
root and engage in other natural behaviors.
AMS is proposing to revise Sec. 205.239(b)(7) to clarify the
exemption for temporary confinement for the purpose of breeding
livestock. Livestock may only be confined for the time that a natural
or artificial breeding procedure requires. A group of livestock may be
confined while the various individuals are bred, then the group would
be returned to living spaces that allow outdoor access. Livestock may
not be confined indoors to observe estrus. Section 205.239(c)(1)
describes the time when ruminants may be denied access to pasture, but
not access to the outdoors, before and after a breeding attempt.
AMS is proposing to revise Sec. 205.239(b)(8) to clarify the
temporary confinement exception for youth livestock projects. Many
youth livestock projects include the sale of market animals. Organic
animals that were under continuous organic management may be sold as
organic animals at youth fairs, even if the sales facility is not
certified organic. This revised provision includes an exemption to the
Sec. 205.239(b)(6) requirement that a livestock sales facility be
certified as an organic operation. As an example, if a youth exhibition
and sale is held at a livestock sales facility which is not certified
organic, the youth may sell the organic animal as an organic animal,
provided all other requirements for the organic management of livestock
are met. Otherwise, non-certified sales facilities, such as auction
barns or fair grounds, may not sell or represent livestock as organic.
AMS is proposing to provide this exception to encourage the next
generation of organic farmers.
AMS is proposing to revise Sec. 205.239(d) to reflect the similar
proposed changes in Sec. 205.239(a)(1). AMS would remove the phrase
requiring that all ruminants be able to feed simultaneously. This would
allow the use of self-feeding and creep-feeding so that the ruminants
would have access to feed continuously over a 24-hour period.

[[Page 21970]]

D. Avian Living Conditions

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
205.241....................... New.............. Avian Living
Conditions.
205.241(a).................... New.............. (a) The producer of
an organic poultry
operation must
establish and
maintain year-round
poultry living
conditions which
accommodate the
health and natural
behavior of poultry,
including: year-
round access to
outdoors; shade;
shelter; exercise
areas; fresh air;
direct sunlight;
clean water for
drinking; materials
for dust bathing;
and adequate outdoor
space to escape from
predators and
aggressive behaviors
suitable to the
species, its stage
of life, the climate
and environment.
Poultry may be
temporarily denied
access to the
outdoors in
accordance with Sec.
205.241(d).
205.241(b).................... New.............. Indoor space
requirements.
205.241(b)(1)................. New.............. (1) All birds must be
able to move freely,
and engage in
natural behaviors.
205.241(b)(2)................. New.............. (2) Ventilation must
be adequate to
prevent buildup of
ammonia. Ammonia
levels must not
exceed 25 ppm.
Producers must
monitor ammonia
levels on a monthly
basis. When ammonia
levels exceed 10
ppm, producers must
implement additional
practices to reduce
ammonia levels below
10 ppm.
205.241(b)(3)................. New.............. (3) For layers and
mature birds,
artificial light may
be used to prolong
the day length up to
16 hours. Artificial
light intensity must
be lowered gradually
to encourage hens to
move to perches or
settle for the
night. Natural light
must be sufficient
indoors on sunny
days so that an
inspector can read
and write when all
lights are turned
off.
205.241(b)(4)................. New.............. (4)The following
types of flooring
may be used in
shelter provided for
avian species:
205.241(b)(4)(i).............. New.............. (i) Mesh or slatted
flooring under
drinking areas to
provide drainage;
205.241(b)(4)(ii)............. New.............. (ii) Houses,
excluding pasture
housing, with
slatted/mesh floors
must have 30 percent
minimum of solid
floor area available
with sufficient
litter available for
dust baths so that
birds may freely
dust bathe without
crowding.
205.241(b)(4)(iii)............ New.............. (iii) Litter must be
provided and
maintained in a dry
condition.
205.241(b)(5)................. New.............. (5) Poultry houses
must have sufficient
exit areas,
appropriately
distributed around
the building, to
ensure that all
birds have ready
access to the
outdoors.
205.241(b)(6)................. New.............. (6) Flat roosts areas
must allow birds to
grip with their
feet. Six inches of
perch space must be
provided per bird.
Perch space may
include the
alighting rail in
front of the nest
boxes. All birds
must be able to
perch at the same
time except for
multi-tiered
facilities, in which
55 percent of birds
must be able to
perch at the same
time. Facilities for
species which do not
perch do not need to
be contain perch and
roost space.
205.241(b)(7)................. New.............. (7) For layers, no
more than 2.25
pounds of hen per
square foot of
indoor space is
allowed at any time,
except;
205.241(b)(7)(i).............. New.............. Pasture housing: no
more than 4.5 pounds
of hen per square
foot of indoor
space;
205.241(b)(7)(ii)............. New.............. Aviary housing: no
more than 4.5 pounds
of hen per square
foot of indoor
space;
205.241(b)(7)(iii)............ New.............. Slatted/mesh floor
housing: no more
than 3.75 pounds of
hen per square foot
of indoor space; and
205.241(b)(7)(iv)............. New.............. Floor litter housing:
no more than 3.0
pounds of hen per
square foot of
indoor space.
205.241(b)(8)................. New.............. (8) For pullets, no
more than 3.0 pounds
of pullet per square
foot of indoor space
may be allowed at
any time.
205.241(b)(9)................. New.............. (9) For turkeys,
broilers, and other
meat type species,
no more than 5.0
pounds of birds per
square foot of
indoor space is
allowed at any time.
205.241(b)(10)................ New.............. (10) All birds must
have access to
scratch areas in the
house.
205.241(b)(11)................ New.............. (11) Poultry housing
must be sufficiently
spacious to allow
all birds to move
freely, stretch
their wings, stand
normally, and engage
in natural
behaviors.
205.241(c).................... New.............. Outdoor Space
Requirements.
205.241(c)(1)................. New.............. (1) Outside access
and door spacing
must be designed to
promote and
encourage outside
access for all birds
on a daily basis.
Producers must
provide access to
the outdoors at an
early age to
encourage (train)
birds to go
outdoors. Outdoor
areas must have
suitable enrichment
to entice birds to
go outside. Birds
may be temporarily
denied access to the
outdoors in
accordance with Sec.
205.241(d).
205.241(c)(2)................. New.............. (2) Exit areas for
birds to get outside
must be designed so
that more than one
bird at a time can
get through the
opening and that all
birds within the
house can go through
the exit areas
within one hour.
205.241(c)(3)................. New.............. (3) For layers, no
more than 2.25
pounds of hen per
square foot of
outdoor space may be
allowed at any time.
205.241(c)(4)................. New.............. (4) For pullets, no
more than 3.0 pounds
of pullet per square
foot may be allowed
at any time.
205.241(c)(5)................. New.............. (5) For turkeys,
broilers, and other
meat type species,
no more than 5.0
pounds of bird per
square foot may be
allowed at any time.
205.241(c)(6)................. New.............. (6) Space that has a
solid roof overhead
and is attached to
the structure
providing indoor
space does not meet
the definition of
outdoor access and
must not be included
in the calculation
of outdoor space.
205.241(c)(7)................. New.............. (7) Shade may be
provided by
structures, trees or
other objects in the
environment.
205.241(c)(8)................. New.............. (8) At least 50
percent of outdoor
access space must be
soil.
205.241(d).................... New.............. (d) The producer of
an organic poultry
operation may
temporarily confine
birds. Each instance
of confinement must
be recorded.
Producers may
confine birds
because of:
205.241(d)(1)................. New.............. (1) Inclement
weather, including,
when air
temperatures are
under 40 degrees F
or above 90 degrees
F;
205.241(d)(2)................. New.............. (2) The animal's
stage of life,
including the first
4 weeks of life for
broilers and other
meat type birds and
the first 16 weeks
of life for pullets;
and
205.241(d)(3)................. New.............. (3) Conditions under
which the health,
safety, or well-
being of the animal
could be
jeopardized;
however, the
potential for
disease outbreak is
not sufficient
cause. A documented
occurrence of a
disease in the
region or relevant
migratory pathway
must be present in
order to confine
birds.
205.241(d)(4)................. New.............. (4) Risk to soil or
water quality.

[[Page 21971]]

205.241(d)(5)................. New.............. (5) Preventive
healthcare
procedures or for
the treatment of
illness or injury
(neither various
life stages nor egg
laying is an illness
or injury).
205.241(d)(6)................. New.............. (6) Sorting or
shipping birds and
poultry sales:
Provided, the birds
are maintained under
continuous organic
management,
throughout the
extent of their
allowed confinement.
205.241(d)(7)................. New.............. (7) Nest Box
training: Except,
that, birds shall
not be confined any
longer than two
weeks to teach the
proper behavior.
205.241(d)(8)................. New.............. (8) 4-H, National FFA
Organization, and
other youth
projects, for no
more than one week
prior to a fair or
other demonstration,
through the event,
and up to 24 hours
after the birds have
arrived home at the
conclusion of the
event. These birds
must have been
maintained under
continuous organic
management,
including organic
feed, during the
extent of their
allowed confinement
for the event.
Notwithstanding the
requirements in
paragraph (d)(6) of
this section,
facilities where 4-
H, National FFA
Organization, and
other youth events
are held are not
required to be
certified organic
for the
participating birds
to be sold as
organic, provided
all other organic
management practices
are.
205.241(e).................... New.............. (e)The producer of an
organic poultry
operation must
manage manure in a
manner that does not
contribute to
contamination of
crops, soil, or
water by plant
nutrients, heavy
metals, or
pathogenic organisms
and optimizes
recycling of
nutrients and must
manage outdoor
access in a manner
that does not put
soil or water
quality at risk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conjunction with the proposed amendments discussed above, AMS is
proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241, entitled ``Avian living
conditions.'' AMS chose to divide in two the existing living condition
section, one for mammalian and one for avian, to provide for more
clarity and specificity for each. The proposed avian living conditions
section would include existing provisions from the current living
conditions requirements as well as requirements recommended by the
NOSB. AMS made a similar decision when the pasture requirements were
added specifically for ruminants and not simply appended onto the
livestock feed section. The requirements in this new section would
apply to all poultry species, including but not limited to, chickens,
turkeys, geese, quail, pheasant, and any other species which are raised
for organic eggs, organic meat, or other organic agricultural product.
AMS is proposing to add Sec. 205.241(a) to require organic poultry
operations to establish and maintain living conditions that accommodate
the health and natural behaviors of the birds.
In addition, a new Sec. 205.241(a) would require organic poultry
producers to provide their birds with year-round access to the
outdoors, soil, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, direct
sunlight, clean water for drinking, materials for dust bathing, and
adequate space to escape both predators and aggressive behaviors, in a
manner that is suitable to the species, the stage of life, and the
environment. These general principles will be further clarified in
Sec. 205.241(b) and (c). New Sec. 205.241(d) describes exceptions to
the requirement for outdoor access.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(b) to specify avian
indoor space requirements. New Sec. 205.241(b)(1) would require that
indoor space allow all birds to move freely and engage in natural
behaviors. This would prohibit the use of cages or environments which
limit free movement within the indoor space. In addition, the indoor
space must allow birds to engage in natural behaviors such as dust
bathing or escape from aggressive birds.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(b)(2) to require
ventilation suitable to prevent ammonia in excessive concentrations in
the indoor space. Ammonia is a natural breakdown product of manure from
livestock which can be harmful for birds to inhale. Producers must
describe in the Organic System Plan methods and procedures which will
maintain ammonia under 10 ppm. Ammonia levels would need to be
monitored monthly to verify that ammonia concentrations remain under 10
ppm and never exceed 25 ppm. Producers would need to implement
additional ammonia mitigation procedures when ammonia levels exceed 10
ppm to ensure that ammonia levels never exceed 25 ppm in the indoor
space. Ammonia in high concentrations is harmful for birds to inhale,
and, in many cases, is a sign that the litter is too damp, which also
may cause lameness in the birds.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(b)(3) to clarify the
lighting requirements for organic poultry. Organic producers may use
artificial light to prolong the daylight up to 16 hours. No artificial
light could be used to prolong the day if natural darkness was 8 hours
or less. Artificial light must be lowered gradually to encourage hens
to move to perches or otherwise settle for the night. Producers must
design indoor spaces with access to natural light so that, on sunny
days, inspectors can read and write when the lights are turned off.
This requirement sets forth a performance standard that facilitates
inspection, provides for enough lighting to accommodate natural avian
behavior, and allows flexibility to operations in determining how to
design their facilities for compliance.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(b)(4) to describe the
types of flooring that may be used in all types of indoor poultry
houses provided for avian species. Mesh flooring would be allowed under
drinking areas to provide drainage in new Sec. 205.241(b)(4)(i). AMS
is proposing to add new Sec. 205.241(b)(4)(ii) to allow for slatted
floors as long as 30 percent of the flooring is solid with sufficient
litter so that birds may dust bathe freely without crowding. Pasture
housing is being exempted from this requirement, as birds on pasture
will have large areas of outdoor space for dust bathing. AMS is further
proposing in new Sec. 205.241(b)(4)(iii) that the litter must be
provided in all types of indoor housing and maintained in a dry manner.
Wet litter can lead to a variety of problems for birds, including
lameness and excess ammonia concentration. Litter may be topped off
when needed to maintain sufficient dryness.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(b)(5) to describe the
required openings in shelters so that the birds can easily access both
the indoor and outdoor areas. Doors or openings must be distributed
around the building. In addition, the openings must be large enough to
allow the passage of more than one bird at a time. Wide doors spread
around the building provide meaningful outdoor access to the birds.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(b)(6) to require a flat
roost area which birds may grip with their feet with a minimum of 6
inches of perch space per bird. The perch space may include the
alighting rail in front of nest boxes. In single story buildings, all
birds must be able to perch at the same time. In multi-tiered
facilities, 55 percent of the birds must be able to perch at the same
time, and the 6-inch per hen requirement still applies.

[[Page 21972]]

Perches may be either set on the ground/platform or elevated.
AMS is proposing to add new Sec. 205.241(b)(7), (b)(7)(i),
(b)(7)(ii), (b)(7)(iii), (b)(7)(iv), (b)(8), and (b)(9) to list the
required minimum avian indoor space requirements. Indoor space
requirements apply with various minimums to all methods of production,
including ones in which indoor space is provided with permanent
buildings or mobile pasture units. Indoor space is further defined in
Sec. 205.2, including pasture housing, aviary housing, floor little
housing and slatted/mesh floor housing. In 2011, the NOSB recommended a
minimum of 2.0 square feet per hen based on the outside perimeter of
the indoor housing structure and in which all types of indoor housing
would have the same space requirement. In preparation for this proposed
rule, AMS examined a number of other animal welfare certification
programs developed by scientific committees.\12\ These animal welfare
certification standards varied from a minimum of 1.0 square feet per
bird in aviaries and pasture systems to 1.8 square feet per hen with no
more than 500 hens per barn. In addition, AMS obtained comments from
various producer, certifying agent, and trade groups. Producers in
colder climates stated that maintaining a warm indoor temperature
during the winter is much more difficult with a 2.0 square foot minimum
requirement for indoor space. Producers with aviaries cited the
scientific committees' findings that aviaries provided enhanced welfare
due to birds being able to utilize vertical space to engage in natural
behaviors. Producers with slatted/mesh floors cited the reduced welfare
concerns from lameness by keeping the litter drier. To better align
with current scientific consensus, AMS is determining the space density
requirements by housing type. AMS is proposing that pasture housing
have a maximum of 4.5 pounds per square foot; aviary housing have a
maximum of 4.5 pounds per square foot; slatted/mesh floor have a
maximum of 3.75 pounds per square foot; and floor litter housing have a
maximum of 3.0 pounds per square foot. As explained below, AMS is
proposing to use pounds of laying hen per square foot to measure indoor
space per laying hen, in order to have consistent application of this
requirement for different avian species/varieties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ AMS reviewed the following animal welfare certification
programs: Certified Humane (Humane Farm Animal Care); Animal Welfare
Approved; Animal American Humane Certified (American Humane
Association); 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Program (Global Animal
Partnership); and United Egg Producers Certified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS recognizes that a wide variety of species and breeds within
species may be used to produce eggs for human consumption. Using a
minimum space per animal would be problematic if a producer of quail
eggs or emu eggs were to seek organic certification. The square feet of
space per hen metric would not be reasonable for these and other
species. Therefore, AMS is proposing to convert the minimum square feet
of space per hen to the construction of maximum pounds of laying hen
per square foot of space provided, similar to format of the NOSB-
recommended minimum space for pullets and meat-type birds. To make this
conversion, AMS determined that a majority of organic eggs are brown
eggs. AMS determined that about 60 percent of all brown eggs are
produced by the ISA Brown strain of chicken. Based on this, AMS made
the assumption a majority of the organic brown eggs were produced by
the ISA Brown strain of chicken. An average mature weight for an ISA
Brown hen is 4.5 pounds. AMS made the following calculation to convert
minimum square feet to maximum pounds per square foot:
(1 hen/2.0 square feet) * (4.5 pounds/1 hen) = 2.25 pounds per square
foot
Table 1 lists the square feet per laying hen for various housing
types and the resulting calculation of pounds of hen per square foot
allowed.

Table 1--Indoor Stocking Density--Unit Conversion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pounds of hen
Indoor housing type Square feet per square
per laying hen foot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasture................................. 1.0 4.5
Aviary.................................. 1.0 4.5
Floor Litter............................ 1.5 3.0
Pit/mesh litter......................... 1.2 3.75
All others.............................. 2.0 2.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS is requesting comments regarding the above assumptions.
Specifically, AMS requests comments on:
Are most organic eggs brown?
Are most organic laying hens from the ISA Brown strain?
Is the mature weight of an ISA Brown hen 4.5 pounds under
organic condition?
What other avian species are used for organic egg
production?
The indoor space requirement based upon maximum pounds of laying
hen per square foot of space will allow producers to vary the number of
birds in a given house depending upon the size of the bird or breed of
the bird. For example, Rhode Island Red birds are heavier than white
leghorns or ISA Browns, and thus could not be stocked as densely
(number of birds per unit area) in the same area.
AMS is proposing to use the NOSB recommendation of a maximum 3
pounds of pullet per square foot of indoor space in new Sec.
205.241(b)(8) and a maximum of 5 pounds of meat-type species (e.g.,
broilers, turkeys, geese) per square foot of indoor space in Sec.
205.241(b)(9). These are minimum standards, and organic producers may
choose to provide more indoor space than required.
AMS is proposing to add new Sec. 205.241(b)(10) and (11) to
specify indoor requirements to meet certain natural behaviors. Indoor
space, whether stationary or mobile, must have scratch areas which
allow all birds access. In addition, the indoor housing must be
sufficiently spacious to allow all birds to move freely, stand
normally, stretch their wings and engage in natural behaviors.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(c) to specify the
outdoor space requirements for avian species. Section 205.241(c)(1)
would require that the outdoor space be designed to promote and
encourage outdoor access for all birds. Producers would be required to
train birds to go outdoors from an early age. Outdoor space
requirements are not meaningful unless the birds go outside. Therefore,
producers must actively and repeatedly train their birds to access the

[[Page 21973]]

outdoors and provide sufficient enrichment so that the birds stay
outdoors. Organic producers may temporarily deny birds access to the
outdoors space, in accordance with Sec. 205.241(d).
AMS is proposing in Sec. 205.241(c)(1), in line with the NOSB
recommendation, that outdoor areas must have suitable enrichment to
entice the birds to go outside. One example of suitable enrichment
would be a minimum 50 percent vegetative cover (living vegetation or
harvested vegetation scattered in the area). Minimum vegetative cover
would provide opportunities for poultry to engage in natural foraging
behaviors. In addition, the vegetative cover would help to reduce soil
erosion and nutrient run off. Other means of providing enrichment
include, but are not limited to: Access to water for water birds; bales
of straw or hay; raised platforms; cover for protection from aerial
predators; shaded areas and trees; and loose substrate for dust
bathing.
AMS is proposing to add new Sec. 205.241(c)(3) through (5) to
specify minimum outdoor space requirements. Organic layer producers
must not exceed 2.25 pounds of hen per square foot of outdoor space
provided. Organic pullet producers must not exceed 3 pounds of pullet
per square foot of outdoor space provided. Organic broiler, turkey and
other meat-type producers must not exceed 5 pounds of bird per square
foot of outdoors space provided. AMS chose to convert the NOSB
recommended space for layers from a minimum space per hen to a maximum
weight of bird per square foot to provide greater flexibility in the
regulations for organic producers that produce organic eggs from quail,
emu, or other species using a similar calculation as shown in the
indoor space requirement section earlier. These space requirements are
the minimum allowed.
AMS is proposing to add new Sec. 205.241(c)(6) and (7) to specify
how outdoor space must be calculated. Outdoor space may not include any
area which has a solid roof that is attached to the structure which
provides indoor space. Areas under eaves and overhangs from the
stationary barn or mobile unit may not be included as part of the
outdoor space. However, the outdoor space must provide shade for the
birds. For example, a structure with a solid roof that is not attached
to a structure which provides indoor space may be included as part of
the outdoor space. Shade may also be provided by trees or other objects
in the environment.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(c)(8) to require that
the outdoor space have a minimum of 50 percent soil. The soil would
allow for the birds to engage in natural foraging and dust bathing
behaviors. In addition, the soil, if covered in vegetation, would
provide nutrition and enrichment to help draw the birds outdoors.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(d) to describe the
conditions under which organic avian livestock producers may
temporarily confine birds indoors. Each period of confinement must be
separately recorded with the reasons for the confinement, the duration
of the confinement, and the birds or flocks which were confined. AMS is
proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(d)(1) to provide an allowance for
temporary confinement in response to inclement weather. Birds may be
confined due to storms, blizzards, and other hazardous conditions. In
addition, this provision allows for birds to be confined indoors when
the temperature does not exceed 40 [deg]F. It also allows birds to be
denied access or brought inside when the daytime temperature exceeds 90
[deg]F. Producers must provide documentation for confinement due to
inclement weather, such as an actual thermometer reading on the farm or
a local weather forecast showing the daytime high would either not
exceed 40 [deg]F or that the temperature exceeded 90 [deg]F. Producers
would have to provide outdoor access during those parts of the day when
temperatures were between 40-90 [deg]F.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(d)(2) to provide an
allowance for temporary confinement indoors due to stage of life.
Broilers and other meat-type birds may be confined up through 4 weeks
of age. After the 4th week of life, broilers and other meat-type birds
must be provided with outdoor access. Pullets may be temporarily
confined indoors through 16 weeks of age. After the 16th week of life,
pullets must be provided with outdoor access. The NOSB recommended that
16 weeks of age be used before required outdoor access, so that pullets
could complete their vaccination program before exposure to pathogens
outdoors.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(d)(3) to provide an
allowance for temporary indoor confinement under conditions in which
the health, safety, or well-being of the birds could be jeopardized.
Permanently restricting birds to the indoors is not allowed. In
addition, confinement due to potential outbreaks is not allowed. A
documented case of the disease in the region or migratory pathway must
be present before a temporary confinement may begin.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(d)(4) to provide an
allowance for indoor confinement to prevent risk to soil or water
quality. This allowance is for temporary confinement after major rain
events in which the soil may be excessively soft so that the birds
could create a soil or water run off risk.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(d)(5) to provide an
allowance for indoor confinement for preventive health care procedures
or for the treatment of illness or injury. Neither life stages nor egg
laying are considered an illness for confinement purposes. This
provision would allow for producers to briefly confine a flock to
administer vaccinations or to confine an individual animal that
required medical treatment. This provision would also allow for an
injured or sick animal to be confined indoors until the animal regained
health.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(d)(6) to provide an
allowance for indoor confinement for sorting, shipping, and poultry
sales. However, the birds must be managed organically during the entire
time of confinement. Confinement must be no longer than necessary to
sort the birds or to catch the birds, place them in shipping
containers, and conduct the sale.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(d)(7) to provide an
allowance for indoor confinement to train pullets to use the nest box.
However, this training period may only be a maximum of 2 weeks and must
not be any longer than necessary to teach the birds the proper
behavior.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(d)(8) to provide an
allowance for indoor confinement for youth exhibitions, such as with 4-
H or the National FFA Organization. This new provision also includes an
exemption to the Sec. 205.239(b)(6) requirement that a livestock sales
facility being certified as an organic operation. As an example, if a
youth exhibition and sale is held at a livestock sales facility which
is not certified organic, a youth may sell birds there as organic,
provided all other requirements for the organic management are met.
Otherwise, non-certified sales facilities, such as auction barns, may
not sell or represent livestock as organic. AMS is adding this
exemption to encourage the next generation of organic producers.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.241(e) to require organic
poultry producers to manage manure in a manner that does not contribute
to contamination of crops, soil, or water quality by plant nutrients,
heavy metals, or pathogenic organisms. Organic poultry producers must
manage the

[[Page 21974]]

outdoor space in a manner that does not put soil or water quality at
risk. In addition, organic poultry producers must comply with all other
governmental agency requirements for environmental quality.

E. Transport and Slaughter

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
205.242........................... .......................... New.................. Transportation and
Slaughter.
205.242(a)........................ .......................... New.................. (a) Transportation.
205.242(a)(1)..................... .......................... New.................. (1) Certified organic
livestock must be
clearly identified as
organic and transported
in pens within the
livestock trailer
clearly labeled for
organic use and be
contained in those pens
for the duration of the
trip.
205.242(a)(2)..................... .......................... New.................. (2) All livestock must be
fit for transport to
auction or slaughter
facilities.
205.242(a)(2)(i).................. .......................... New.................. (i) Calves must have a
dry navel cord and be
able to stand and walk
without human
assistance.
205.242(a)(2)(i).................. .......................... New.................. (ii) Sick, injured, weak,
disabled, blind, and
lame animals must not be
transported for sale or
slaughter. Such animals
may be medically treated
or euthanized.
205.242(a)(3)..................... .......................... New.................. (3) Adequate and season-
appropriate ventilation
is required for all
livestock trailers,
shipping containers and
any other mode of
transportation used to
protect animals against
cold and heat stresses.
205.242(a)(4)..................... .......................... New.................. (4) Bedding must be
provided on trailer
floors and in holding
pens as needed to keep
livestock clean, dry,
and comfortable during
transportation and prior
to slaughter. Poultry
crates are exempt from
the bedding requirement.
When roughages are used
for bedding they must
have been organically
produced and handled by
certified organic
operations.
205.242(a)(5)..................... .......................... New.................. (5) Arrangements for
water and organic feed
must be made if
transport time,
including all time on
the mode of
transportation, exceeds
twelve hours.
205.242(a)(5)(i).................. .......................... New.................. (i) The producer or
handler of an organic
livestock operation must
transport livestock in
compliance with the
Federal Twenty-Eight
Hour Law (49 U.S.C.
80502) and the
regulations at 9 CFR
89.1-89.5.
205.242(a)(5)(ii)................. .......................... New.................. The producer or handler
of an organic livestock
operation must provide
all non-compliant
records and subsequent
corrective action
related to livestock
transport during the
annual inspection.
205.242(a)(6)..................... .......................... New.................. (6) Organic producers
must have in place
emergency plans adequate
to address possible
animal welfare problems
that might occur during
transport.
205.242(b)........................ .......................... New.................. Mammalian Slaughter.
205.242(b)(1)..................... .......................... New.................. Producers and handlers
who slaughter organic
livestock must be in
compliance with the
Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 603(b)
and 21 U.S.C. 610(b) and
the regulations at 9 CFR
part 313 regarding
humane handling and
slaughter of livestock.
205.242(b)(2)..................... .......................... New.................. Producers and handlers
who slaughter organic
exotic animals must be
in compliance with the
Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C.
1621, et seq.) and the
regulations at 9 CFR
parts 313 and 352
regarding the humane
handling and slaughter
of exotic animals.

[[Page 21975]]

205.242(b)(3)..................... .......................... New.................. Producers and handlers
who slaughter organic
livestock or exotic
animals must provide all
non-compliant records
related to humane
handling and slaughter
issued by the
controlling national,
federal, or state
authority and all
records of subsequent
corrective actions
during the annual
organic inspection.
205.242(c)........................ .......................... New.................. (c) Avian Slaughter.
205.242(c)(1)..................... .......................... New.................. (1) Producers and
handlers who slaughter
organic poultry must be
in compliance with the
Poultry Products
Inspection Act
requirements (21 U.S.C.
453(g)(5) and the
regulations at 9 CFR
381.1(b)(v), 381.90, and
381.65(b)).
205.242(c)(2)..................... .......................... New.................. (2) Producers and
handlers who slaughter
organic poultry must
provide all non-
compliant records
related to the use of
good manufacturing
practices in connection
with slaughter issued by
the controlling
national, federal, or
state authority and all
records of subsequent
corrective actions
during the annual
organic inspection.
205.242(c)(3)..................... .......................... New.................. (3) Producers and
handlers who slaughter
organic poultry, but are
exempt from or not
covered by the
requirements of the
Poultry Products
Inspection Act , must
ensure that:
205.242(c)(3)(i).................. .......................... New.................. (i) No lame birds may be
shackled, hung, or
carried by their legs;
205.242(c)(3)(ii)................. .......................... New.................. (2) All birds shackled on
a chain or automated
system must be stunned
prior to exsanguination;
and
205.242(c)(3)(iii)................ .......................... New.................. (3) All birds must be
irreversibly insensible
prior to being placed in
the scalding tank.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the OFPA at 7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(2), ``Health Care,'' the NOSB
may make recommendations ``for the care of livestock to ensure that
such livestock is organically produced.'' As stated above, in December
2011, the NOSB passed a recommendation to add standards for
transportation of livestock to slaughter facilities and the slaughter
process. AMS is proposing regulations, in a new Sec. 205.242 for
Transportation and Slaughter, in response to this recommendation. This
proposed section would require producers and handlers of livestock to
maintain organic integrity and provide for animal welfare during
transportation. Further, the proposed section would clarify the
requirements for slaughter of livestock by certified operations. These
requirements would include performance standards regarding the
transportation of livestock, including a requirement that operations
comply with the Twenty-Eight Hour Law and its implementing regulations
as a condition of organic certification. These requirements also would
establish as a condition of organic certification compliance with the
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and Poultry Products Inspection Act
requirements concerning slaughter, as well as compliance with USDA Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulatory requirements regarding
the slaughter of exotic animals under voluntary inspection.
Transportation
AMS is proposing to publish the transportation requirements in new
Sec. 205.242(a). Section 205.242(a)(1) would require that all organic
livestock be transported in a trailer/truck or in pens within the
trailer/truck that are clearly identified for organic use, and that the
animals remain within those pens for the duration of the trip.
AMS is proposing a new Sec. 205.242(a)(2) to set minimum fitness
requirements for livestock to be transported. Section 205.242(a)(2)(i)
would require that calves have a dry navel cord, and be able to stand
and walk without assistance, if they are to be transported. This
provision would apply only to transport to auction facilities or
slaughter facilities. Beef cattle and dairy cattle producers may
transport calves on the farm before the navel is dried and the calves
can walk. Section 205.242(a)(2)(ii) would prohibit transport of sick,
injured, weak, disabled, blind, and lame animals to auction or
slaughter facilities. These animals may either be given medical
treatments and cared for until they improve or euthanized.
AMS is proposing new Sec. 205.242(a)(3) and (4) to set minimum
standards for the trailer, truck, or shipping container used for
transporting organic livestock. The mode of transportation would be
required to provide seasonal-appropriate ventilation to protect against
cold or heat stress. This provision would require that air flow be
adjusted depending upon the season and temperature. In addition,
bedding would be required to be provided on trailer floors as needed to
keep livestock clean, dry and comfortable. If roughage is used as
bedding, the bedding would need to be organically produced and handled.
Use of non-organic bedding would cause loss of organic status for all
animals transported. Poultry crates would be exempted from the bedding
requirement.
Section 205.242(a)(5) would require that all livestock must be
provided with organic feed and clean water if transport time exceeds 12
hours. The 12 hour time period includes all times in which the animals
are on the trailer/truck/shipping container but not moving. In

[[Page 21976]]

cases such as poultry slaughter where requirements do not allow feed 24
hours before slaughter, producers and slaughter facilities would need
to ensure that transport time did not exceed 12 hours, as the birds
would need to be fed at that time.
AMS is proposing new Sec. 205.242(a)(5)(i) and (ii) to clarify the
authority of the NOP, certifying agents and State organic programs to
initiate compliance action if certified operations are found to have
violated the Twenty-Eight Hour Law (49 U.S.C. 80502) and its
implementing regulations at 9 CFR 89.1 through 89.5. In general, this
law provides that animals may not be confined for more than 28
consecutive hours without unloading for feeding, watering and rest. The
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) enforces this
law and has approved in-transit feed, water and rest stations.
Violators of the Twenty-Eight Hour Law are subject to civil penalties.
In the event that a certified operation receives a non-compliance or
civil penalty under the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, the certified operation
must present those records to the certifier during the annual organic
inspection.
AMS is proposing a new Sec. 205.242(a)(6) to require operations
which transport livestock to sales or slaughter to have in place
emergency plans that adequately address problems reasonably possible
during transport. Such emergency plans could include how to provide
feed and water if transport time exceeded 12 hours, if livestock
escaped during transport, or how to euthanize an animal hurt during
transport. Shipping and/or receiving operations would need to include
these plans in their OSPs.
Slaughter and the Handling of Livestock in Connection With Slaughter
AMS is proposing a new Sec. 205.242(b), regarding mammalian
slaughter, to clarify the authority of the NOP, certifying agents and
State organic programs to initiate compliance action if certified
operations are found to have violated FSIS regulations governing the
humane handling of mammalian livestock in connection with slaughter
(note that AMS is separating mammalian from avian slaughter
requirements due to the differences in how mammalian and avian
livestock are handled and slaughtered). This new section, entitled
``Mammalian Slaughter,'' would govern the mammals defined as
``livestock'' or ``exotic animals'' under the FSIS regulations. Under
the FSIS regulations, ``livestock'' are cattle, sheep, swine, goat,
horse, mule, or other equine. ``Exotic animals'' are antelope, bison,
buffalo, cattalo, deer, elk, reindeer and water buffalo. These
regulations govern the handling and slaughter of the majority of
mammalian animals used for food in the United States and would apply to
all certified organic operations that slaughter these animals.
AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.242(b)(1) to require
certified organic slaughter facilities to be in full compliance with
the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 1901 et
seq.) and its implementing FSIS regulations. The HMSA requires that
humane methods be used for handling and slaughtering livestock and
defines humane methods of slaughter. In the HMSA, Congress found ``that
the use of humane methods in the slaughter of livestock prevents
needless suffering; results in safer and better working conditions for
persons engaged in the slaughtering industry; brings about improvement
of products and economies in slaughtering operations; and produces
other benefits for producers, processors, and consumers which tend to
expedite an orderly flow of livestock and livestock products in
interstate and foreign commerce.'' The HMSA is referenced in the FMIA
at 21 U.S.C. 603 and is implemented by FSIS humane handling and
slaughter regulations found at 9 CFR part 313. The FMIA provides that,
for the purposes of preventing inhumane slaughter of livestock, the
Secretary of Agriculture will assign inspectors to examine and inspect
the methods by which livestock are slaughtered and handled in
connection with slaughter in slaughtering establishments subject to
inspection (21 U.S.C. 603(b)).
All establishments that slaughter livestock, which include any
certified organic operations that slaughter livestock, must meet the
humane handling and slaughter requirements the entire time they hold
livestock in connection with slaughter. FSIS provides for continuous
inspection in livestock slaughter establishments, and inspection
program personnel verify compliance with the humane handling
regulations during each shift that animals are slaughtered, or when
animals are on site, even during a processing only shift. The
regulations at 9 CFR part 313 govern the maintenance of pens, driveways
and ramps; the handling of livestock, focusing on their movement from
pens to slaughter; and the use of different stunning and slaughter
methods. Notably, FSIS inspection program personnel verify compliance
with the regulations at 9 CFR part 313 through the monitoring of many
of the same parameters proposed by the NOSB in 2011, e.g., prod use,
slips and fall, stunning effectiveness and incidents of egregious
inhumane handling.\13\ FSIS has a range of enforcement actions
available regarding violations of the humane slaughter requirements for
livestock, including noncompliance records, regulatory control actions
and suspensions of inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ FSIS Directive 6900.2, Revision 2, Humane Handling and the
Slaughter of Livestock, August 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, FSIS encourages livestock slaughter establishments to use
a systematic approach to humane handling and slaughter to best ensure
that they meet the requirements of the HMSA, FMIA, and implementing
regulations.\14\ With a systematic approach, establishments focus on
treating livestock in such a manner as to minimize excitement,
discomfort, and accidental injury the entire time they hold livestock
in connection with slaughter. Establishments may develop written animal
handling plans and share them with FSIS inspection program personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Humane Handling and Slaughter Requirements and the Merits
of a Systematic Approach To Meet Such Requirements, FSIS, 69 FR
54625, September 9, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS is proposing to add a new Sec. 205.242(b)(2) for those
certified organic facilities which slaughter exotic animals and
voluntarily request FSIS inspection. FSIS also provides, upon request,
voluntary inspection of certain exotic animal species on a fee-for-
service basis, under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946. FSIS regulates the humane handling of the slaughter of exotic
animals under the regulations at 9 CFR part 352.10, which require that
exotic animals be slaughtered and handled in connection with slaughter
in accordance with the requirements for livestock at 9 CFR part 313.
Violation of these regulations can result in a denial of service by
FSIS.
AMS is proposing to add Sec. 205.242(b)(3) to require that all
certified organic slaughter facilities provide any FSIS noncompliance
records or corrective action records relating to humane handling and
slaughter during the annual organic inspection. Not all violations of
FSIS regulations result in a suspension of FSIS inspection services. In
some cases, FSIS will issue a noncompliance record and the slaughter
facility must perform corrective actions to bring the slaughter
facility back into compliance. These records must be presented during
the annual organic inspection to verify that the slaughter facility is
in full

[[Page 21977]]

compliance and has taken all corrective actions. In addition, AMS
recognizes that in the United States some slaughter facilities are
regulated by the State for intra-state meat sales. In foreign
countries, foreign governments may be the appropriate regulatory
authority for humane slaughter inspections. In all cases, the relevant
humane slaughter noncompliance records and corrective action records
must be provided during the annual inspection.
Slaughter and the Handling of Poultry in Connection With Slaughter
AMS is proposing a new Sec. 205.242(c), regarding avian slaughter
facilities. Section 202.242(c)(1) would clarify the authority of the
NOP, certifying agents and State organic programs to initiate
compliance action if certified operations are found to have violated
the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) requirements regarding
poultry slaughter, as well as the FSIS regulations regarding the
slaughter of poultry and the use of good commercial practices in the
slaughter of poultry. Under the PPIA and the FSIS regulations, poultry
are defined as chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, guineas, ratites, and
squabs. These species constitute the majority of avian species
slaughtered for human food in the United States. However, the organic
standards for avian slaughter will apply to all species biologically
considered avian or birds. The NOSB did not directly address avian
slaughter requirements. However, AMS is proposing avian slaughter
requirements for consistency with the proposed mammalian slaughter
requirements and to better ensure the welfare of all animals
slaughtered by certified operations.
While the HMSA does not apply to poultry, under the PPIA at 21
U.S.C. 453(g)(5), a poultry product is considered adulterated if it is
in whole, or in part, the product of any poultry which has died
otherwise than by slaughter. FSIS regulations, in turn, require that
poultry be slaughtered in accordance with good commercial practices, in
a manner that will result in thorough bleeding of the poultry carcass
and will ensure that breathing has stopped before scalding (9 CFR
381.65 (b)).
In a 2005 Federal Register Notice, FSIS reminded all poultry
slaughter establishments that live poultry:

. . . must be handled in a manner that is consistent with good
commercial practices, which means they should be treated humanely.
Although there is no specific federal humane handling and slaughter
statute for poultry, under the PPIA, poultry products are more
likely to be adulterated if, among other circumstances, they are
produced from birds that have not been treated humanely, because
such birds are more likely to be bruised or to die other than by
slaughter.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter, FSIS, 70 FR
56624, September 28, 2005.

Also in this Notice, FSIS suggested that poultry slaughter
establishments consider a systematic approach to handling poultry in
connection with slaughter. FSIS defined a systematic approach as one in
which establishments focus on treating poultry in such a manner as to
minimize excitement, discomfort, and accidental injury the entire time
that live poultry is held in connection with slaughter. Although the
adoption of such an approach is voluntary, it would likely better
ensure that poultry carcasses are unadulterated.
FSIS inspection program personnel verify that poultry slaughter is
conducted in accordance with good commercial practices in the pre-scald
area of slaughter establishments, where they observe whether
establishment employees are mistreating birds or handling them in a way
that will cause death or injury or prevent thorough bleeding or result
in excessive bruising. Examples of noncompliant mistreatment could
include breaking the legs of birds to hold the birds in the shackle,
birds suffering or dying from heat exhaustion and breathing birds
entering the scalder.\16\ Also, in 2015, FSIS issued specific
instructions to inspection program personnel for recording
noncompliance with the requirement for the use of good commercial
practices in poultry slaughter.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ FSIS Directive 6100.3, Revision 1, Ante-Mortem and Post-
Mortem Poultry Inspection, April 30, 2009.
\17\ FSIS Notice 07-15, Instructions for Writing Poultry Good
Commercial Practices Noncompliance Records and Memorandum of
Interview Letters for Poultry Mistreatment, January 21, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS is proposing a new Sec. 205.242(c)(2) to require that all
certified organic slaughter facilities provide, during the annual
organic inspection, any FSIS noncompliance records and corrective
action records related to the use of good manufacturing practices in
the handling and slaughter of poultry. Not all violations of FSIS
regulations result in a suspension of inspection services. In some
cases, FSIS will issue a noncompliance record and the slaughter
facility must perform corrective actions to bring the slaughter
facility back into compliance. These records must be presented during
the annual organic inspection to verify that the slaughter facility is
in full compliance and has made all corrective actions. In addition,
AMS recognizes that in the U.S. some slaughter facilities are regulated
by the State for intra-state poultry sales. In foreign countries,
foreign governments may be the appropriate regulatory authority for
poultry slaughter inspections. In all cases, the relevant noncompliance
records and corrective action records must be presented during the
annual organic inspection.
Unlike the requirements for livestock slaughter inspection,
exemptions from poultry slaughter inspection exist for some poultry
which is going to be sold to the public. AMS is proposing handling and
slaughter standards for such poultry that is either exempt from or not
covered by the inspection requirement of the PPIA. Section
205.242(c)(3) would prohibit hanging, carrying, or shackling any lame
birds by their legs. Birds with broken legs or injured feet may suffer
needlessly if carried or hung by their legs. Such birds must either be
euthanized or made insensible before being shackled.
AMS is proposing new Sec. 205.242(c)(3)(i) through (iii) to
require that poultry slaughter operations which are either exempt or
not covered by the requirements of the PPIA meet animal welfare
standards that non-exempt slaughter operations must meet. AMS is
proposing to require that no lame birds be hung on shackles by their
feet. AMS is proposing to require that all birds that were hung or
shackled on a chain or automated slaughter system be stunned prior to
exsanguination. This requirement would not apply to small scale
producers who do not shackle the birds or use an automated system and,
instead, place the birds in killing cones before exsanguinating the
birds without stunning. AMS is proposing a new Sec. 205.242(c)(3)(iii)
to require that all birds be irreversibly insensible prior to being
placed in the scalding tank.
Requests for Comment on Proposed Slaughter Regulations
As stated above, by proposing that compliance with the FSIS
slaughter requirements for livestock and poultry be a condition of
organic certification, AMS would be establishing requirements that
govern the majority of mammalian and avian species slaughtered by
organic operations for human food in the United States. However, the
FMIA and PPIA provide for alternatives to Federal inspection of
slaughter not addressed by this proposal. Further, the import of meat
and poultry products produced by slaughter establishments in other
countries raises issues not addressed in

[[Page 21978]]

this proposal. AMS requests specific comments on these areas:
State-Inspected Slaughter Establishments
Meat and poultry establishments have the option to apply for
Federal or State inspection if they are located in states that operate
under a cooperative agreement with FSIS. State programs must enforce
requirements ``at least equal to'' those imposed under the FMIA, PPIA
and HMSA. However, product produced under state inspection can only be
sold or distributed in intra-state commerce, unless a State opts into
an additional cooperative program, the Cooperative Interstate Shipment
Program. How should AMS regulate livestock slaughter conducted at
certified operations inspected by State inspection programs?
Poultry Exemptions
The PPIA exempts from continuous inspection a number of types of
establishments that slaughter poultry based on various factors,
including volume of slaughter and the nature of operations and sales.
In some cases, these establishments would be inspected by State or
local government agencies. How should AMS regulate poultry slaughter at
certified operations exempt from FSIS inspection?
Meat and Poultry Imports
Under certain conditions, meat and poultry products may be imported
into the United States from operations in countries whose food
regulatory systems are determined by FSIS to be equivalent with its
regulatory system. Equivalence would include meeting the goals of the
humane slaughter requirements for livestock and the good commercial
practice requirements for poultry slaughter. Verification of compliance
with equivalent slaughter requirements would be performed by regulatory
authorities in the exporting countries. How should AMS regulate
livestock slaughter by certified operations in foreign countries?

F. Other Amendments Considered/Implementation

AMS describes below where we are significantly changing or omitting
provisions from the NOSB recommendations. The full NOSB recommendations
which serve as the basis for this action are available on the AMS Web
site at https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb. The
NOSB recommendations are further described in the Background section of
this notice and in the description of the proposed amendments. In a few
instances, AMS is incorporating NOSB requirements with minor
alterations. For example, AMS is proposing a maximum of two weeks for
nest box training of poultry, compared to the five weeks recommended by
the NOSB. In general, minor alterations were made to either align with
third-party animal welfare standards or reduce potential paperwork
burden.
Documentation and Lists. The NOSB recommendations included
additional recordkeeping requirements to track practices and animal
status. Examples included (1) an annual submissions of lists of all
existing and purchased animals, (2) a list of animals with health
issues and the treatment provided, and (3) a list of animals that left
the operation and why they left. AMS did not include these explicit
provisions in order to reduce duplication and minimize the paperwork
burden. Producers are already required to maintain records on practices
and procedures, and describe monitoring practices and procedures under
the current scope of the organic system plan in Sec. 205.201. In
addition, the current USDA organic regulations require certified
operations to maintain records that are adapted to the particular
business the operation is conducting and fully disclose all activities
and transactions in Sec. 205.103(b). Therefore, the documentation and
recordkeeping provisions that the NOSB recommended would already be met
under the current regulations and would be sufficient to verify
compliance with the proposed requirements.
Avian indoor space requirements. AMS considered the NOSB
recommendation that only the first level of indoor space be included as
indoor space; and that perching areas and nest boxes could not be used
in the calculation of floor space. In effect this would prohibit
aviary-style housing, where chickens occupy multi-levels within a
house, in organic poultry production. A sizeable portion of organic egg
production currently comes from operations using aviary houses. AMS is
not including that provision because the existing and proposed
requirements for shelter and indoor space will ensure that these areas
accommodate the birds' natural behavior regardless of housing type. To
ensure that birds occupying the upper levels would go outside, this
proposed rule would require that producers must train birds to go
outside, that exit areas are of sufficient size and number to
facilitate easy exit and that there are enticements in the outdoor
areas to attract birds outside. Finally, AMS understands that aviary
houses are not prohibited in other third party animal welfare
certification programs.
Livestock health care. AMS considered the NOSB recommendation to
require livestock producers to use homeopathic remedies or botanicals
before they could use appropriate, synthetic medications. AMS is not
implementing this requirement because of the potential that this could
delay the use of effective treatments for sick or injured animals. AMS
examined the scientific basis for requiring homeopathic remedies or
botanicals and found insufficient evidence that these substances would
be more effective than conventional treatments to support a blanket
requirement for use. The NOSB recommendation did not provide this
information. This does not impact an organic producer's ability to use
homeopathic remedies or botanicals on livestock as long as they do not
contain unapproved synthetics or prohibited naturals, such as,
strychnine from Nux vomica. However, if livestock are sick or injured,
organic producers must not delay use of an appropriate medical
treatment by administering an unproven remedy.
Slaughter performance standards. The NOSB recommended a series of
performance standards for slaughter facilities which would have
required extensive paperwork for the facilities. However, considering
the current shortage of organic livestock slaughter facilities, AMS is
proposing the requirements in this document with the goal of limiting
the burden on extant organic slaughter facilities. AMS regularly
receives comments from organic livestock producers about the lack of
availability of organically certified slaughter facilities. Certified
organic livestock slaughtered in a non-certified slaughter facility
cause the resulting meat to lose organic status. AMS consulted with
FSIS about the specific NOSB performance standards and determined that
most of these additional requirements would be duplicative. This
duplication would have increased the paperwork burden and cost of
inspection without increasing animal welfare. AMS was concerned that
such an increased burden with no increase in animal welfare would
further limit the availability of certified organic slaughter
facilities. Below is a table listing some of the NOSB recommended
slaughter performance standards and the corresponding FSIS regulations.

[[Page 21979]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOSB Recommendation or AMS preliminary
draft proposed regulatory text FSIS Response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammalian Slaughter
(1) Slaughter plants must have non-slip This provision is covered by 9
flooring. CFR 313.1(b)--Floors of
livestock pens, ramps, and
driveways shall be constructed
and maintained so as to
provide good footing for
livestock. Slip resistant or
waffled floor surfaces,
cleated ramps, and the use of
sand, as appropriate, during
winter months are examples of
acceptable construction and
maintenance.
(2) Gates in the live animal area must This provision is covered by 9
swing freely, latch securely, and be CFR 313.1(a)--Livestock pens,
free of sharp or otherwise injurious driveways and ramps shall be
parts. Gates are never to be slammed maintained in good repair.
on animals. They shall be free from sharp
or protruding objects which
may, in the opinion of the
inspector, cause injury or
pain to the animals.
(3) Adequate lighting must be in place This provision is covered by--9
to allow animals to be easily observed. CFR 309.1(a)--All livestock
must be examined and inspected
on day of slaughter. This
requires that lighting is
sufficient for inspectors to
easily observe the animals.
(4) Livestock slips and falls must be This provision is covered by--9
scored in all parts of the facility CFR 313.2(a)--Driving
including unloading areas, holding livestock from the unloading
areas, chutes, stun box and the ramps to the holding pens and
stunning area. No more than 1 percent from the holding pens to the
of livestock may slip and no more than stunning area shall be done
1 percent of livestock may fall at any with a minimum of excitement
of the parts of the facility. and discomfort to the animals.
Livestock shall not be forced
to move faster than a normal
walking speed.
Scoring provided for in FSIS
Directive 6910.1--Acceptable-
No falls; Acceptable with
reservations-less than 1
percent.
(5) Humane treatment procedures for This provisions is covered by--
handling immobile and fatigued animals 9 CFR 309.3(e)--Non-ambulatory
upon arrival at the slaughter plant cows are to be euthanized--).
are in place. Handlers may use sleds FSIS has proposed to require
and place livestock in the bucket, but that non-ambulatory veal
may not push them up against a wall, calves need to be euthanized.
gate, or any other object. Other livestock are addressed
in 9 CFR 313.2(d)--Disabled
livestock and other animals
unable to move.
(6) Electric prods are available if This provision is covered--9
needed for human safety or for medical CFR 313.2(b)--Electric prods,
use, i.e., in an effort to save down canvas slappers, or other
animals. Prod use must stop after implements employed to drive
three shocks interspersed with rest animals shall be used as
periods or if the animal does not little as possible in order to
attempt to rise. Prods may never be minimize excitement and
applied to sensitive parts of the injury. Any use of such
animal: eyes, nose, ears, rectum, or implements which, in the
reproductive organs. Prods may not be opinion of the inspector, is
used on animals less than twelve excessive, is prohibited.
months of age. Scoring in FSIS Directive
6910.1.
(7) Plans for euthanasia of sick This provision is covered by 9
livestock must be described. CFR 309.13--Condemned animals
Euthanasia must only be performed by are to be killed by
trained personnel. Euthanasia establishment and not taken
equipment must be properly stored at into official establishment.
slaughter plants and maintained. Lists
of all animal euthanized and the
reason for euthanasia must be
maintained.
(8) No more than 3 percent of cattle FSIS does not have a
vocalize as they move through the vocalization standard.
restrainer, stunning box and stunning Vocalization is only as
area. No more than 5 percent of hogs evidence that animal was not
squeal in the restrainer due to human properly stunned in FSIS
provocation. No more than 5 percent of Directive 6910.1.
livestock vocalize when a head holder
is used during stunning or slaughter.
No more than 1 percent of hogs
vocalize due to hot wanding.
Electrodes must not be energized
before they are in firm contact with
the animal.
(9) Conscious, sensible mammals must This provision is covered by--9
never be restrained by suspending them CFR 313.2(f)--Stunning methods
by their limbs. One hundred percent of approved in 313.30 shall be
animals are insensible prior to being effectively applied to animals
hung on the bleed rail. prior to their being shackled,
hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut.
FSIS Directive 6910.1 Stunning
efficacy must be 100 percent.
(10) One hundred percent of mammals are This provisions is covered by--
insensible prior to being hung on the 9 CFR 313.2(f)--Stunning
bleed rail. method approved in 9 CFR313.30
shall be effectively applied.
This provision is also covered
in FSIS Directive 6910.1--The
DVMS is to observe and verify
that animals are unconscious
and insensible after stunning
and throughout the process of
shackling, hoisting, cutting,
and bleeding.
(11) Ninety-five percent of cattle and This provisions is covered by--
sheep are effectively stunned with one 9 CFR 313.15(a)(3),
shot via captive bolt or gunshot. 313.16(a)(3), 313.30(a)(3)--
Ninety-nine percent of electrodes are Requires that animal be in
placed correctly when livestock are state of unconsciousness
stunned with electricity. immediately after first stun.
This provision is also covered
in FSIS Directive 6910.1--
Acceptable stunning is 100
percent. Acceptable with
reservations is effectiveness
of greater than 99 percent but
less than 100 percent.
(12) When carbon dioxide (CO2) or other This provision is covered by 9
controlled atmosphere stunning CFR 313.5.
systems, including gondolas or other
conveyances for holding a group of
animals, are used, animals must be
able to lie down or stand without
being on top of one another. When head
to tail conveyor systems are used,
this score may be omitted.
Avian Slaughter........................ Avian slaughter is addressed in
FSIS Directives 6100.3 and
6910.1. Operations meet good
commercial practices, 9 CFR
381.65(b).
(1) No lame birds may be shackled, hung This provisions is--included as
or carried by their legs. Mistreatment of poultry, which
is addressed in FSIS Directive
6100.3--establishment
employees must not mistreat
birds or handling them in a
way that will cause death or
injury or prevent thorough
bleeding or result in
excessive bruising.

[[Page 21980]]

(2) All birds shackled on a chain or This provisions is addressed in
automated system must be stunned prior FSIS Directive 6910.1
to exsanguination.
(3) All birds must be irreversibly This provisions is covered by 9
insensible prior to being placed in CFR 381.65(b)--Poultry must be
the scalding tank. slaughtered in accordance with
good commercial practices in a
manner that will result in
thorough bleeding of the
carcasses and ensure that
breathing has stopped before
scalding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation. The provisions of this proposed rule, except for
the avian outdoor space requirements in Sec. 205.241(c), would be
implemented one year after the publication date of the final rule. AMS
chose a one-year period for operations and certifying agents to become
familiar with the requirements and make modifications to their
practices, e.g., updating organic system plans, training staff.
AMS is proposing two distinct implementation timeframes for the
avian outdoor space requirements. First, three years after the
publication of the final rule any non-certified poultry house or
facility would need to comply in order to obtain certification. This
would include facilities that are not certified at the three-year mark,
but subsequently become part of a certified operation. The three-year
period would allow producers to transition the outdoor space to organic
production.
Second, all poultry houses and facilities certified prior to the
three-year mark would need to comply within five years of the
publication of the final rule. AMS is choosing a five- year compliance
period to reduce the economic burden on existing organic producers,
without unduly delaying the implementation of practices for improved
animal welfare. As explained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the
five-year period reflects the average time remaining to fully
depreciate an average barn for laying hens. Since AMS expects that the
costs associated with this rule will fall primarily on organic egg
producers, the five-year period will allow the average producer to
write off the capital costs on their tax returns.

IV. Related Documents

Documents related to this proposed rule include the Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522) and its
implementing regulations (7 CFR part 205). The NOSB deliberated and
made the recommendations described in this proposal at public meetings
announced in the following Federal Register Notices: 67 FR 19375 (April
19, 2002); 67 FR 54784 (August 26, 2002); 67 FR 62949 (October 9,
2002); and 68 FR 23277 (May 1, 2003). NOSB meetings are open to the
public and allow for public participation.
AMS published a series of past proposed rules that addressed, in
part, the organic livestock requirements at: 62 FR 65850 (December 16,
1997); 65 FR 13512 (March 13, 2000); and 71 FR 24820 (April 27, 2006).
Past final rules relevant to this topic were published at: 65 FR 80548
(December 21, 2000); and 71 FR 32803 (June 7, 2006).

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rulemaking has been designated as a ``significant
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and,
therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
Need for the Rule
AMS is proposing this rulemaking to maintain consumer confidence in
the high standards represented by the USDA organic seal. Specifically,
this action is necessary to augment the USDA organic livestock
production regulations with robust and clear provisions to fulfill a
purpose of the OFPA, to assure consumers that organically-produced
products meet a consistent and uniform standard (7 U.S.C. 6501). The
added specificity would further the process, initiated with the
enactment of OFPA, to develop detailed standards for organic livestock
products.\18\ OFPA mandates that detailed livestock regulations be
developed through notice and comment rulemaking and intends for NOSB
involvement in that process (7 U.S.C. 6508(g)). In 2010, AMS published
a final rule (75 FR 7154, February 17, 2010) clarifying the pasture and
grazing requirements for organic ruminants, which partially addressed
OFPA's objective for more detailed standards. This present rulemaking
would extend that level of detail and clarity to all organic livestock
and ensure that organic standards cover their entire lifecycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The Senate report that accompanied the OFPA legislations
set the expectation for greater specificity in the future for
organic livestock standards as the industry matured: ``More detailed
standards are enumerated for crop production than for livestock
production. This reflects the extent of knowledge and consensus on
appropriate organic crop production methods and materials. With
additional research and as more producers enter into organic
livestock production, the Committee expects that USDA, with the
assistance of the National Organic Standards Board will elaborate on
livestock criteria.'' Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and
Nutrition, Report of the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and
Nutrition to Accompany S. 2830 Together with Additional and Minority
Views, 101st Congress, S. REP. NO. 101-357, at 289 (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS issued an administrative appeal decision in 2002 that allowed
the certification of one operation that used porches as outdoor access
to protect water quality. This Decision served to address a fact-
specific enforcement issue. Some certifying agents used this appeal
decision to grant certification to poultry operations using porches to
provide outdoor access. Thereafter, certification and enforcement
actions have remained inconsistent and contributed to wide variability
in living conditions for organic poultry, as well as consumer confusion
about the significance of the organic label with regard to outdoor
access. In accordance with OFPA, this proposed action will clarify USDA
statutory and regulatory mandates and establish consistent,
transparent, and enforceable requirements. Further, it will align
regulatory language and intent to enable producers and consumers to
readily discern the required practices for organic poultry production
and to differentiate the products in the marketplace.
This proposed rule would add requirements for the production,
transport and slaughter of organic livestock. Most of these align with
current practices of organic operations (e.g., prohibiting or
restricting certain

[[Page 21981]]

physical alterations, euthanasia procedures, housing for calves and
swine). The proposed provisions were developed by the NOSB in
consideration of other animal welfare certification programs, industry
standards, input from organic producers, and input from public
comment.\19\ According to a survey by the Organic Egg Farmers of
America, 76 percent of organic egg production in the U.S. participates
in private animal welfare certification programs.\20\ Therefore, AMS
expects that many of the requirements in this proposed rule are already
implemented and will not produce significant costs. Producers may incur
some costs such as increased paperwork (see the Paperwork Reduction Act
analysis below), building additional fences, providing shade in outdoor
areas, or creating more doors in poultry houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ NOSB, December 2011. Formal Recommendation of the National
Organic Standards Board to the National Organic Program, Animal
Welfare and Stocking Rates, Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.
At the NOSB meeting in November 2010, the NOSB explained how the
recommended handling, transport and slaughter provisions aligned
with the American Meat Institute's animal handling guidelines. These
guidelines cover handling, transportation and slaughter and are
standard industry practices. The transcripts from that meeting are
available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/meetings.
\20\ Organic Egg Farmers of America (OEFA), Organic Poultry
Industry Animal Welfare Survey, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposed action includes provisions to facilitate consistent
practices regarding stocking densities and outdoor space at organic
poultry operations. The outdoor space issues are divisive and
controversial among producers and other stakeholders, and, therefore,
the scope of this analysis focuses on impacts to the organic poultry
sector. The current practices of organic poultry operations to provide
outdoor access and minimum indoor and outdoor space per bird vary
widely. This disparity causes consumer confusion about the meaning of
the USDA organic label, threatens to erode consumer confidence in the
organic label more broadly, and perpetuates unfair competition among
producers. This rule would enable AMS and certifying agents to
efficiently administer the NOP. In turn, the consistency and
transparency in certification requirements will facilitate consumer
purchasing decisions.
Consumer surveys indicate the need for more precise animal welfare
standards within the USDA organic regulations. A 2014 Consumer Reports
Organic Food Labels Survey noted that half of consumers believe that
organic chicken living space meets minimum size requirements; 68
percent believe there should be minimum size requirements. Further, 46
percent believe organic chickens went outdoors; 66 percent believe the
chickens should have gone outdoors.\21\ A second survey, designed by
the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, showed
that 63 percent of respondents believe that organic livestock have
access to pasture and fresh air throughout the day and 60 percent
believe that organic livestock have significantly more space to move
than non-organic animals.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Consumer Reports National Research Center, Organic Food
Labels Survey, March 2014. Nationally representative phone survey of
1,016 adult U.S. residents.
\22\ This phone survey was administered to 1,009 adults in
October 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of organic poultry producers also participate in
private, third-party verified animal welfare certification
programs.\23\ These certification programs vary in stringency,
particularly for outdoor access requirements. Such widespread
participation among organic poultry producers is evidence that
consumers want additional label claims to provide information about
animal welfare practices. This proposed rule would align consumer
expectations and the production practices required to make an organic
label claim regarding animal welfare for poultry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Organic Egg Farmers of America, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The broad latitude afforded by the existing USDA organic
regulations leads to wide variance in production practices within the
organic egg sector (e.g., a porch in contrast to extensive outdoor area
with diverse vegetation). These differences are not discernable to
consumers through use of the USDA organic label. Consumers are
increasingly aware of these varying outdoor production practices and
either seek specific brands of organic eggs based on information about
living conditions at individual farms, or seek animal welfare labels in
addition to the USDA organic seal.
AMS believes that many livestock and poultry producers would prefer
to use the organic label to convey information about their practices to
consumers. While sales of organic products, including eggs and poultry,
continue to increase annually, surveys designed to measure consumer
trust in the organic label reveal consumer confusion about the meaning
of the label. A report on organic food and beverage shoppers states
that one-third of the respondents indicated that the term ``organic''
has no real value or definition.\24\ The study concludes that consumers
are confused by the various marketing terms, such as ``natural,'' and
advises organic brands to convey more information to consumers. AMS
believes that in the context of organic livestock and poultry
production, particularly egg production, variations in practices result
in consumers receiving inadequate and inconsistent information about
livestock products. This is supported by the consumer survey results
described above. By establishing clear and equitable organic livestock
and poultry standards, this rule would help organic producers to more
effectively market their products. It would (1) provide for consistent
information to consumers about animal living conditions to distinguish
organic products from competing labeling terms in the market, and (2)
alleviate the need for multiple certifications and eliminate
duplicative paperwork, on-site inspections and additional costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Mintel Group Ltd., ``Organic Food and Beverage Shoppers--
US--March 2015.'' March 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2009 and 2011, the NOSB issued recommendations, as authorized by
OFPA, for additional requirements to support animal welfare. In the
process of developing these recommendations, the NOSB consulted with
and received numerous public comments from authorities in the fields of
animal welfare, consumers, livestock producers and certifying agents.
AMS developed this proposed rule in response to the NOSB
recommendations and stakeholder feedback.
This action also responds to the 2010 USDA Office of Inspector
General (OIG) audit findings of inconsistent applications of the USDA
organic regulations for outdoor access for livestock. OIG noted the
absence of regulatory provisions covering the length (i.e., hours per
day) of outdoor access and the size of the outdoor area. Among organic
poultry producers, OIG observed wide variation in the amount of outdoor
space provided. As recommended by OIG, AMS published draft guidance,
Outdoor Access for Organic Poultry, for public comment (75 FR 62693,
October 13, 2010).\25\ The draft guidance advised certifying agents to
use the 2002 and 2009 NOSB recommendations as the basis for
certification decisions regarding outdoor access for poultry. The draft
guidance informed certifying agents and producers that maintaining
poultry on soil or outdoor runs would demonstrate

[[Page 21982]]

compliance with the outdoor access requirement in Sec. 205.239.
However, after extensive comments by producers, certifying agents and
other stakeholders, including the request for rulemaking, AMS
determined to pursue rulemaking to clarify outdoor access for poultry
and did not finalize the guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The draft guidance was published on March 10, 2013 and
posted on the NOP Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baseline
This baseline focuses on the current production of organic eggs and
the market for this commodity. AMS used multiple data sources, listed
below, to describe the baseline and inform our assumptions for the cost
analysis:
2011-2014 Organic Industry Surveys, published by the
Organic Trade Association (OTA). The Nutrition Business Journal
conducts this annual survey on behalf of OTA to summarize market
information and trends within the organic industry across food and non-
food sectors.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Organic Trade Association (OTA)/Nutrition Business Journal,
2014 Organic Industry Survey. Nutrition Business Journal conducted a
survey between Jan 27, 2014 and April 5, 2014 to obtain information
for their estimates. Over 200 organic firms responded to the survey.
NBJ used secondary data from SPINS, Nielsen, and IRI to supplement
the survey and build market statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2014 Organic Survey, National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS).\27\ This survey reports acreage, production and sales
data for organic crops and livestock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ The 2014 Organic Survey is accessible at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/Organic_Survey/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2011 Organic Production Survey, National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS).\28\ This survey reports acreage, production
and sales data for organic crops and livestock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ The 2011 Organic Production Survey is accessible at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1859.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance
(NAHMS) 2013 Layers study.\29\ This study includes a section on organic
egg production in the U.S., which provides an overview of various
practices on organic layer operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ The NAHMS Poultry studies may be found at the following
link: http://1.usa.gov/1IkWw22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS also used summary information from the USDA Livestock,
Poultry and Grain Market News Service (Market News) egg and broiler
market news reports from 2010 to 2014.\30\ \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ USDA AMS LPS Market News (Market News) 2010-2014 Egg Market
News report. Available on the Market News Web site at: http://1.usa.gov/1vlDNgy.
\31\ USDA AMS LPS Market News (Market News) 2010-2014 Broiler
Market News report. Available on the Market News Web site at: http://1.usa.gov/1uHsme1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organic Egg Farmers of America (OEFA), Organic Poultry
Industry Animal Welfare Survey, 2014. OEFA independently conducted and
submitted the results of a survey of organic egg and broiler producers.
There were 157 survey responses, representing 8.33 million organic
layers (77 percent of organic production) and 12 million organic
broilers (62 percent of production). The survey was distributed to
certified organic poultry producers in July 2014.
Egg Industry Center (EIC) Survey of U.S. Organic Egg
Production. EIC independently conducted and submitted this survey which
was distributed to organic egg producers with at least 30,000 hens.
Respondents totaled 23, representing 5.07 million hens.
Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Regulations for
Living Conditions for Organic Poultry, Phase 3 Report by T. Vukina, K.
Anderson, M.K. Muth and M. Ball. This report, prepared for the NOP,
estimated the costs for implementing the NOSB recommendation on avian
living conditions. The analysis in this proposed rule essentially
updates and expands the model used by Vukina et al., to estimate
current costs and different producer response scenarios.
The Organic Egg and Poultry Market
According to the 2015 Organic Trade Association (OTA) Industry
Survey, U.S. sales of organic food, fiber, and agricultural products
totaled over $39.1 billion in 2014, up 11 percent from 2013.\32\ Sales
of organic eggs reached $514 million in 2014, an increase of 17 percent
over the previous year. This sector has experienced continued double-
digit sales growth since 2010, as shown in Table 2. In addition, the
average retail price for one dozen, organic brown eggs has climbed 16.3
percent on average, each year between 2010 and 2014. The rate of growth
may be affected by several factors, including: (1) The price gap
between organic and non-organic eggs based on the cost of organic and
non-organic feed--this may slow or increase growth depending on size of
the gap; (2) factors other than price driving consumer purchasing
decisions, e.g., concerns about production practices; (3) competition
from cage-free labels; and (4) accuracy in forecasting consumer demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ OTA, 2015 Organic Industry Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2014, poultry sales ($453 million) grew nearly 13 percent and
accounted for the greatest portion (60 percent) of the organic meat,
poultry and fish market sector. As shown in Table 2, annual sales of
organic poultry have climbed steadily since 2010, while retail prices
for organic boneless, skinless breasts have fallen.\33\ In comparison
to beef, pork, and other meat products, poultry faces fewer obstacles
to growth because feed for poultry is cheaper and time to market is
shorter.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ Retail prices for organic whole fryers per pound have
fluctuated between 2010 and 2014, peaking in 2012 and falling the
following two years.
\34\ OTA, 2010-2014 Organic Industry Surveys.

Table 2--Organic Eggs and Broilers Market--Retail Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average retail price \b\
Annual sales (dozen eggs \c\/
Subcategory Year (million $) Percent growth boneless, skinless
breast)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eggs................................. \a\ 2014 514 17 4.16.
2013 439 16.9 4.16.
2012 375 17.5 4.11.
2011 319 20.2 3.90.
2010 266 10.4 3.85.
Poultry.............................. \a\ 2014 453 12.9 7.37/lb.
2013 401 9.3 7.20/lb.
2012 367 10.8 7.38/lb.
2011 331 12.5 7.49/lb.

[[Page 21983]]

2010 294 6.3 7.54/lb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ As of September 5, 2014.
\b\ Based on supermarket advertised sale prices reported by AMS Livestock, Poultry and Seed Market News (see
footnotes 19 and 20).
\c\ Brown, Large, Grade A.

Table 3 shows the geographical distribution of organic egg and
broiler production in the U.S., based on the USDA 2014 Organic Survey.
There are an estimated 722 organic egg producers and 245 organic
broiler operations. Five states are responsible for over one-third of
organic egg production. Pennsylvania and California operations comprise
only 7.5 percent of the total number of organic poultry producers, but
produce 35 percent and 32 percent, respectively, of organic eggs.
California also has 6.5 percent of U.S. organic broiler operations,
which produce about 54 percent of organic broilers. Conversely, the
production from states which report higher numbers of broiler
operations, such as Wisconsin and Maine, is less than 1 percent of
production. Several states do not report total production volume for
broilers to protect confidentiality. Given these omissions, the data
does not provide details of nearly 50 percent of state level production
of organic broilers.

Table 3--Top States With Organic Egg and Poultry Operations Compared to Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percent of US Total Percent of US
organic egg organic egg production organic egg
operations operations (dozens) production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Eggs \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States................................... 722 .............. 166,313,847 ..............
Top 5 States \c\................................ 334 46.1 61,157,980 36.7
Wisconsin....................................... 97 13.3 7,450,488 12
Iowa............................................ 74 10.2 8,628,066 14
Maine........................................... 55 7.6 4,051,040 7
Pennsylvania.................................... 54 7.5 21,623,599 35
California...................................... 54 7.5 19,449,787 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Broilers \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percent of US Total Percent of US
organic organic production organic
broiler broiler (birds) broiler
operations operations production \e\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States................................... 245 .............. 43,255,401 ..............
Top 5 States \c\................................ 130 53 \d\ 23,319,734 53.9
Wisconsin....................................... 32 13 21,104 0
Pennsylvania.................................... 30 12.2 N/A N/A
New York........................................ 28 11.4 N/A N/A
Maine........................................... 24 9.8 23,134 0
California...................................... 16 6.5 23,275,496 53.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, ``2014 Organic Survey.''
\c\ States ranked by both number of farms and total production.
\d\ This total does not include production for Pennsylvania and New York. The 2014 Organic Survey does not
disclose the broiler production data for those states. In order to protect confidentiality, any tabulation
which identifies data reported by a respondent or allows a respondent's data to be accurately estimated is not
disclosed.
\e\ There were other states that had higher production than the states reporting in this table, but had fewer
organic broiler operations. Kentucky produced 27,685 broilers, but only had 7 organic broiler operations.
Michigan produced 13,018 broilers, but had only 6 organic broiler operations.

Alternatives Considered
AMS considered alternatives to the proposed action. Specifically,
AMS reviewed options for indoor stocking density and outdoor space
requirements for layers and implementation timeframes. For each
alternative, AMS examined how the provision aligned with the animal
welfare objectives supported by the organic community and the potential
costs and benefits to organic producers. The options are presented and
discussed below.

[[Page 21984]]

Table 4--Indoor Stocking Density Options--Laying Hens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1--Minimum of 2.0 ft\2\ per Consistent with the NOSB
layer. recommendation. This would
provide more space per bird
than private animal welfare
standards.
Option 2--Minimum of 1.8 ft\2\ per Provides increased space for
layer. birds while curtailing costs.
On par with most stringent
private third-party animal
welfare standard.
Option 3--maximum 3.0 to 4.5 lbs/ft\2\ Consistent with current
depending upon the housing system.\a\ industry practice for many
(Proposed rule) organic egg producers. Aligns
with the majority of private
third-party animal welfare
certification programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This is equivalent to 1.0-1.5 ft\2\ per bird. The reasoning and
method for converting to pounds per square foot is discussed in the
preamble section C for Avian Living Conditions.

The NOSB recommended indoor and outdoor space metrics for poultry
as a component of broad measures to enhance animal welfare practices on
organic livestock operations. Citing consumer demand for humane
treatment of livestock, the proliferation of animal welfare
certification labels, organic standards of major trading partners
(e.g., Canada, the European Union), and varying practices among organic
producers, the NOSB determined it was necessary to set maximum stocking
densities for organic poultry.\35\ The NOSB aimed to develop stringent,
comprehensive, and consistent animal welfare requirements for organic
livestock and poultry production that would meet consumer demand and
foster equitable certification decisions and fair competition among
producers, consistent with the objectives of OFPA. The costs and
benefits of the proposed alternatives are discussed in more detail in
the next section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ The European Union Organic Standards and the Canadian
Organic Regime Standards specify indoor and outdoor stocking
densities for various types of livestock, including laying hens: 6
birds/m\2\ indoors; 4 birds/m\2\ outdoors. After converting the
units for the stocking densities recommended by the NOSB, the
metrics are comparable to the EU and Canada: the NOSB would require
slightly more space per bird indoors and slightly less outdoors.
This proposed rule would adjust the indoor stocking density to allow
more birds to occupy a given unit of indoor area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indoor stocking density. AMS considered a range of indoor stocking
densities, including 2.0 ft\2\/bird or 1.8 ft\2\/bird for all layer
operations, or 1.0--1.5 ft\2\/bird depending on the housing system. The
NOSB recommended a minimum of 2.0 ft\2\ per hen indoors and explained
that the metric could be adjusted during colder months to allow
producers to increase the density to maintain heat in poultry houses.
In order to examine the difference in costs, AMS also considered
setting the indoor stocking density at 1.8 ft\2\ to parallel the most
stringent indoor stocking density of a private animal welfare
certification standard.
AMS is not pursuing the 2.0 ft\2\/bird or 1.8 ft\2\/bird options.
The estimated costs to implement a 1.8 ft\2\/bird indoor stocking
density range between $70 million to $260 million annually depending on
various producer response scenarios.\36\ \37\ AMS considered the
estimated costs associated with the alternatives for reduced stocking
densities would be unduly burdensome on individual organic egg
producers and could cause a sizeable reduction in the supply of organic
eggs. We believe that requiring 2.0 ft\2\ or 1.8 ft\2\ per bird would
adversely impact most organic egg production and likely cause
approximately 80 percent of current organic egg production to exit the
organic market. Reducing the number of layers to comply with those
stocking densities would result in lost revenue and increased marginal
operating costs from the reduced number of birds or compel producers to
incur high capital costs for building additional housing to accommodate
existing production levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ AMS evaluated the costs for 4 different producer response
scenarios: (1) All producers incur costs to maintain their current
level of production; (2) some producers maintain their current level
of production and some transition to the cage-free egg production;
(3) all producers comply with the proposed rule by maintaining their
existing facilities (and reduce the number of birds to meet the
indoor stocking density); and, (4) some producers comply by
maintaining existing facilities while other producers transition to
cage-free egg production. Producers who exit to the cage-free market
would be expected to have lower net returns, compared to organic
eggs, as discussed below in the Costs section.
\37\ These cost were projected over a 10-year period versus a
13-year period which was used for the estimated costs for the
proposed rule provided in the section below. AMS used a 10-year
period in the initial cost estimates to compare various
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS is proposing to set the indoor stocking density based on
housing systems as follows: 4.5 lbs/ft\2\ (equivalent to 1.0 ft\2\ per
bird) for pastured poultry and aviary/multi-level housing; 3.75 lbs/
ft\2\ (1.2 ft\2\ per bird) for poultry houses with slatted/mesh
flooring systems and 3.0 lbs/ft\2\ (1.5 ft\2\ per bird) for poultry
houses with floor litter. These metrics are consistent with the
standards of a common third-party animal welfare certification program.
We expect that most organic poultry producers currently meet or exceed
those levels. This proposed rule would require certain features for the
housing, including perches and flat roosts and space for dust bathing
and self-isolation. These measures, in conjunction with the stocking
density, support the natural behaviors and well-being of the birds. The
tiered indoor stocking densities will foster a consistent level of
poultry living conditions. It would also ease any disparate burden on
producers in colder climates while maintaining consistency throughout
the industry and meeting consumer expectations for organic poultry
production.
Outdoor stocking density. The USDA organic regulations require that
livestock have year-round access to the outdoors, fresh air, direct
sunlight and shade (Sec. 205.239(a)). Other than identifying
circumstances when livestock may be temporarily confined (Sec.
205.239(b)), the regulations do not provide details on the frequency or
duration of outdoor access or size of the outdoor space. Outdoor access
is integral to organic production, and consumers expect that it is
standard practice throughout the organic egg sector. Notably, outdoor
access is not mandatory for all third-party animal welfare
certification programs. AMS is proposing to set outdoor stocking
densities for poultry and to clarify whether porches are acceptable for
outdoor access.
AMS is proposing that layers must have a maximum of 2.25 pounds/
ft\2\ in the outdoor area.\38\ Under this proposed rule, outdoor areas
would need to be large enough to hold all birds simultaneously with a
maximum of 2.25 pounds/ft\2\. This is consistent with the

[[Page 21985]]

NOSB recommendation for outdoor stocking density.\39\ The NOSB selected
that minimum threshold to protect soil quality and minimize parasite
loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ As discussed above, this is approximately equivalent to 2.0
square feet per bird. AMS changed the units to pounds per square
foot so that the actual space per bird is similar across birds of
different species or breeds.
\39\ The NOSB recommended a range of 2.0 ft\2\--5.0 ft\2\ per
bird in the outdoor areas, explaining that a minimum of 5 ft\2\
would ensure the availability of vegetation to birds during the
growing season. As discussed in the paragraph below, AMS is not
adopting a vegetation requirement for the outdoor area. In addition,
we believe that a minimum 5.0 ft\2\/bird outdoor stocking density
would be untenable because of the additional land needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NOSB also stipulated that outdoor access areas be soil-based
and have at least 50 percent vegetation cover. While AMS believes that
vegetation is an important feature to encourage birds to use outdoor
areas, we are not proposing a minimum vegetation requirement, as that
may be difficult to maintain in certain locations with drier climates.
However, AMS is proposing to require enrichment of the outdoor space
which could be met with 50 percent vegetative cover. This proposed rule
would require that the outdoor area have at least 50 percent soil.
Chickens use soil for dust bathing, and this would support the NOSB's
objective to encourage birds to occupy outdoor areas. This soil
threshold would also uphold consumer expectations for outdoor access,
while providing some flexibility for operations which currently have
concrete or other surfaces in the outdoor area. AMS did not estimate
the potential cost to implement this proposed requirement due to wide
variability in the site-specific conditions. AMS does make assumptions
about whether producers have the adequate land base to accommodate the
outdoor stocking density and we have estimated the costs for obtaining
needed land as discussed below. However, even producers who have the
adequate land base may need to modify that area (e.g, install fencing)
to provide access to the soil.
AMS considered proposing minimum space requirements of 2.25 pounds/
ft\2\ to accommodate either 10 percent, 50 percent or 100 percent of
layers in a house to be outdoors at one time. AMS examined the 10 and
50 percent alternatives based upon information that only a portion of a
flock is outdoors at any given time. Under the 10 and 50 percent
scenarios, the maximum stocking density would be exceeded whenever more
than 10 percent or 50 percent of the flock is outdoors. As an example,
in the 10 percent scenarios, if 20 percent of the flock was outside,
then stocking density would be effectively reduced by 50 percent.
Requiring the outdoor space to accommodate only 10 percent of a flock
would sanction the status quo, and operations which provide the least
amount of outdoor area would be permitted to maintain those conditions.
The monetary costs of a 10 percent or 50 percent alternative would
be substantially lower than the estimated costs of the proposed rule.
As discussed below, the increased outdoor access requirements for all
birds drives the costs of the proposed rule by reducing production
volume and increasing operating expenses (land and feed). Under these
alternatives, most organic producers would not need to acquire
additional land and birds would have reduced exposure to predators and
parasites, However, selecting the lower cost alternative would
undermine the preferences of many organic egg producers and consumers;
the success of the organic label marketing program depends upon
practices which reflect the preferences of the participants and
consumers who chose organic eggs in the marketplace. Adequate outdoor
access is a core concern among organic consumers; outdoor areas that
accommodate relatively few birds would not align with consumer
expectations and would perpetuate an uneven playing field among
producers. Further, the higher density may be detrimental to soil
quality and parasite loads.
Requiring that the outdoor area accommodate half of the flock would
not adequately provide for each bird to have outdoor access with space
to express natural behaviors. This could work as a disincentive for
birds to go outside and does not support the intent of the USDA organic
regulations that livestock use outdoor areas. Further, consumers expect
all organic livestock to have access to and use outdoor space, and this
approach could have unknown, but likely negative, impacts on consumer
confidence in the organic egg sector. Given the likelihood that more
than half of a flock would use the outdoor area simultaneously and
consistently, we believe that resulting crowding in the outdoor area
from a higher stocking density would ultimately deter birds from
occupying the outdoor space. Together, the proposed stocking density
requirements and the requirements for birds to be outdoors at an early
age, including that these areas provide shade and soil access, should
encourage more than half of the flock to regularly occupy this space.
Porches as outdoor areas. AMS also considered whether porches
should count as outdoor space. In general, a porch is a screened-in
area with a solid roof overhead. AMS estimates that at least 50 percent
of organic egg production comes from operations that use porches
exclusively to provide outdoor access. The use of porches for outdoor
access on organic operations is contentious. The practice of using
porches to provide outdoor access in organic poultry operations gained
popularity following a 2002 AMS administrative appeal decision which
allowed the certification of one poultry operation planning to provide
outdoor access via porches. This appeal decision was used by some
poultry producers to justify that porches may satisfy the requirement
to provide outdoor access for poultry under the USDA organic
regulations. Organic production systems utilizing porches to provide
outdoor access have increased since that time.
In 2011, the NOSB, with the support of numerous producer and
consumer stakeholders, unanimously recommended that enclosed, covered
porches should not be considered outdoor access. Consistent with that
recommendation, this proposed rule specifically defines ``outdoors'' to
exclude porches. The stipulation that porches are not outdoor space is
consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) position.
In July 2013, FDA published draft guidance on outdoor access under the
FDA 2009 Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs
regulations.\40\ The draft guidance states that structures attached to
the poultry houses, such as porches, would be subject to testing and
sanitizing in the same way as the actual poultry house, while the
ground and other outdoor areas would not be subject to those testing
and sanitizing requirements. Notably, FDA's draft guidance states that
covered porches are part of the poultry house.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Draft Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers
Regarding the Final Rule, Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in
Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and Transportation (Layers
with Outdoor Access) http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/eggs/ucm360028.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proponents of porches state that they are essential for biosecurity
to protect poultry from predation and disease that could result from
contact with wild animals or feces. However, producers, consumers and
other stakeholders who oppose porches state that porches provide a
competitive advantage by reduced mortality to predator loss and
decreased feed conversion rates (less feed to produce a dozen eggs).
Opponents have challenged the contention that porches are essential to
biosecurity, citing other disease control methods, such as the removal
of vegetation directly outside the poultry

[[Page 21986]]

house, the use of netting over outdoor areas and placing footbaths at
the entrances to houses. Further, the outbreak of Highly Pathogenic
Avian Influenza (HPAI) that began in December 2014 in the U.S. was
detected in 211 commercial flocks, which are primarily exclusively
indoor operations. HPAI was detected in 21 backyard flocks which
generally provide ample outdoor access.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ USDA APHIS reports and data can be found at the following
site: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian-influenza-disease/!ut/p/z1/04_iUlDg4tKPAFJABpSA0fpReYllmemJJZn5eYk5-hH6kVFm8X6Gzu4GFiaGPu6uLoYGjh6Wnt4e5mYG7mam-l76UfgVFGQHKgIAz0VrTQ!!/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS agrees with FDA that porches are not outdoor space. They do not
provide contact with soil nor align with consumer expectations and NOSB
recommendations for outdoor access. Codifying the allowance of porches
as outdoor space in organic production would not address the wide
disparity in outdoor access provisions within this sector. This
disparity leads to consumer confusion about husbandry practices and
places some producers at a competitive disadvantage, and thus would not
meet the OFPA's intent to assure consumers that organically produced
products meet a consistent and uniform standard. AMS is concerned that
allowing porches as the sole area for outdoor access could erode
consumer demand for organic eggs and lead to an exodus of consumers and
producers for other labeling programs. Furthermore, allowing porches to
be considered as part of an outdoor area would not substantially
mitigate the estimated costs associated with the proposed rule. In
comparison to the land area needed for outdoor access, porches cover a
small portion, so a producer would still need to provide access to land
that extends beyond the porch area.
AMS also considered allowing awnings or overhangs which extend from
poultry houses to count as outdoor areas. However, the distinction
between an awning versus a porch could be confusing and present
enforcement challenges. Given the controversy with the use of porches,
AMS intends that the regulations clearly prohibit porches or a similar
structure from being used as outdoor space. Implementation period. AMS
also considered different implementation periods of three, five and ten
years for the outdoor access and outdoor stocking density requirements
for poultry in this proposed rule. In determining the length of an
implementation period, we considered cost mitigation and the urgency of
consumer expectations. For cost mitigation, we reviewed the
depreciation rate and timeframe for layer houses. The NAHMS 2013 Layers
study collected the age of houses on organic operations with layers:
Nearly 40 percent were nine years old or less. AMS determined that the
weighted average age of aviary houses is 7.6 years by using the
midpoint of each survey bracket (i.e., less than 5 years; 5-9 years;
10-19 years) and the percent of operations in that bracket.\42\ The
OEFA survey reported that the average depreciation rate for layer
houses among respondents was 12.5 years.\43\ The difference between the
depreciation rate (12.5 years) and average age of organic aviary layer
houses (7.6 years) is roughly 5 years. Therefore, a 5-year
implementation period would allow organic egg producers, on average, to
recover the costs of a poultry house. At that point, structural changes
necessitated by this rule would align with scheduled maintenance or new
construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ AMS understands there was 39 percent increase in the number
of organic layers between 2013 and 2015 (3.2 million additional
organic layers), the highest increase since this information was
collected starting in 2007. While we expect that additional aviary
houses may have been constructed to house the increase in the number
of layers, we did not factor that into the average age estimate. If
new organic aviary houses began operation in 2013-2015, this would
lower the average age of organic aviaries.
\43\ The OEFA survey asked, ``What is the depreciation rate (as
reported on Federal tax Schedule F forms) of your poultry houses in
years?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While we expect that organic egg producers will bear a greater cost
burden for this proposed rule, this implementation period should also
align with upgrades or new construction for broiler houses. We note
that 15 percent of broiler houses generally are 5 years old or less and
have a depreciation rate of 15 years.\44\ While organic broiler houses
are likely to be newer on average, given that the NOP was not
established until 2002, we anticipate that the majority of organic
broiler houses would be nearing the end of useful life when this rule
is implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ This reflects the percentage of broiler houses in the U.S.,
not specific to organic operations that were 15 years old or less in
2006. We applied that proportion to this analysis because the
population of broilers has grown since that time, so houses that
were older than 15 years are likely to have been upgraded or
renovated in the interim. This data was reported in MacDonald, James
M. The Economic Organization of U.S. Broiler Production. Economic
Information Bulletin No. 38. Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture, June 2008. The depreciation rate was reported in the
Organic Egg Farmers of America Survey conducted in July 2014 and
cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS also considered a three 3-year implementation period. This
timeframe would align with the 3-year period that is required to
transition land to organic production if there have been applications
of prohibited substances (Sec. 205.202(b)).\45\ We believe that three
years would not provide sufficient time for producers who need to
expand the outdoor access areas to acquire additional land and
potentially convert that land to organic production. We estimate that
45 percent of organic egg production may need additional land to meet
the outdoor access requirements. This short timeframe would impose an
unduly immediate cost burden and deter producers from exploring options
to remain in organic egg production, potentially causing a sharp
reduction in the supply of organic eggs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ Section 205.202(b) of the USDA organic regulations requires
that land from which harvested crops will be represented as organic
must have had no prohibited substances, as listed in Sec. 205.105,
applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest
of the crop. Further, organic livestock are required to have
organically produced feed (Sec. 205.237(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversely, a 10-year implementation period could erode consumer
demand for organic eggs if the organic label requirements do not keep
pace with growing consumer preferences for more stringent outdoor
living conditions. Prolonging the disparity in organic egg production
practices and the resulting consumer confusion would be detrimental to
the numerous organic egg producers who could readily comply with this
proposed rule. They would continue to operate at a competitive
disadvantage to operations which provide less outdoor access and have
greater feed efficiencies and lower mortality rates.
A 5-year implementation period would make these requirements more
feasible for a greater portion of organic egg producers while keeping
the organic label competitive in regards to animal welfare claims. We
believe the 5-year period would coincide with the timing for
retrofitting poultry houses in the majority of organic operations,
regardless of this rule.
AMS is requesting comment on the above assumption. Specifically,
AMS requests comments on:
The age of poultry houses used for organic egg production.
Consumer and Producer Responses as Drivers of Benefits and Costs
Connections between costs and benefits, on the one hand, and
potential producer and consumer responses, on the other, are set out in
the table below.

[[Page 21987]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer, producer responses Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producers change their practices Costs: Incremental cost of producing
to meet the new, more stringent to new, more stringent organic
organic standards; consumers standards, relative to existing
continue consuming organic organic standards.
agriculture products. Benefits: Incremental credence
benefits of consuming products
produced according to new, more
stringent organic standards,
relative to existing organic
standards.*
Producers discontinue (or avoid Cost savings: Incremental savings of
newly achieving) organic producing with non-organic
certification; consumers switch practices, relative to existing
from products meeting existing organic standards
organic standards to non-organic Benefits (reduced): Incremental
versions of similar products. credence benefits of consuming
products produced according to non-
organic practices, relative to
existing organic standards.*
Producers discontinue (or avoid Impacts (may be positive or
newly achieving) organic negative): Incremental production
certification; consumers switch costs, incremental credence
to dissimilar products. benefits, incremental non-credence
attributes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The price premium that consumers are willing to pay for certified
organic products correspond to benefits, as that term is used for
purposes of analysis under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, only if
organic production practices yield real improvements in areas such as
animal welfare, human health or environmental outcomes.

Benefits of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would bring specificity and clarity to the
regulations relating to animal welfare practices for organic livestock
and poultry and address the persistent requests to AMS for further
standards on living conditions for organic livestock and poultry.
Greater clarity and specificity will foster the uniform application of
the practice standards in organic production, animal transport, and
slaughter. This, in turn, will maintain consumer confidence driving
organic purchases. Organic products cannot be distinguished from non-
organic products based on appearance; consumers rely on process
verification methods, such as certification to a uniform standard, to
ensure that organic claims are true. For this reason, organic products
have been described as ``credence goods'' in the economics
literature.^{46 47} Credence goods have properties that are
difficult to detect, both before and after purchase. Organic livestock
products are an example of a ``credence good'' for which consistent
verification to a common production standard across the sector supports
continued consumer confidence. Ensuring the stability of consumer
confidence in the organic livestock sector can also protect the
confidence in the organic label generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ Caswell, Julie A. and Eliza M. Mojduszka. 1996. ``Using
Informational Labeling to Influence the Market for Quality in Food
Products.'' American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 78, No.
5: 1248-1253.
\47\ Zorn, Alexander, Christian Lippert, and Stephan Dabbert.
2009. ``Economic Concepts of Organic Certification.'' Deliverable 5
for Project CERTCOST: Economic Analysis of Certification Systems in
Organic Food and Farming. http://www.certcost.org/Lib/CERTCOST/Deliverable/D11_D5.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumers are increasingly interested in the treatment of animals
raised for food, as evidenced by the proliferation of animal welfare
certification labeling claims. This proposed rule would ensure that
organic producers are equally competitive in this market and would
alleviate the need to pursue additional certification to communicate
the use of strict animal welfare practices to consumers. The existing
animal welfare certification programs have varying requirements, even
within individual programs, creating a range of standards in the
marketplace.\48\ For example, these programs may include standards for
pastured, cage-free and free-range production. However, high
participation rates among organic livestock and poultry producers in
these third-party animal welfare certification programs indicates that
the organic label does not provide the level of information consumers
need to assess whether a specific brand meets their expectations for
animal welfare practices. We expect that private animal welfare
certification labels on organic products serve as supplementary
information that provides consumers with assurance of certain product
attributes, such as minimum space requirements, which are not
guaranteed through organic certification. Consumers who purchase these
doubly certified products would likely not be satisfied with private
animal welfare certification alone because organic certification
addresses other unique attributes they seek, e.g., animals receive only
organic feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ The Humane Farm Animal Care program has compiled a table
comparing the requirements of selected third-party animal welfare
certification programs for laying hens. This includes stocking
density and outdoor standards. The comparison table is available at:
http://certifiedhumane.org/how-we-work/fact-sheet/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishing clear practice standards for organic products which
meet or exceed most of the private animal welfare certification
requirements would foster a more efficient market for organic products.
Narrowing the range of acceptable practices within organic egg
production would bolster consumer confidence in the information
conveyed by an organic label claim on these products. As the
requirements in this proposed rule would meet or exceed most of the
private animal welfare certification standards, we expect that
producers would find organic certification sufficient and reduce
participation in other certification programs. This would streamline
the business practices of organic livestock producers by reducing
redundant and duplicative paperwork and verification processes for
organic certification and a separate animal welfare certification.
Several studies show a correlation between consumer preferences/
demand for products associated with higher animal welfare standards and
higher price premiums. We believe these studies may be applicable in
predicting consumer behavior in the organic egg market, particularly
for consumers who regularly purchase organic eggs. Sustained consumer
demand for organic eggs could mitigate some costs associated with this
rulemaking and incentivize producers to comply with this proposed rule
and remain in the organic market.
A study by Heng (2015) examined whether consumers are willing to
pay a premium for livestock products associated with improved animal
welfare.\49\ The results identified the basic living needs of hens
(including providing outdoor access) as the most important factors for
their welfare. The estimates also indicated that on average consumers
placed a higher value on animal welfare issues than on potential
environmental issues in their egg choices. In addition, the estimated
Willingness to Pay (WTP) parameters suggested that consumers were
willing to pay a premium in the range of $0.21

[[Page 21988]]

to $0.49 per dozen. Such premiums could serve as an incentive for
farmers to pursue a labeling claim that signifies improved animal
welfare practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ Yan Heng, ``Three Essays on Differentiated Products and
Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences: The Case of Table Eggs'' (Ph.D.
diss., Kansas State University, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another study by Heng et al., (2013) estimated the values of
certain attributes of eggs, including outdoor access and stocking
density.^{50 51} This study included a survey to assess general
perceptions of animal welfare. Respondents with favorable perceptions
of pro-animal welfare products rated cage-free and outdoor access as
more important factors affecting egg quality than adjusting stocking
density or not inducing molting.\52\ WTP parameters revealed that 89
percent of respondents in one cohort were willing to pay a premium of
$0.25 per dozen for eggs from hens given outdoor access; 11% of those
respondents were not willing to pay a premium for outdoor access.\53\
These findings support AMS' decision to essentially keep indoor
stocking rates consistent with current practices and focus on parity
among organic egg producers for meaningful outdoor access. We believe
that organic consumers generally have high regard for animal welfare-
friendly products. Therefore, we expect that focus on parity will
resonate positively with consumer preferences for definitive outdoor
access practices for organic layers. Further, it will be associated
with a willingness to pay a premium for more consistency and
transparency in how this practice is implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ Yan Heng, et al., (2013). Consumer Attitudes toward Farm-
Animal Welfare: The Case of Laying Hens. Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics 38(3):418-434.
\51\ The study used 2 levels for outdoor access: Access or none.
The study used three levels for stocking density: 67 square inches
per bird (United Egg Producers standards); 138 square inches
(average space needed for hens to fully stretch their wings) and 1.5
square feet (third-party animal welfare standards, e.g., Certified
Humane and Animal Welfare Approved).
\52\ Respondents were asked whether they agreed that food
products produced in an animal-friendly environment are: From
healthier and happier farm animals, healthier for humans, better
quality, better for the environment, and taste better.
\53\ Respondents in this study were provided with additional
information about potential environmental consequences of different
management practices to understand how environmental concerns could
influence consumers' valuation of layer management practices. The
additional information suggested that cage-free and outdoor access
systems could contribute to poorer air quality and use more energy
to regulate temperatures. The $0.25 premium was measured among the
group that had the environmental information. We believe this group
is more descriptive of organic consumers generally because their
purchases are driven by some awareness of production practices
underlying the organic claim. The mean premium among respondents
without that information was $0.16 for hens given outdoor access.
Because the willingness-to-pay distributions for more outdoor access
and space shifted positively with the additional information on
potential environmental impacts of different housing systems, the
study noted that consumer concerns for animal welfare issues
surmount environmental concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sumner et al., (2011) looked at the potential market impacts of
shifting egg production from caged housing to alternative noncage
systems.\54\ The authors note that the analysis could be extended to
other alternatives such as free-range and pasture-based production.
While not focusing on organic eggs, these results are illustrative of
the impacts of mandated housing changes on supply and demand for
eggs.\55\ The research concludes that farm price increases of 40
percent for eggs would likely reduce consumption by less than 10
percent. The authors note that in the U.S., egg consumption is
relatively unresponsive to price change and egg expenditures are a very
small share of the consumer budget. Based on other research, the study
surmised that consumers are willing to pay more for animal welfare-
related attributes (e.g., ample space per hen, safe outdoor access)
when they have more information about the housing systems. These
results support the expectation for consumer willingness to pay for
eggs perceived to be produced using alternative housing. We believe
that the space and outdoor access requirements in this proposed rule
would enable consumers to better differentiate the animal welfare
attributes of organic eggs and maintain demand for these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ D.A. Sumner, et al., ``Economic and Market Issues on the
Sustainability of Egg Production in the United States: Analysis of
Alternative Production Systems'' (Paper presented as part of the
Poultry Science Association Emerging Issues: Social Sustainability
of Egg Production Symposium, Denver, Colorado, July 11-15, 2010).
\55\ Specifically, this study looks at four parameters: Price
elasticity of demand; willingness to pay for price increases for
eggs produced under alternative housing systems; price elasticity of
supply; and, change in the marginal per unit cost of production due
to shifting to an alternative housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chang et al., (2010) examined prices for eggs with various labels
about production (e.g., cage-free, free-range, organic) to assess how
consumers value certain product attributes.\56\ This study noted that
price premiums for cage-free and free-range eggs are 56.7 percent and
87.5 percent higher, respectively, than conventional egg prices (the
price premium for organic over conventional was 85 percent). Free-range
eggs are distinguished from cage-free, for the purposes of this study,
by the provision of outdoor access for the laying hens in free-range
systems.\57\ This data demonstrates that consumers value living
conditions that reflect improved animal welfare for hens, even more so
when the birds are able to go outdoors. Using predicted prices, this
study further estimates what portion of the price premium can be
attributed to egg color versus production practice. The study found
that 58 percent and 64 percent of the price premium is attributed to
production practice rather than egg color for cage-free and organic
eggs, respectively. Consumers of organic eggs appear willing to pay
higher premiums for production practices than consumers of other types
of eggs. We believe these findings could be persuasive in an organic
egg producer's decision to comply with this proposed rule in order to
remain in the organic market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ Chang, Jae Bong, et al., (2010). The Price of Happy Hens: A
Hedonic Analysis of Retail Egg Prices. Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics 35(3):406-423.
\57\ The study notes that organic production requires that hens
be given outdoor access and concludes that free-range can be
synonymous with organic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, informal national surveys reveal consumer expectations
that organic eggs are produced from hens with outdoor access. A 2014
Consumer Reports Labeling Survey noted that 55 percent of consumers
believe that the organic label on meat and poultry means that the
animals went outdoors.\58\ Further, the survey measured that 72 percent
of consumers believe the organic label should mean that the animals
went outdoors. A second survey, designed by the American Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, showed that 63 percent of
respondents believe that organic livestock have access to pasture and
fresh air throughout the day and 60 percent believe that organic
livestock have significantly more space to move than non-organic
animals.\59\ This proposed rule would align consumer expectations and
the production practices required to make an organic label claim
regarding animal welfare for poultry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ Consumer Reports National Research Center, Food Labels
Survey, 2014. Nationally representative phone survey of 1,004 adult
U.S. residents.
\59\ This phone survey was administered to 1,009 adults in
October 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We expect that clear, consistent requirements for avian living
conditions can sustain consumer demand and support the growth in the
market for organic poultry products. Several articles describe a
positive association between the establishment of uniform regulation of
product labels and consumer confidence. Van Loo, et al, (2011) asserts
that uniform organic standards and certification procedures are
essential to maintain consumer trust

[[Page 21989]]

in the validity of organic labels and willingness to pay for such
products.\60\ They found that the magnitude of consumers' willingness-
to-pay for organic chicken breast depended on the type of organic
label: A 35 percent premium for general organic labeled chicken breast
versus a 104 percent premium for a chicken breast labeled as USDA
certified organic. Smith (2009), states that governmental regulatory
oversight of credence-type claims, such as ``organic,'' can facilitate
the availability of improved information on food quality, deter
irresponsible practices and provide a mechanism to prosecute
violations.\61\ Smith also observes that governmental standards can
address the market failure connected to uncertainty about product
quality and prevent consumer deception and fraud. The prevalent
participation among organic poultry producers in private animal welfare
certification programs demonstrates that the organic certification does
not provide the quality assurances that consumers expect for animal
welfare attributes. Adding specificity to the USDA organic regulations
for poultry living conditions would fill that void and add stability to
a market sector that has widely varying production characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ Van Loo, Ellen J., Caputo, Vincenzina, Nayga Jr., Rodolfo
M. (2011). Consumers' willingness to pay for organic chicken breast:
Evidence from choice experiment. Food Quality and Preference,
22(2011), 603-613.
\61\ Smith, G. (2009). ''Interaction of Public and Private
Standards in the Food Chain'', OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries
Working Papers, No. 15, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/189840535?accountid=26357.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with OMB Circular A-4, the benefits of this proposed
rule are the real improvements in attributes (e.g., animal welfare) for
organic poultry products. Several recent consumer surveys gauge
consumer understanding of the meaning of the organic label with respect
to outdoor access. These surveys show that a higher proportion of
respondents believe that organic poultry should have outdoor access
than the percent which believe that organic poultry do have outdoor
access.
To monetize the benefits, AMS is using previous research that has
measured that consumers are willing to pay between $0.21 and $0.49 per
dozen eggs for outdoor access.\62\ AMS estimates the benefits by
muliplying the low ($0.21), mid ($0.35) and high ($0.49) points of that
range by the projected number (in dozens) of organic eggs produced by
layers that are estimated to newly have outdoor access as a result of
this rule being implemented.\63\ The National Animal Health Monitoring
Survey (NAHMS) reports that 36 percent of organic egg operations
surveyed currently provide at least 2 square feet per bird (equivalent
to 2.25 lbs/ft\2\) of outdoor space and 35 percent of hens have outdoor
access via a porch system or covered area; we do not know what
percentage of total organic egg production this represents, so we
calculate benefits using a range from 35 percent at the lower bound to
64 percent (= 100%-36%) at the upper bound, and request comment on how
to refine this aspect of the analysis.\64\ AMS estimates that the
annual benefits would thus range between $14.7 million to $62.6 million
annually with a mean value of $34.6 million over a 13 year
period.^{65 66} The estimated benefits would not begin to
accrue until the rule is fully implemented beginning in year 6 (the
proposed implementation period is 5 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ Some quantity of organic egg production is diverted to
processed foods. Applying the outdoor access price premium for
table/shell eggs--which is captured in Table 2--to organic eggs used
in processed foods introduces some uncertainty into the benefits
analysis; therefore, we request comment on consumers' willingness-
to-pay for outdoor access for hens laying eggs used in organic
processed foods.
\63\ AMS projects that the number of organic eggs produced when
this rule is fully implemented will be 324,374,484 dozen. The
organic egg supply projections are discussed in the costs section
below.
\64\ For the estimated costs, we assume that 45% of organic
layers do not comply with the proposed outdoor access requirements
and will newly have outdoor access under the proposed requirements.
This is consistent with the estimated range of organic poultry
production that would newly have access to the outdoors, which is
used to calculate benefits.
\65\ The 13 year period accounts for the time needed to fully
depreciate layer houses. We use a 13 year timeframe to align with
the methodology used to calculate the costs, below. The 13-year
average includes five years of zero benefits, reflecting the five
years before compliance with the new, more stringent standard is
required, and eight years of positive benefits.
\66\ If there were a decrease in animal welfare associated with
producers switching from the baseline level (considered organic
under the current standard) to the level provided under the cage-
free standard, a necessary next step in the benefits calculation
would be subtraction of the monetized decline in welfare. However,
given AMS's understanding of management practices, the agency
believes that there would be no such decline in animal welfare
associated with switching label claims from organic to cage-free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Proposed Rule
AMS considered various alternatives for the stocking density and
outdoor space provisions for organic egg production. AMS also
considered how these producers might respond to the proposed stocking
densities and outdoor access requirements and how this would impact the
supply and demand for organic eggs. AMS did not quantify costs
associated with some of the alternatives discussed above (e.g.,
requiring the outdoor areas to accommodate a certain percent of the
flock, whether or not porches can be considered outdoor space), but we
discuss the potential impacts of different choices with respect to
those options. We do not expect the mammalian health care and living
conditions sections, transportation, or slaughter provisions to impose
additional costs, as we expect that these sections will largely codify
existing industry practices. Therefore, we do not project costs for the
implementation of those provisions. However, AMS is requesting comments
on any impacts of those proposed requirements to check that assertion.
Assumptions--Layers
To estimate the costs to comply with minimum indoor and outdoor
space requirements for organic layers, AMS made assumptions about the
current facilities and practices for organic egg production. AMS is
proposing indoor stocking requirements that align with the current
practices in organic egg production. Table 5 provides the proposed
indoor stocking rates by housing type. AMS is aware that many organic
egg producers participate in third-party animal welfare certification
programs, in particular, the Certified Humane label program.\67\ The
proposed indoor stocking rates for layers match the standards for the
Certified Humane certification program which has ample organic producer
participation across various operation sizes and housing types.
Therefore, we believe that most organic egg producers could comply with
the proposed indoor stocking rates with minor or no changes to their
current operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ The Organic Egg Farmers of America (OEFA) survey reported
that 87 percent of organic egg production is also certified to
private animal welfare standards. The survey results do not indicate
which animal welfare certification programs organic egg producers
participate in, but AMS is aware that the Certified Humane label is
a common choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Humane Farm Animal Care standards \68\ for egg laying hens
specify minimum indoor and outdoor space requirements for four types of
housing systems: Pasture-based (where birds have unlimited access to
pasture and

[[Page 21990]]

low outdoor stocking density, approximately 40 ft[hairsp]\2\ per bird);
loose-housing systems, which include floor litter and slatted/mesh
floor systems (both single-story houses) and aviaries (multi-level
platforms and perches). AMS also estimated the distribution of organic
production among the housing types as shown in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ Producers who meet the Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC)
standards, as verified through an application and inspection, may
use the Certified Humane Raised and Handled logo. Participants are
inspected and monitored by Humane Farm Animal Care. The minimum
indoor and outdoor space requirements cited here are published in
the 2014 HFAC Standards for Production of Egg Laying Hens. They are
available at: http://certifiedhumane.org/how-we-work/our-standards/.
Accessed July 7, 2015.

Table 5--U.S. Organic Layers by Housing Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline
minimum indoor Percent of
Housing system space U.S. organic
(ft[hairsp]\2\ laying flock
per bird)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasture housing......................... 1.0 10
Floor litter housing.................... 1.5 10
Slatted/mesh floor housing.............. 1.2 30
Aviary housing.......................... 1.0 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this analysis, the outdoor space is the key constraint that
drives the costs of complying with the proposed rule; we are proposing
an outdoor stocking density of a maximum of 2.25 pounds/ft\2\ for
layers. Many organic poultry producers currently provide an outdoor
stocking density of 2.25 pounds/ft\2\ for layers. For these producers
the proposed maximum outdoor stocking density will not pose additional
costs. AMS assumes that layer operations have the equivalent of two
layer house footprints of outdoor space available for each house. We
considered that the land available for outdoor access could be the
areas between and alongside of the houses and extending from the ends
of the houses. For this analysis, we assumed that pasture housing,
floor litter housing and slatted/mesh floor housing systems
collectively account for 50 percent of organic egg production and
either currently comply with the outdoor space requirements or have the
land available to comply with the proposed outdoor stocking rate
without significant changes to the number of birds or facilities. AMS
is not assuming that all of these operations currently provide outdoor
access for layers at the proposed stocking density, but that they have
the space available to do so. Therefore, these operations could incur
costs for fencing, installing more exits, and other measures to make
the area usable as outdoor space.
In addition to the above assumptions, a few producer survey results
are notable. The National Animal Health Monitoring Survey (NAHMS)
reports that 36 percent of organic egg operations surveyed provide at
least 2 square feet per bird (equivalent to 2.25 lbs/ft\2\) of outdoor
space and 35 percent of hens have outdoor access via a porch system or
covered area. We do not know what percentage of total organic egg
production this represents. The EIC survey reports that 15.5 percent of
all organic layers have at least 2.0 ft\2\ outdoors and access to soil;
the OEFA survey, reports that 59 percent of organic layers reportedly
have at least 2.0 ft\2\ outdoors.
In this analysis, AMS postulates that a producer will consider two
options in response to this proposed rule: (1) Comply with the proposed
rule and remain in the organic egg market; or (2) transition to the
cage-free egg market. Using those potential responses, AMS constructed
two scenarios to project how the organic egg sector would behave and
estimated the costs for each scenario. This section explains the
assumptions and variables used to build our estimates.
AMS constructed enterprise budgets for representative organic egg
operations by housing type (i.e., pasture housing, slatted floor/mesh,
floor litter housing, aviary housing).\69\ For each representative
operation, we identified a baseline cost structure which included
estimated fixed and variable costs to determine the cost to produce one
dozen eggs. We then made assumptions about how and if these values
would change under the proposed rule. The fixed and variable costs are
listed in Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ This analysis mirrors the cost estimation methodology used
by Vukina, et al., to prepare a cost analysis for the National
Organic Program on implementing the National Organic Standards Board
recommendations on stocking densities and outdoor access for organic
poultry. Vukina et al., developed the baseline cost structure by
interviewing organic layer and broiler producers and using existing
literature. We have used most of their assumed values for fixed and
variable costs in this analysis. The results of that analysis were
reported in the following articles: Tomislav Vukina, et al.,
``Economic effects of proposed changes in living conditions for
laying hens under the National Organic Program,'' Journal of Applied
Poultry Research 23 (1) (March 2014): 80-93. Accessed February 5,
2016. doi:10.3382/japr.2013-00834. Also, Tomislav Vukina, et al.,
``Proposed changes in living conditions for broilers under the
National Organic Program will have limited economic effects,''
Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23 (2) (June 2014): 233-243.
Accessed February 5, 2016. doi:10.3382/japr.2013-00896.

Table 6--Fixed and Variable Costs for Enterprise Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed costs:
House
Composter
Equipment--total
Cooler
Generator
Outdoor space (Veranda, land, plus fencing and cover)
Organic Certification
Insurance (0.5% of the value of the assets)
Property tax (0.8% of the value of the assets)
Variable costs:
Pullets
Feed
Wood Chips
Utilities
Labor
Process and Packaging Fee
Manure cleanout
Miscellaneous
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To complete the cost estimates for complying with the proposed
rule, AMS employed the following basic assumptions and values:
[ssquf] Simple linear (straight line) depreciation of assets with
zero salvage value.
[ssquf] Annual opportunity cost of capital of 3 percent.
[ssquf] Homogenous labor hired at $13.25 per hour.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ Labor costs were estimated using data obtained on hourly
wages for farming, fishing, and forestry occupations published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics for states with high concentrations
of organic broiler and egg production. We calculated an average
hourly wage rate using wage rates from eight states--California,
Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and
Pennsylvania--resulting in an average hourly wage rate of $13.25.
Organic certification costs were calculated as the average of
California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) and Iowa Organic
Certification Program posted fees for each organic production sales
range category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ssquf] Price variability for inputs, e.g., feed, pullets,
according to the size of the flock.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ AMS used the following estimates for birds placed per cycle
to calculate costs for the representative operation for each housing
type: Aviaries--100,000 birds; slatted/mesh floor and floor litter--
16,000 birds; pastured--15,000 or less.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 21991]]

[ssquf] Feed costs per ton of $574 ($710 for pasture operations).
[ssquf] Lay rate (eggs/hen/year) of 308 (284 for pasture
operations).
[ssquf] Feed conversion rate of 4.0 pounds per dozen.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ AMS estimates increased feed costs per bird due to
increased energy expenditure outdoors. We project the feed
conversion rate will move from the baseline 3.8 pounds per dozen to
4.0 pounds per dozen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ssquf] Operations can purchase additional land if needed.
[ssquf] Annual rental rate per acre of land of $177.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ Prices for land were constructed based on average real
estate values for farm land per acre in 2014 (National Agricultural
Statistics Service [NASS], 2014). Land prices were calculated as the
average of the published land prices in the top five states for
organic egg production. The prices for land in New York,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, and California were
averaged to obtain a land price of $5,884 per acre. The annual
rental rate was obtained by multiplying the value of land with the 3
percent interest rate, resulting in an annual rate of $177 per acre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ssquf] Building costs of $70 per hen.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ This includes poultry houses, pullet housing, processing
equipment and infrastructure improvement, but does not include costs
to construct a new feed mill. These costs are based on information
from organic egg producers for existing housing costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS assumed that the mortality rate for hens would increase to 8
percent from 5 percent if this proposed rule is finalized.\75\ The
increased mortality would chiefly be attributed to increased predation,
disease and parasites from greater outdoor access. Many organic
producers already provide outdoor access that would comply with this
proposed rule and would not see changes in mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ The National Animal Health Monitoring Survey Layers 2013,
reports that about half of organic egg producers have a 60-week
mortality of less than 4 percent. About 20 percent of organic egg
producers have a 60-week mortality of 7 percent or higher. For the
10 percent of operations (pastured) which we expect already comply
with the proposed requirements, AMS uses an estimated baseline
mortality rate of 10 percent. We do not expect that the proposed
requirements would affect that rate for these types of operations
that currently provide ample outdoor access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed changes to the avian living conditions, particularly
outdoor access, reflect the input of numerous stakeholders, including
producers and consumers, on production practices that would improve the
overall quality of life for birds. The NOSB also recognized mortality
rates as a key indicator of animal welfare and important to the
economic viability of an operation. In addition, the NOSB has discussed
specific practices to prevent and manage predation and disease in a
production environment where outdoor access is an integral part. These
include predator deterrents (electrified fencing, overhead netting),
rotation of land, well-drained soil, lower stocking density, and
selection of breeds that are suited to free range conditions.\76\ While
the tradeoff between a higher mortality rate for greater outdoor access
generally reflects the preferences of the organic community, organic
producers will be required to use practices to effectively minimize
mortality and correct excessive and preventable loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ At its September 2012 meeting, the NOSB discussed a
guidance document for assessing animal welfare of poultry. This
included a description of management practices that support animal
welfare and a target mortality rate of 3 to 5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The key factors that influence the enterprise budgets--and
magnitude of the impacts to operations--are feed conversion rates,
production volume and cost of land. Under the proposed rule, feed is
the variable cost that would shift most notably. The cost of feed would
increase due to lower feed conversion as birds expend more energy
outdoors.\77\ Lower feed conversion plus higher mortality would
ultimately reduce production volume, relative to the baseline with the
same number of birds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ In the enterprise budget, some of the variable costs
(labor, processing and packaging fee) would decline slightly under
the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to land, AMS assumes that single-story housing systems
(pasture, floor litter and slatted/mesh floor housing), have the land
area to meet the outdoor stocking density for their current production.
Aviary operations would require a larger land area for outdoor access
than other housing types because these are multi-level structures that
hold more birds than single-story poultry houses. We assume that
aviaries have an indoor space roughly three times larger than the
footprint of the barn. Therefore, aviary houses would on average
require the equivalent of six house footprints of outdoor space to meet
the minimum outdoor space requirement.\78\ Therefore, AMS assumes that
aviaries have the land base to accommodate 33 percent of current
production at the proposed outdoor stocking rates and would need to
acquire additional land. AMS calculates that an aviary operation would
need an additional 3 acres of land per 100,000 birds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ Aviaries generally have two to four levels; for this
analysis we chose the midpoint--three levels. Aviaries, while more
prevalent in larger scale egg operations, are also used for small
and mid-size egg laying operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, the marginal cost to produce one dozen eggs would
increase under the proposed rule for each type of housing system except
pasture. For floor litter and slatted/mesh floor housing, AMS estimates
the marginal costs to produce one dozen eggs would increase by 2.8%;
for aviary systems those marginal costs would increase by 3.3%. The
section below discusses how these costs to individual operations will
impact the organic egg sector.
AMS is seeking comment on the accuracy of the estimates concerning
the available land base for outdoor access and the other assumptions
made in the cost analysis. Is the two house footprints of outdoor space
per layer house a valid baseline assumption? How many aviaries, and
what proportion of organic egg production, have available outdoor space
to comply with the proposed outdoor stocking density?
Assumptions--Broilers
This proposed rule contains indoor and outdoor space requirements
specific to broiler and other meat-type avian species. Similar to
organic egg production, AMS expects that the space requirements for
broilers are the provisions that would have cost implications. This
proposed rule, consistent with the NOSB recommendation, would set a
maximum of 5.0 lbs/ft\2\ for indoor and outdoor stocking density for
broilers. According to the OEFA survey, 100 percent of responding
broiler operations participate in private, third-party animal welfare
certification. In order to estimate the potential costs to comply with
the stocking density, AMS made the following key assumptions:
AMS expects that 75 percent of organic broiler production
complies with the proposed stocking densities.\79\ We assume that 25
percent of organic broiler production meets a maximum of 6.5 lbs/ft\2\,
for the indoor stocking density. That metric is based on third-party
animal welfare certification programs which have high participation
rates among organic operations.\80\ For

[[Page 21992]]

this analysis, we use 5.37 lbs/sq ft, indoors and outdoors, to
represent the baseline stocking density for organic broilers generally.
This is the weighted average of the range of current practices based on
the assumptions described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ The OEFA survey, representing 62 percent of organic
broilers, asked organic poultry producers whether they could comply
with a 2.0 ft\2\/bird outdoor stocking density. According to the
survey, 75 percent of organic broilers production could not meet
that stocking density. However, this proposed rule would set the
stocking density at 5.0 lbs/ft\2\. Given that the average live
weight for organic chicken is 5.84 lbs, the survey effectively asked
whether broilers could comply with a 2.9 lbs/ft\2\ stocking density.
Since that is significantly more stringent than the proposed
stocking density, we expect that the percent of organic broiler
production which could comply is considerably higher. Further, in
the Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Regulations for Living
Conditions of Organic Poultry, Vukina et al., concluded that the
representative organic broiler operation provided a 4.275 lbs/ft\2\
and could meet the 5.0 lbs/ft\2\ indoor stocking density.
\80\ The 6.5 lbs/ft\2\ is the midpoint indoor stocking density
between the Humane Farm Animal Care standards for broilers (maximum
6.0 lbs/sq\2\) and the American Humane Association standards for
broilers (maximum 7.0 lbs/sq\2\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operations which can meet the proposed indoor stocking
density can also meet the outdoor stocking density. We expect that the
land area around a broiler house is equivalent to the footprint of two
broiler houses. Since broilers are not housed in multi-level aviaries
like laying hens, the outdoor space could accommodate the same number
of birds at the indoor stocking density.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ Vukina et al., also assumed for their analysis that the
representative broiler producer is in a position to buy or lease one
acre of additional land to expand outdoor access and meet the
proposed stocking density.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current, annual organic broiler production is roughly
16 million birds and the average live weight of organic broilers at
slaughter is 5.84 pounds.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ The AMS Livestock, Poultry and Grain Market News Report,
Weekly USDA Certified Organic Poultry and Eggs, is available at:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/organic-market-news-reports. AMS
Market News reported that 16 million organic broiler chickens were
slaughtered under Federal Inspection in 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An organic broiler house will have 6 production cycles per
year; each cycle is 6-8 weeks long.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ A 6 week production cycle is more common.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, we applied the same assumptions for layers,
specifically mortality rates, depreciation of assets, property tax,
labor, insurance, etc., to the cost estimates for broilers.
Cost Estimate for Organic Egg and Poultry Production
AMS assumes that in response to this proposed rule, affected
producers will make operational changes to comply with the proposed
rule and continue organic egg and poultry production. The projected net
returns shown in Table 7 support this projection; under the proposed
rule the net returns for organic eggs will exceed the net returns of
selling to the cage-free market. Table 7 shows the difference in net
returns per 100,000 dozen eggs for organic eggs under the current USDA
organic regulations and the proposed rule, and for cage-free eggs. The
net returns vary based on housing systems, i.e., aviary and single-
story houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ The net return estimates use the following data values/
sources: (1) Wholesale value of organic eggs ($2.64/dozen) and
wholesale value of cage-free eggs ($1.65/dozen). These are the
values reported to AMS Market News for Free on Board organic and
cage-free eggs in June 2015. (2) We assumed that 20% of the eggs
would go the breaker egg market priced at $1.00/dozen. This is the
price reported to AMS Market News in 2015.

Table 7--Comparison of Net Returns by Label Claim \84\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net return
Label claim Net return ($)--Single-
($)--Aviaries story houses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certified Organic--Current Baseline..... 26,482 21,190
Certified Organic (as proposed)--....... 19,779 14,109
Cage-Free............................... 7,262 949
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All values in table are per 100,000 dozen eggs.

AMS assumes that producers would maintain their current level of
production (i.e., the same number of layers) and would seek additional
land to meet the proposed outdoor stocking density. The estimated total
costs for the organic egg sector are the sum of increased operating
expenses and reduced production. AMS is calculating the costs over a
13-year timeframe. AMS believes that during this period, existing
organic layer houses would fully depreciate. AMS understands that
producers may have other assets, such as land, feedmills, equipment,
which are integral to their organic operation and will not have fully
depreciated during the 13-year period. We have tied the costs to the
house because this investment requires the most capital.
The methodology just described reflects an assumption that costs
accrue only to legacy organic producers. As example for which this
assumption seems plausible, consider a producer with a fairly new
house, located in a spot without open land; such a producer would
likely choose to switch to cage-free eggs until the time when the house
gets close to needing replacement, and then might build the new house
at a location spacious enough to allow for organic production. The
costs (i.e., consumer and producer surplus losses of cage-free relative
to organic) associated with this type of case would decrease over time.
For this reason, the lower bound cost estimates presented below decline
linearly over time, with estimates approaching zero by year 14. On the
other hand, a cost category such as increased bird loss due to
predation is an inherent aspect of conformance to the proposed higher
organic standard; it will not decline to zero at any point in the
future. The upper bound cost estimates presented below, for which
estimates (other than the upfront land expenditure of $1.1 million) are
the same from one year to the next, reflect an assumption that this
type of cost is predominant.
There are no outdoor space costs for the first five years because
layer operations would not be required to make any changes to the
outdoor space during that time period.
As discussed above, the operating expenses for most organic egg
operations will increase chiefly due to higher feed costs, because of
decreased feed efficiency, and the purchase of additional land. There
may be added costs for maintenance of outdoor areas (e.g., fencing);
however we have not quantified these costs due to wide variability in
site-specific conditions. The one-time expenditure for the purchase of
additional land is projected to be about $1.1 million for the organic
egg sector.
The reduced volume of eggs going to the market due to higher
mortality and decreased lay rate and feed conversion, all associated
with more outdoor access, will also lower net returns. In Table 8, AMS
estimated how the proposed rule would affect total egg production while
holding the layer numbers constant for each housing type.

[[Page 21993]]

Table 8--Proposed Rule Impact on Organic Egg Production by Housing Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference in total egg
Housing type production after rule
(percent decrease) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasture.................................. No change.
Floor litter............................. 1.5
Slatted/mesh floor....................... 1.5
Aviary................................... 1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ AMS estimated how the proposed rule would affect total egg
production while holding the layer numbers constant for each housing
type.

For the organic egg sector, AMS estimates that the costs of this
proposed rule will average $6 to $17 million annually. The compliance
costs that would occur in year 1 if the entire industry had to comply
(and each other year, for the upper bound estimates) is $28.2M. For the
lower bound estimates, in each year, compliance costs decline by 1/13
until they reach zero in 2014. No costs are incurred during the first 5
years due to the 5 year implementation period for outdoor space
requirements. By year six, 5/13ths of the layer barns will have been
fully depreciated based on federal tax returns. Thus, the lower bound
compliance costs incurred are reduced by 5/13ths ($10.8 million) to
exclude all compliance costs from the barns which are fully depreciated
prior to implementation of the outdoor space requirements. Lower bound
costs reported are reduced by 1/13th each additional year until costs
reported would reach $0 in year 14.
For this analysis, AMS assumes that organic broiler producers would
also maintain their current facilities and reduce the number of birds,
if needed, in order to comply with the proposed stocking densities and
remain in the organic market. In this scenario, producers would incur
some increased expenditures, linked to increased feed costs and reduced
feed efficiency, and reduced production. In addition, AMS estimates
that the organic broiler flock (16 million birds) would be reduced by 7
percent, or 1.18 million birds to comply with the proposed indoor
stocking density. Estimated costs to producers in each of the years
after compliance with the rule is required will exceed the projected
annual average. For the lower bound, AMS is reducing the actual costs
(e.g., lost revenue) from lower production by 1/13th each year
throughout the 13-year period.\85\ In summary, the total costs AMS is
reporting for organic broiler production is estimated to average
between $3.4 and $6.8 million annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\85\ It is not standard practice to categorize lost revenue as a
cost in a society-wide cost-benefit analysis. Instead, costs should
be calculated as lost producer and consumer surplus (that is, the
difference between the amount consumers would be willing to pay for
the relevant consumption units and the marginal cost of producing
those units, summed across the units that are no longer traded in
the market). We request comment that would allow for revision of the
analysis along these lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The compliance cost would be in the first year (year 1) if the
entire industry had to comply. For the lower bound, costs are reduced
by 1/13 of that cost every year until they reach zero in year 14. No
costs are incurred during the first year due to the 1 year
implementation period for indoor access requirements. By the 2nd year,
costs reported are reduced by 1/13th ($563,000) to $6.8 million because
1/13th of the barns will have fully depreciated. Costs reported are
reduced by 1/13th each additional year until costs reported would reach
$0 in year 14.
In summary, the total reported costs for the organic egg and
poultry sector are estimated to average $9.5 to $24.1 million annually.
AMS estimates that the increased operating costs and lost revenue from
decreased production volumes would result in a 3.63 percent increase in
the break-even price for one dozen organic eggs ($2.31 to $2.39 per
dozen). AMS expects that some organic egg and broiler producers may
face additional costs for building new fences, providing shade in
outdoor areas, or creating more doors in poultry houses. We have not
quantified these costs due to the wide variability in baseline
conditions and potential changes based on the suitability to site-
specific conditions.

[[Page 21994]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP16.000

Impact of Egg Operations Leaving Organic Production
Alternatively, some organic egg operations may consider leaving
organic production for the cage-free market. AMS estimates that up to
90 percent of organic aviaries may transition to cage-free egg
production due to marketing opportunities and challenges of complying
with the outdoor space requirements.\86\ Our assumptions about land
availability, described above, and the projected net returns for
organic eggs and cage-free eggs informed our prediction of how organic
producers may respond. We expect that 90 percent may overestimate that
proportion of egg production that might exit the organic market and
seek data to refine this estimate.\87\ The estimated 90 percent of

[[Page 21995]]

organic aviaries that do not have the land available would need to
reduce the number of birds to meet the proposed stocking density. That
reduced production volume would result in significant net loss and
would not be economically viable. Therefore, we project that this
production, which accounts for 45 percent of organic egg production,
would likely transition to the cage-free egg market. As shown in Table
7, these producers would be able to sell their eggs as cage-free which
has a lower cost of production but also lower premiums compared to the
organic egg market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ AMS based this assumption on a review of Organic System
Plans for organic egg operations which have more than one level of
living space and at least 16,000 hens. We set this criteria to
capture aviaries. We reviewed 62 OSPs to visually gauge whether the
land area adjacent to the houses could be sufficient to comply with
the proposed outdoor stocking density.
\87\ For clarification, ``exit'' is used in this analysis to
indicate that producers would leave the organic market but would
continue to produce eggs or poultry for the conventional market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For this analysis, we estimate the foregone profit as the
difference in net returns for cage-free and organic eggs for a 13 year
period. This accounts for the time needed to fully depreciate layer
houses. Reported profit effects are decreased by 1/13th each year. We
estimate that in aggregate producers who cannot comply with the reduced
outdoor space requirements and move to cage free production would have
reduced net revenues of $27 million in the first year that the rule is
fully implemented. However, by year six, 5/13th of these aviary layer
barns would have been fully depreciated, so none of these costs
incurred are included in this proposed rule. In year six, 5/13ths of
actual costs are removed leaving a reported cost of $16.6 million. Each
subsequent year, an additional 1/13th of the actual costs are removed
until reported profit effects reach $0 in year 14. We estimate that the
foregone profit from the transition to the cage-free egg market would
total $216 million of which AMS is reporting in this analysis $74.1
million, averaging $5.7 million over 13 years.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\88\ Total costs incurred for the egg producers who move to the
cage-free market are $216 million ($26,966,000 per year over 8
years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These profit effects encompass real costs and cost savings, such as
the savings resulting from a switch from organic feed to less expensive
conventional feed; however, the highest-magnitude aspect of the profit
effect is very likely the non-collection of the differential price
premiums for organic eggs relative to cage-free eggs. As discussed
previously, consumers pay this premium largely because they place a
value on laying hens having access to the outdoors. However, the
exiting producers have not been giving their animals sufficient access
to the outdoors, so the non-payment of these price premiums does not
correspond to changes in costs (e.g., the costs of providing outdoor
access) or benefits (e.g., the value of animal welfare) because the
outdoor access availability is the same with the cage-free production
option as it is in the baseline. As such, in the context of a society-
wide cost-benefit analysis, the price payment effect associated with a
switch to cage-free label claims--and, by extension, most of the
overall net profit effect--would be categorized as a transfer of value
from egg producers to egg consumers.
To complete the estimate for this exit scenario we assume that
organic egg producers, including the 10 percent of organic aviaries
that do not exit to the cage-free market, have the land base to meet
the proposed outdoor access requirement and will maintain organic egg
production. As described in the above scenario, these producers will
incur increased expenses for higher feed costs due to decreased feed
efficiency and maintenance of outdoor access areas (e.g., fencing). In
addition, we expect that aviaries will need additional land to comply
with the outdoor stocking density and will face increased annual rent
for land. These organic producers would also experience reduced profits
resulting from decreased lay rate and higher mortality with increased
outdoor access.
Estimated costs of complying with the proposed rule, for those
producers who do not transition to cage-free, will average $6.3 to
$21.5 million annually for 13 years. Transfers associated with the
switch to cage-free (by some, but not all, producers) average $5.7
million over that time horizon. Table 10 shows how these estimated
costs and transfers are distributed over 13 years. Note that the upper
bound costs in the laying hens column increase over time, as producers
who temporarily exited organic production in favor of cage-free expand
their production space so as to allow them to satisfy the proposed
higher organic standard and they thus incur higher costs (e.g., due to
greater predation).

[[Page 21996]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP16.001

Impact on Organic Egg Supply
AMS has also considered the impact of the proposed rule on the
organic egg supply if 90 percent of organic aviaries exit the organic
egg market. We are using the number of layers as an indicator of
organic egg supply. The number of organic layers grew 12.3 percent
annually from 2007-2015.\89\ We expect that this growth rate will not
be sustained and project that the number of organic layers will grow 2
percent

[[Page 21997]]

annually after year 2015. The 2 percent annual growth is estimated
based on the historical growth rate in the number of nonorganic layers
between 2007 to 2015.\90\ Figure 1 shows the projected growth
trajectory for each producer response scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\89\ USDA Livestock, Poultry and Grain Market News, 2015. This
is the compound annual growth rate from 2007 to 2015. The growth
from one-year to the next could have been higher or lower than the
12.3 percent average.
\90\ Ibid.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP16.002

We estimate that up to 90 percent of organic aviaries could exit to
the cage-free market. In this case, we expect that the number of layers
would drop by 43 percent relative to peak production. Peak production
would occur 5 years after publication of the final rule and the drop in
production would occur 6 years after publication when the rule must be
fully implemented. After the projected decline, AMS expects that the
organic layer population would resume growth at the 2 percent annual
rate. This is likely a conservative estimate as unmet consumer demand
for organic eggs would be an incentive for operations to enter organic
egg production and for existing organic operations to expand. Assuming
that all organic producers comply with this proposed rule and maintain
organic production, we expect that the number of organic layers will
grow 2 percent annually throughout and after the implementation period.
AMS is proposing that the final rule, except for the avian outdoor
access provisions, be implemented one year after publication. The avian
outdoor access provisions would be implemented in two phases: (1)
Operations/facilities/poultry houses which are initially certified 3
years after publication would need to comply with the outdoor stocking
density to obtain certification; (2) All operations certified before
the 3-year mark would need to comply with the proposed outdoor stocking
density 5 years after the publication of the final rule.
The increased operating expenses are projected to raise the break-
even price per dozen eggs by 3.2 percent to 3.6 percent for floor
housing systems and aviaries respectively. We use break-even price as a
proxy for wholesale price. Based on studies, cited above, evaluating
consumers' willingness-to-pay for outdoor access, we anticipate that
price increases of this magnitude would not deter consumer purchases of
organic eggs.
AMS acknowledges that achieving consistent organic practices is
critical to maintain consumer trust in the organic sector and may
necessitate that some producers leave the organic market and use
alternate labeling claims. However, we expect that updating the organic
livestock standards in response to consumer and producer preferences
will avert widespread, adverse impacts from maintaining the status quo.
Persistent consumer confusion about organic labels on eggs and other
livestock products jeopardizes consumer trust in the organic label
generally and undermines a key purpose for establishing a national
organic certification program. In addition to constraining the
performance of existing organic operations, these conditions could
discourage participation in the NOP as producers seek alternate
certification to better convey their management practices to consumers.
On the other hand, organic livestock production standards that are
relevant and responsive to consumer preferences should drive demand for
organic products and attract new entrants to the organic livestock
market. This would have positive monetary impacts for organic livestock
producers and other organic operations that produce/handle animal feed.
We have not quantified the potential broader implications for not
pursuing this action.
Impacts on Other Entities
AMS expects that the proposed handling requirements for organic
livestock, including transit and slaughter, are common industry
practice and would not substantially affect producers or handlers.
During the development and deliberation of the NOSB's animal welfare
recommendations in 2009 and 2011, there were numerous public comments.
Those comments did not inform of any substantial impacts of provisions
pertaining to mammalian livestock.
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) already
has requirements to support animal health during transit. With regard
to slaughter, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) already
requires that mammalian slaughter facilities meet

[[Page 21998]]

similar requirements as those recommended by the NOSB, per the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act within the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
Some small mammalian slaughter facilities may not currently be
inspected by FSIS; for example, those operations that sell meat intra-
state only. However, AMS understands that humane slaughter practices in
compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act are industry
standard. AMS expects that costs incurred to comply with the proposed
rule would not be a substantial barrier. Such costs could include those
related to training staff, developing record-keeping materials, making
minor facility renovations, and documenting and analyzing the
facility's compliance with the proposed rule. Therefore, AMS does not
expect that existing organic slaughter facilities would incur
substantial costs or make onerous changes to current facilities or
procedures in order to comply with the proposed rule.
AMS understands that it is possible that a subset of the existing
certified organic slaughter facilities could surrender their organic
certification as a result of this action, which could impact organic
livestock producers. However, AMS cannot predict the number of such
entities, if any, that would surrender organic certification and the
corresponding impact to organic producers. Similarly, certain
businesses currently providing livestock transport services for
certified organic producers or slaughter facilities may be unwilling to
meet and/or document compliance with the proposed livestock transit
requirements. AMS is requesting comments specifically on the proposed
regulations for slaughter.
As discussed below in the Paperwork Reduction Act section, this
proposed rule would impose additional paperwork requirements. Organic
livestock and poultry producers and handlers must develop and maintain
an organic system plan. This is a requirement for all organic
operations, and the USDA organic regulations describe what information
must be included in an organic system plan (Sec. 205.201). This
proposed rule describes the additional information (Sec. Sec. 205.238,
205.239, 205.241, and 205.242) that will need to be included in a
livestock operation's organic system plan in order to assess
compliance. AMS estimates the annual cost to compile this information
will be $400 per organic livestock producer. AMS expects that as
producers adapt to the requirements introduced by the amendments at
Sec. Sec. 205.238, 205.239, 205.241, and 205.242, the number of labor
hours per year for currently certified operators will decrease.
This proposed rule would also impose a minor burden on certifying
agents. These entities will need to become familiar with the
requirements of the proposed rule and update organic system plan forms.
AMS does not expect that this proposed rule would impose any unique
cost burdens on foreign-based livestock operations that are USDA
certified organic due to the extremely limited number of foreign
certified poultry operations. There are less than 5 producers and
handlers of USDA certified egg or chicken operations outside of the
U.S. according to the NOP's Organic Integrity database. There are less
than 70 USDA certified organic operations that have mammalian livestock
and operation outside of the U.S.; most of these are cattle operations
in Australia.
AMS did not estimate costs for impacts to third-party animal
welfare certification programs. As discussed above, we expect that
organic producers may opt to no longer participate in these
certification programs once this proposed rule is finalized. AMS
believes that these private certification programs have a participant
base that is broader than organic producers and offer a unique service
for producers who want to convey specific information about animal
welfare practices to consumers.
Conclusions
This proposed rule will maintain consumer trust in the value and
significance of the USDA organic seal, particularly on organic
livestock products. Clear and consistent standards for organic
livestock practices, especially maximum stocking density and outdoor
access for poultry, are needed and broadly anticipated by most
livestock producers, consumers, trade groups, certifying agents, and
OIG. This action completes the process, as intended by OFPA and
reiterated in the USDA organic regulations, to build more detailed
standards for organic livestock. By resolving the ambiguity about
outdoor access for poultry, this action furthers an objective of OFPA:
Consumer assurance that organically produced products meet a consistent
standard. In turn, it also provides assurance to producers that organic
certification standards reflect the expectations of the consumer base.
Augmenting the animal welfare practice standards for organic livestock
would provide a foundation for efficient and equitable compliance and
enforcement and facilitate fair competition among organic livestock
producers. AMS is providing a 5-year implementation period for the
outdoor access provisions for poultry in consideration of the average
time needed to finish depreciating the capital costs of aviary houses,
production realities and cost to producers who invested in organic
production facilities.
AMS is seeking comments on the economic impacts, both costs and
benefits, of this action on the industry. We are specifically
interested in validating the accuracy of assumptions about available
outdoor space, and more precise estimates of the number and size of egg
layer and broiler operations that may be affected by this action. The
costs and benefits are summarized in the Executive Summary and were
described in detail in this section.

B. Executive Order 12988

Executive Order 12988 instructs each executive agency to adhere to
certain requirements in the development of new and revised regulations
in order to avoid unduly burdening the court system. This proposed rule
is not intended to have a retroactive effect.
States and local jurisdictions are preempted under the OFPA from
creating programs of accreditation for private persons or State
officials who want to become certifying agents of organic farms or
handling operations. A governing State official would have to apply to
USDA to be accredited as a certifying agent, as described in section
6514(b) of the OFPA. States are also preempted under sections 6503 and
6507 of the OFPA from creating certification programs to certify
organic farms or handling operations unless the State programs have
been submitted to, and approved by, the Secretary as meeting the
requirements of the OFPA.
Pursuant to section 6507(b)(2) of the OFPA, a State organic
certification program may contain additional requirements for the
production and handling of organically produced agricultural products
that are produced in the State and for the certification of organic
farm and handling operations located within the State under certain
circumstances. Such additional requirements must: (a) Further the
purposes of the OFPA, (b) not be inconsistent with the OFPA, (c) not be
discriminatory toward agricultural commodities organically produced in
other States, and (d) not be effective until approved by the Secretary.
Pursuant to section 6519(f) of the OFPA, this proposed rule would
not alter the authority of the Secretary under the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601-624), the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(21 U.S.C. 451-

[[Page 21999]]

471), or the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056),
concerning meat, poultry, and egg products, nor any of the authorities
of the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301-399), nor the authority of the
Administrator of the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136-136(y)).
Section 6520 of the OFPA provides for the Secretary to establish an
expedited administrative appeals procedure under which persons may
appeal an action of the Secretary, the applicable governing State
official, or a certifying agent under this title that adversely affects
such person or is inconsistent with the organic certification program
established under this title. The OFPA also provides that the U.S.
District Court for the district in which a person is located has
jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decision.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires
agencies to consider the economic impact of each rule on small entities
and evaluate alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of the
rule without unduly burdening small entities or erecting barriers that
would restrict their ability to compete in the market. The purpose is
to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to the
action.
The RFA permits agencies to prepare the initial RFA in conjunction
with other analyses required by law, such as the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA). AMS notes that several requirements to complete the RFA
overlap with the RIA. For example, the RFA requires a description of
the reasons why action by the agency is being considered and an
analysis of the proposed rule's costs to small entities. The RIA
describes the need for this proposed rule, the alternatives considered
and the potential costs and benefits of this proposed rule. In order to
avoid duplication, we combine some analyses as allowed in section
605(b) of the RFA. The RIA explains that the scope of that analysis is
the impact on the organic egg sector. AMS believes that other types of
organic livestock and poultry production would not face significant
costs to comply with this proposed rule because the proposed provisions
generally codify current practices. As explained below, AMS expects
that the vast majority of organic egg producers and broiler producers
that could be impacted by this proposed rule would qualify as small
businesses. In the RIA, the discussion of alternatives and the
potential costs and benefits pertain to impacts upon all entities,
including small entities. Therefore, the scope of those analyses is
applicable to the RFA. The RIA should be referred to for more detail.
Why is AMS proposing this rule?
The Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) provides general
requirements for organic livestock production, and directs USDA to
provide more detailed provisions through rulemaking. The current USDA
organic regulations have broad and general requirements for ensuring
the welfare of certified organic livestock and poultry. Organic
livestock and poultry must be raised in a way that accommodates their
health and natural behavior and reduces stress. Specifically, organic
livestock and poultry producers must provide access to the outdoors,
shade, clean and dry bedding, shelter, space for exercise, fresh air,
clean drinking water, and direct sunlight (Sec. 205.239(a)).
Additionally, the organic regulations describe allowed and prohibited
livestock healthcare practices and specify requirements for organic
livestock living conditions (Sec. 205.239(b)). AMS began the process
of adding more specificity to the livestock provisions with the
publication of the 2010 final rule on access to pasture for ruminants.
This action would fulfill the expectations set forth in OFPA and
anticipated by the organic community for more clarity on production
practices for poultry and other livestock species.
The USDA organic regulations for livestock and poultry are general
and can apply to various production situations. However, as described
above, varying interpretations of these regulations have resulted in
different practices, particularly concerning outdoor access for
poultry. One of the main disparities in practice is the use of porches
to provide outdoor access versus an uncovered area with soil and/or
vegetation. This disparity in outdoor access has economic implications
for the operations and jeopardizes consumer confidence in the organic
label.
AMS has received formal complaints from organic poultry farmers who
provide outdoor access through pasture-based systems. These operations
have cited that they are at a competitive disadvantage compared to
operations that are providing more limited access to the outdoors.\91\
To resolve this divergence in practices, the NOSB, organic trade
groups, and consumer groups have pressed AMS to intervene and set clear
guidelines regarding outdoor access, minimum space requirements, and
other livestock and poultry provisions. With this proposed rule, AMS is
proposing more specific requirements for organic livestock and poultry,
including specific minimum indoor and outdoor space requirements for
organic poultry, and provisions for handling during transportation and
slaughter. These proposed requirements are largely based on
recommendations from the NOSB which were developed with substantive
input from stakeholders, including producers and consumers. In the RIA,
AMS explains that the outdoor access requirements for poultry are
expected to have cost impacts for organic egg and broiler producers.
Therefore, this analysis focuses on those production sectors. The other
proposed requirements for mammalian living conditions, healthcare
practices and handling during transport and slaughter would essentially
codify existing practices and are not considered in this analysis. The
scope of the analysis is also explained in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\91\ Increased outdoor access is associated with increased
mortality due to predation and decreased feed efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumers have become increasingly interested in how their food is
produced and make purchasing decisions based on the method of
production. Based on public comments received in response to the NOSB's
recommendations on animal welfare, AMS understands that consumers
expect, and are willing to pay more for, animal welfare requirements
that are more stringent than conventional products. This includes
outdoor access for organic poultry. AMS believes that the costs
incurred by producers in complying with this proposed action are
necessary to reflect consumer expectations for organic products. If
implemented, this action would, as discussed in the benefits portion of
the RIA, support consumer expectations related to practices for organic
livestock. AMS believes that the long-term economic impact of not
implementing this proposed rule could undermine the integrity of the
USDA organic seal, if there is ambiguity regarding how the USDA organic
regulations must be applied across the organic livestock and poultry
sector.
Would I be affected by the rule?
AMS has considered the economic impact of this proposed action on
small entities. Small entities include avian and mammalian livestock
producers and slaughter facilities that currently hold or are
considering certification to the USDA organic regulations, as well as

[[Page 22000]]

organic certifying agents. While the proposed action would affect all
operations involved in the production, handling, and certification of
organic livestock, AMS believes that the cost of implementing the
proposed rule will fall primarily on current and prospective organic
egg and broiler producers, including: (1) Individuals or business
entities that are considering starting a new egg or poultry operation
and that plan to seek organic certification for that operation, (2)
existing egg and broiler producers that plan to seek organic
certification for that operation, and (3) existing egg and broiler
producers that are currently certified organic under the USDA organic
regulations.
The RFA requires, with some exception, that AMS define small
businesses according to its size standards. The Small Business
Administration (SBA) sets size standards for defining small businesses
by number of employees or amount of revenues for specific industries.
These size standards vary by North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code (13 CFR part 121.201). For the RFA analysis, AMS
focused on estimating how different size organic layer and broiler
operations (small versus large) would be impacted as a result of
meeting the proposed indoor and outdoor space requirements.
AMS does not expect that the proposed rule would substantially
affect other stakeholders, including (1) operations that produce other
organic poultry, (2) operations that produce mammalian livestock, (3)
operations that handle organic livestock, and (4) organic certifying
agents. These determinations are based on a number of assumptions
described below and explained in the RIA. This analysis focused on the
impact of the proposed rule on small businesses in the United States.
What are the estimated costs for organic layer operations?
Small egg producers are listed under NAICS code 112310 (Chicken Egg
Production) as grossing less than $15,000,000 per year. AMS estimates
that out of 722 operations reporting sales of organic eggs, 4 exceed
that threshold.\92\ However, we estimate that large producers account
for 25 percent of organic egg production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\92\ The National Agricultural Statistics Service's 2014 Organic
Survey provides the number of farms reporting sales of organic eggs
and those reporting sales of organic broilers. AMS requested a
special tabulation from NASS to obtain the number of organic egg and
organic broiler operations which exceed the Small Business
Administration sales criterion for small businesses in each of these
production categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The availability of adjacent land for egg laying operations to meet
the proposed outdoor access requirements is the main determinant of
costs to implement this rule. AMS projects that organic egg and broiler
producers would be able to meet this proposed rule with only modest
costs. We assume that these producers have or can acquire adequate
outdoor space to meet the proposed outdoor stocking density. For these
producers, the increased costs are due primarily to increased
mortality, reduced feed efficiency associated with increased outdoor
access, maintenance of outdoor areas (e.g., fencing) and for broilers,
reduced number of birds to meet the indoor stocking density.\93\ The
reported cost estimates for this scenario are provided in the RIA in
Table 9. We project the reported costs would total $4.5 million for
small layer operations and $1.5 million for large layer operations. Per
operation, we estimate the total annual cost would be slightly over
$6,000 for small operations and $380,000 for large operations.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\93\ Due to increased mortality, producers may need to have more
birds to offset the losses. In addition, birds may expend more
energy with increased outdoor access requiring more feed per bird.
\94\ The per operation totals are calculated using 722 as the
total number of organic layer operations; 718 qualify as small and 4
qualify as large per the SBA size standards.

Table 11--Estimated Costs for Organic Layer Operations Based on Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Large
operations operations
(less than $15 ($15 million
million in or more in
sales) sales)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported costs annualized over 13 years $4.56 $1.52
(million)..............................
Average, 13 year annualized reported 6,350 380,000
cost per operation.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS recognizes that the reported costs exclude the majority of
compliance costs current organic layer operations will face. For
organic layers operations, the compliance costs incurred will be $21.12
million each year after implementation for small operations and $7
million each year after implementation for large operations. Each small
layer operation will incur compliance costs of $29,400 each year after
implementation and each large layer operation will incur compliance
costs of $1.76 million each year after implementation.
AMS expects that the costs to comply with the proposed outdoor
space requirements would be more burdensome for larger organic layer
producers and would increase the likelihood for these operations to
transition to a cage-free label. Since nearly all of the organic
producers qualify as small businesses, we expect that there is
considerable variation in the size of operations in this category.
These operations would require significantly more land and would be
less likely to have that area available for expansion.
As previously stated, however, producers could choose to surrender
their organic certification and move to alternate labels such as cage-
free, which would reduce both their annual profits and their annual
operating costs. AMS estimated the cost for the potential scenario in
which 90 percent of organic aviary operations transition to the cage-
free market in response to this proposed rule. Because aviary houses
hold more birds, these operations will require a larger land base to
comply with the outdoor stocking density. Therefore, we expect that any
operations would which exit the organic egg market would not qualify as
small businesses per SBA criteria. AMS estimates that if a 100,000-
dozen-egg, aviary facility transitioned from the current USDA organic
regulations to the cage-free label, the operation would, on average,
have reduced annual profits ($7,262 versus $26,482).
Organic Broiler Producers
Small chicken producers are listed under NAICS code 11230 (Broilers
and Other Meat Type Chicken Production) as grossing less than $750,000
per year. According to the NASS special

[[Page 22001]]

tabulation, AMS estimates that 27 of the 245 operations reporting sales
of organic broilers would not qualify as small businesses. AMS
estimates that the large businesses represent 25 percent of the organic
broiler market. AMS reports that the proposed indoor and outdoor space
requirements would impose average costs of $3.4 million per year.

Table 12--Estimated Costs for Organic Broiler Operations Based on Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small
operations Large
(less than operations
$750,000 in (over $750,000
annual sales) in annual
\a\ sales)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported costs annualized over 13 years. $2.53 million $845,000
Average, 13 year annualized, reported 11,600 31,300
cost per operation.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS recognizes that the reported costs exclude the majority of
compliance costs current organic broiler operations will face. For
organic broiler operations, the compliance costs incurred will be $5.5
million each year after implementation for small operations and $1.8
million each year after implementation for large operations. Each small
layer operation will incur compliance costs of $25,200 each year after
implementation and each large layer operation will incur compliance
costs of $68,000 each year after implementation.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ The per operation totals are calculated using 245 as the
total number of organic layer operations; 218 qualify as small and
27 qualify as large per the SBA size standards.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would other organic livestock producers and handlers be substantially
affected?
Based on available data, AMS does not expect that other organic
livestock producers and handlers would be substantially affected by
this proposed action. As explained in the RIA, we expect the proposed
provisions for mammalian living conditions and health care practices,
and handling and transport to slaughter, would codify existing industry
practices. These determinations are based on a series of assumptions
described below.
Organic Mammalian Livestock Producers
AMS believes the proposed clarifications for organic mammalian
livestock, including provisions related to animal treatment and
physical alternations, are common industry practice and would not have
a substantial impact on such producers. AMS previously addressed major
living condition changes for ruminant livestock in its final rule,
Access to Pasture (Livestock) (75 FR 7154, February 17, 2010).
Organic Livestock Handling Operations
Based on available information, AMS understands that, in practice,
all handling operations for organic livestock are small businesses. We
expect that the proposed handling requirements for organic livestock,
including transit and slaughter, are common industry practice and would
not substantially affect handlers. USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) already has requirements to support animal
welfare during transit. AMS understands that the proposed additional
requirements related to transit are of industry standard. Also,
operations providing transit services for organic livestock are not
required to be certified to the USDA organic standard. Therefore, while
operations providing transit services would need to comply with the
proposed transit requirements, they would not be directly subject to
additional certification requirements.
Both small livestock slaughter facilities (NAICS code 311611) and
poultry slaughter facilities (NAICS code 311615) are defined as those
grossing less than $500,000,000 per year. AMS understands that most of
the approximately 114 U.S.-based livestock slaughter facilities
certified to the USDA organic regulations are small businesses. With
regard to slaughter, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
already requires that mammalian slaughter facilities meet similar
requirements as those recommended by the NOSB, per the Humane Methods
of Slaughter Act within the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Some small
mammalian slaughter facilities may not currently be inspected by FSIS;
for example, those operations that sell meat intra-state only. However,
AMS understands that humane slaughter practices in compliance with the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act are industry standard. In addition,
some small poultry slaughter facilities which are exempt from FSIS
inspection already observe the good commercial practices that would
align with the Poultry Products Inspection Act and FSIS regulations.
AMS expects that costs incurred to comply with the proposed rule would
not be a substantial barrier. Such costs could include those related to
training staff, developing record-keeping materials, making minor
facility renovations, and documenting and analyzing the facility's
compliance with the proposed rule. Therefore, AMS does not expect that
existing organic slaughter facilities would incur substantial costs or
make onerous changes to current facilities or procedures in order to
comply with the proposed rule.
AMS understands that it is possible that a subset of the existing
certified organic slaughter facilities could surrender their organic
certification as a result of this action, which could impact organic
livestock producers. However, AMS cannot predict the number of such
entities, if any, that would surrender organic certification and the
corresponding impact to organic producers. Similarly, certain
businesses currently providing livestock transport services for
certified organic producers or slaughter facilities may be unwilling to
meet and/or document compliance with the proposed livestock transit
requirements.
What is the impact for organic certifying agents?
This proposed rule would also affect certifying agents that certify
organic livestock operations. The Small Business Administration (SBA)
defines small agricultural service firms, which includes certifying
agents, as those having annual receipts of less than $7,500,000 (North
American Industry Classification System Subsector 115--Support
Activities for Agriculture and Forestry). There are currently 79 USDA-
accredited certifying agents; based on a query of the NOP certified
organic operations database, there are approximately 41 certifying
agents who are currently involved in the certification of organic
livestock

[[Page 22002]]

operations. AMS believes that these certifying agents would meet the
criterion for a small business, though some are agencies of state
governments. While certifying agents are small entities that will be
affected by this proposed rule, we do not expect these certifying
agents to incur substantial costs as a result of this action.
Certifying agents must already comply with the current regulations,
e.g., maintaining certification records for their clients. Their
primary new responsibility under this proposal would be to determine if
organic livestock producers are meeting the requirements proposed in
this rule, including but not limited to the minimum indoor and outdoor
space requirements for organic poultry.
How would the proposed implementation period affect small businesses?
Minimum Outdoor Space Requirements
AMS understands that, based on the analysis above, both small and
large organic layer operations and broiler operations may incur costs
in order to comply with the proposed minimum indoor and outdoor space
requirements. While our analysis demonstrates that large poultry
operations would have significantly higher compliance costs than small
operations on average, we understand that small producers that are
closer to the 245,000-hen threshold or the 150,000 broiler threshold
may still incur substantial costs to comply with the proposed rule.
Therefore, AMS is seeking to reduce the economic burden to organic
producers, including small businesses, without unduly delaying the
improved animal conditions.
AMS is proposing a 5-year implementation period for the minimum
outdoor space requirements for poultry. A facility which is certified
before 3 years after publication of the final rule would have 5 years
to come into compliance. Producers and poultry houses which are not
certified prior to 3 years after publication of the final rule would
need to meet all of the requirements in order to obtain organic
certification. Such new operations and poultry houses would include:
(1) all poultry houses that first became certified organic 3 years or
more after the final rule was published; and (2) new or replacement
poultry houses operated by existing organic layer operations if such
facilities were built 3 years or more after the final rule was
published.
By providing an implementation period, both large and small
existing organic producers would have additional time to implement the
necessary changes in order to comply with the proposed rule. For
example, operations choosing to expand will need land for the outdoor
space. This new land would need to be certified organic before organic
poultry could have access to it. Since land that has been treated with
a prohibited substance in the past 3 years is not eligible for organic
certification, the implementation period would allow organic producers
to transition additional land to organic production. The 5-year
implementation is based upon our estimate that the average age of an
organic layer house is 7.6 years and has depreciated over 13 years for
tax purposes. Therefore, a 5-year implementation period would allow
organic egg producers, on average, to recover the costs of a poultry
house. While we expect that organic egg producers will bear a greater
cost burden for this proposed rule, this implementation period should
also align with upgrades to or new construction for broiler houses. We
expect that 15 percent of broiler houses generally are 5 years old or
less and have a depreciation rate of 15 years.\96\ While organic
broiler houses are likely to be newer on average, given that the NOP
was not established until 2002, we anticipate that the majority of
organic broiler houses would be nearing the useful life of the broiler
house when this rule is implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\96\ This reflects the percentage of broiler houses in the U.S.,
not specific to organic operations that were 15 years old or less in
2006. We applied that proportion to this analysis because the
population of broilers has grown since that time, so houses that
were older than 15 years are likely to have been upgraded or
renovated in the interim. This data was reported in MacDonald, James
M. The Economic Organization of U.S. Broiler Production. Economic
Information Bulletin No. 38. Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture, June 2008. The depreciation rate was reported in the
Organic Egg Farmers of America Survey conducted in July 2014 and
cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Other Requirements
For all other provisions of the proposed rule, AMS is proposing an
implementation date of one year after the publication of the final
rule. AMS chose a one-year period because all livestock and slaughter
operations will need to change their Organic System Plans (OSPs) to
meet the proposed requirements. During the one-year implementation
period, certifying agents would need to update their OSP forms and make
modifications to their certification processes in order to evaluate
compliance with the proposed new requirements. This would include
training staff and inspectors. AMS believes one year is adequate for
organic operations, including for small businesses, to implement these
changes.
Do these requirements overlap or conflict with other federal rules?
AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that are
currently in effect that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this
proposed rule. AMS has reviewed rules administered by other Federal
agencies, including APHIS and FSIS, and revised the proposed rule to
avoid duplication. This action provides additional clarity on the
animal welfare requirements for organic livestock that are specific and
limited to the USDA organic regulations.

D. Executive Order 13175

This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 requires
Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-
to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications,
including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation,
and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
AMS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and
determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal
implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a
Tribe requests consultation, AMS will work with the Office of Tribal
Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes,
additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly
mandated by Congress.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520) (PRA), AMS is requesting OMB approval for a new information
collection totaling 119,957 hours for the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements contained in this proposed rule. OMB previously approved
information collection requirements associated with the NOP and
assigned OMB control number 0581-0191. AMS intends to merge this new
information collection, upon OMB approval, into the approved 0581-0191
collection. Below, AMS has described and estimated the annual burden,
i.e., the amount of time and cost of labor, for entities to prepare and
maintain information to participate

[[Page 22003]]

in this proposed voluntary labeling program. The OFPA, as amended,
provides authority for this action.
Title: National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry
Practices.
OMB Control Number: 0581-NEW.
Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from OMB date of approval.
Type of Request: New collection.
Abstract: Information collection and recordkeeping is necessary to
implement reporting and recordkeeping necessitated by amendments to
Sec. Sec. 205.238, 205.239, 205.241, and 205.242 for additional animal
welfare standards for organic livestock production under the USDA
organic regulations. OFPA authorizes the further development of
livestock production standards (7 U.S.C. 6513(c)). This action is
necessary to address multiple recommendations provided to USDA by the
NOSB to add specificity about animal welfare practices with the purpose
of ensuring consumers that conditions and practices for livestock
products labeled as organic encourage and accommodate natural behaviors
and utilize preventive health care slaughter practices.
All certified organic operations must develop and maintain an
organic system plan for certification (Sec. 205.201). The OSP must
include a description of practices and procedures to be performed and
maintained, including the frequency with which they will be performed.
Under the proposed rule, organic livestock operations would be subject
to additional reporting requirements. The amendments to Sec. Sec.
205.238, 205.239, 205.241, and 205.242 require livestock operations to
provide specific documentation as part of an organic system plan to
include conditions on livestock living conditions to permit natural
behavior, including minimum space, outdoor access and utilize
preventive health care practices (e.g. physical alterations,
euthanasia).
The PRA also requires AMS to measure the recordkeeping burden.
Under the USDA organic regulations each producer is required to
maintain and make available upon request, for 5 years, such records as
are necessary to verify compliance (Sec. 205.103). Certifying agents
are required to maintain records for 5 to 10 years, depending on the
type of record (Sec. 205.510(b)) and make these records available for
inspection upon request (Sec. 205.501(a)(9)). The new information that
livestock operations must provide for certification will assist
certifying agents and inspectors in the efficient and comprehensive
evaluation of these operations and will impose an additional
recordkeeping burden for livestock operations. Certifying agents
currently involved in livestock certification are required to observe
the same recordkeeping requirements to maintain accreditation,
therefore AMS expects that this proposed rule would not impose a
different recordkeeping burden on certifiers.
Reporting and recordkeeping are essential to the integrity of the
organic certification system. A clear paper trail is a critical tool to
verify that practices meet the mandate of OFPA and the USDA organic
regulations. This information supports the AMS mission, program
objectives, and management needs by enabling us to assess the
efficiency and effectiveness of the NOP. The information affects
decisions because it is the basis for evaluating compliance with OFPA
and USDA organic regulations, and for administering the NOP, management
decisions and planning, and establishing the cost of the program. It
also supports administrative and regulatory actions to address
noncompliance with OFPA and USDA organic regulations.
This information collection is only used by the certifying agent
and authorized representatives of USDA, including AMS and NOP staff.
Certifying agents, including any affiliated organic inspectors, and
USDA are the primary users of the information.
Respondents
AMS has identified three types of entities (respondents) that would
need to submit and maintain information in order to participate in
organic livestock certification. For each type of respondent, we
describe the general paperwork submission and recordkeeping activities
and estimate: (1) The number of respondents; (2) the hours they spend,
annually, completing the paperwork requirements of this labeling
program; and, (3) the costs of that activity.
1. Certifying agents. Certifying agents are State, private, or
foreign entities accredited by USDA to certify domestic and foreign
livestock producers and handlers as organic in accordance with OFPA and
USDA organic regulations. Certifying agents determine if a producer or
handler meets organic requirements, using detailed information from the
operation about its specific practices and on-site inspection reports
from organic inspectors. Currently, there are 77 certifying agents
accredited under NOP; many of which certify operations based in the
U.S. and abroad. AMS assumes all currently accredited certifying agents
evaluate livestock operations for compliance with the USDA organic
regulations and will therefore be subject to the amendments at
Sec. Sec. 205.238, 205.239, 205.241, and 205.242.
Each entity seeking to continue USDA accreditation for livestock
will need to submit information documenting its business practices
including certification, enforcement and recordkeeping procedures and
personnel qualifications (Sec. 205.504). AMS will review that
information during its next scheduled on-site assessment to determine
whether to continue accreditation for the scope of livestock.
Certifying agents will need to annually update the above information
and provide results of personnel performance evaluations and the
internal review of its certification activities (Sec. 205.510).
AMS projects that the additional components of organic system plans
for livestock may entail longer review times than those for other types
of organic system plans. AMS estimates the annual collection cost per
certifying agent will be $3,000.94. This estimate is based on an
estimated 91.8 labor hours per year at $32.69 per hour for a total
salary component of $3,000.94 per year. This value is assumed to be an
underestimate as the certifier bears a portion of the burden of the
inspector and certifiers employ varying numbers of inspectors. The
source of the hourly rate is the National Compensation Survey:
Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2014, published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The rate is the mean hourly wage for compliance
officers. This classification was selected as an occupation with
similar duties and responsibilities to that of a certifying agent.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\97\ Compliance officers examine, evaluate, and investigate
eligibility for or conformity with laws and regulations governing
contract compliance of licenses and permits, and perform other
compliance and enforcement inspection and analysis activities not
classified elsewhere. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational
Employment and Wages, May 2014, 13-1041 Compliance Officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Organic Inspectors. Inspectors conduct on-site inspections of
certified operations and operations applying for certification and
report the findings to the certifying agent. Inspectors may be the
agents themselves, employees of the agents, or individual contractors.
Certified operations will be inspected annually; a certifying agent may
call for additional inspections on an as needed basis (Sec.
205.403(a)). Any individual who applies to conduct inspections of
livestock operations will need to submit information documenting their
qualifications to the certifying agent (Sec. 205.504(a)(3)).
Inspectors will need to

[[Page 22004]]

provide an inspection report to the certifying agent for each operation
inspected (Sec. 205.403(e)). AMS projects that on average, inspectors
will spend 3 hours longer than average (10 hours) to complete an
inspection report for livestock operations. This estimate is due to the
additional components of the organic system plan that will need to be
inspected. Inspectors do not have recordkeeping obligations; certifying
agents maintain records of inspection reports.
According to the International Organic Inspectors Association
(IOIA), there are approximately 250 inspectors currently inspecting
crop, livestock, handling and/or wild crop operations that are
certified or have applied for certification. AMS assumes that
approximately half (125) of these inspectors inspect livestock
operations.
AMS estimates the annual collection cost per inspector to be
$6,731.37. This estimate is based on an estimated 321 additional labor
hours per year at $20.97 per hour for a total salary component of
$6,731.37 per year. The source of the hourly rate is the National
Compensation Survey: Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2014,
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The rate is the mean
hourly wage for agricultural inspectors (occupation code 45-2011).
3. Producers and handlers. Domestic and foreign livestock producers
and handlers will submit the following information to certifying
agents: an application for certification, detailed descriptions of
specific practices, annual updates to continue certification, and
changes in their practices. Handlers include those who transport or
transform aquaculture products and may include bulk distributors, food
and feed manufacturers, processors, or packers. Some handlers may be
part of a retail operation that processes organic products in a
location other than the premises of the retail outlet.
In order to obtain and maintain certification, livestock producers
and handlers will need to develop and maintain an organic system plan.
This is a requirement for all organic operations and the USDA organic
regulations describe what information must be included in an organic
system plan (Sec. 205.201). This proposed rule describes the
additional information (Sec. Sec. 205.238, 205.239, 205.241, and
205.242) that will need to be included in a livestock operation's
organic system plan in order to assess compliance. Certified operations
are required to keep records about their organic production and/or
handling for 5 years (Sec. 205.103(b)(3)).
AMS used the NOP 2014 List of Certified Operations to estimate the
number of livestock operations that would be affected by this proposed
action. On that basis, AMS estimates that 4,177 currently certified
foreign and domestic livestock operations who will be subject to the
amendments at Sec. Sec. 205.238, 205.239, 205.241, and 205.242.\98\ To
estimate the number of livestock operations that will apply for and
become certified, AMS assumed that the proportion of livestock
operations to all operations will be consistent with that as reported
in information collection 0581-0191. On that basis, AMS estimates there
will be 59 operations that will apply for certification and become
certified organic livestock producers or handlers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\98\ NOP 2014 List of certified USDA organic operations.
Available on the NOP Web site, http://apps.ams.usda.gov/nop/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS estimates the annual collection cost per organic livestock
producer to be $400.19. This estimate is based on an estimated 11.47
labor hours per year at $34.89 per hour for a total salary component of
$400.19 per year. AMS estimates that as producers adapt to the
requirements introduced by the amendments at Sec. Sec. 205.238,
205.239, 205.241, and 205.242, the number of labor hours per year for
currently certified operators will decrease. The source of the hourly
rate is the National Compensation Survey: Occupational Employment and
Wages, May 2014, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The rate
is the mean hourly wage for farmers, ranchers and other agricultural
managers (occupation code 11-9013). Administrative costs for reporting
and recordkeeping will vary among certified operators. Factors
affecting costs include the type and size of operation, and the type of
systems maintained. AMS also recognizes that operators bear a portion
of the cost burden for the inspection which varies between certifiers.
Reporting Burden
Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for the collection of
information is estimated to be 22 hours per year.
Respondents: Certifying agents, inspectors and livestock
operations.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,438.
Estimated Number of Responses: 39,021.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 95,781 hours.
Total Cost: $2,767,692.
Recordkeeping Burden
Estimate of Burden: Public recordkeeping burden is estimated to be
an annual total of 5.12 hours per respondent.
Respondents: Certifying agents and livestock operations.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,719.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 24,176 hours.
Total Cost: $843,498.
Comments: AMS is inviting comments from all interested parties
concerning the information collection and recordkeeping required as a
result of the proposed amendments to 7 CFR part 205. Comments are
invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information including the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Comments that specifically pertain to the information collection
and recordkeeping requirements of this action should be sent to Paul
Lewis Ph.D., Director Standards Division, National Organic Program,
USDA-AMS-NOP, Room 2642-So., Ag Stop 0268, 1400 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-0268 and to the Desk Officer for Agriculture,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Room 725,
Washington, DC 20503. Comments on the information collection and
recordkeeping requirements should reference the date and page number of
this issue of the Federal Register. All responses to this notice will
be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All
comments will become a matter of public record. The comment period for
the information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in
this proposed rule is 60 days.

F. Civil Rights Impact Analysis

AMS has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the
Department Regulation 4300-4, Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA), to
address any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on
minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. After a careful
review of the rule's intent and provisions, AMS has

[[Page 22005]]

determined that this rule would only impact the organic practices of
organic producers and that this rule has no potential for affecting
producers in protected groups differently than the general population
of producers. This rulemaking was initiated to clarify a regulatory
requirement and enable consistent implementation and enforcement.
Protected individuals have the same opportunity to participate in
the NOP as non-protected individuals. The USDA organic regulations
prohibit discrimination by certifying agents. Specifically, Sec.
205.501(d) of the current regulations for accreditation of certifying
agents provides that ``No private or governmental entity accredited as
a certifying agent under this subpart shall exclude from participation
in or deny the benefits of the NOP to any person due to discrimination
because of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age,
disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family
status.'' Section 205.501(a)(2) requires ``certifying agents to
demonstrate the ability to fully comply with the requirements for
accreditation set forth in this subpart'' including the prohibition on
discrimination. The granting of accreditation to certifying agents
under Sec. 205.506 requires the review of information submitted by the
certifying agent and an on-site review of the certifying agent's client
operation. Further, if certification is denied, Sec. 205.405(d)
requires that the certifying agent notify the applicant of their right
to file an appeal to the AMS Administrator in accordance with Sec.
205.681. These regulations provide protections against discrimination,
thereby permitting all producers, regardless of race, color, national
origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual
orientation, or marital or family status, who voluntarily choose to
adhere to the rule and qualify, to be certified as meeting NOP
requirements by an accredited certifying agent. This proposed rule in
no way changes any of these protections against discrimination.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205

Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Animals,
Archives and records, Imports, Labeling, Organically produced products,
Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seals and insignia,
Soil conservation.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 205 is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 205--NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 205 continues to read:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522.

0
2. Section 205.2 is amended by adding definitions for ``Beak
trimming'', ``Caponization'', ``Cattle wattling'', ``De-beaking'',
``De-snooding'', ``Dubbing'', ``Indoors'', ``Mulesing'', ``Outdoors'',
``Perch'', ``Pullet'', ``Roost'', ``Soil'', ``Stocking density'', and
``Toe clipping'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec. 205.2 Terms defined.

* * * * *
Beak trimming. The removal of the curved tip of the beak.
* * * * *
Caponization. Castration of chickens, turkeys, pheasants and other
avian species.
Cattle wattling. The surgical separation of two layers of the skin
from the connective tissue for along a 2 to 4 inch path on the dewlap,
neck or shoulders used for ownership identification.
* * * * *
De-beaking. The removal of more than the beak tip.
De-snooding. The removal of the turkey snood (a fleshy protuberance
on the forehead of male turkeys).
* * * * *
Dubbing. The removal of poultry combs and wattles.
* * * * *
Indoors. The flat space or platform area which is under a solid
roof. On each level the animals have access to food and water and may
be confined if necessary. Indoor space for avian species includes, but
is not limited to:
(1) Pasture housing. A mobile structure for avian species with 70
percent perforated flooring.
(2) Aviary housing. A fixed structure for avian species which has
multiple tiers/levels with feed and water on each level.
(3) Slatted/mesh floor housing. A fixed structure for avian species
which has both a slatted floor where perches, feed and water are
provided over a pit or belt for manure collection; and litter covering
the remaining solid floor.
(4) Floor litter housing. A fixed structure for avian species which
has absorbent litter covering the entire floor.
* * * * *
Mulesing. The removal of skin from the buttocks of sheep,
approximately 2 to 4 inches wide and running way from the anus to the
hock to prevent fly strike.
* * * * *
Outdoors. Any area in the open air with at least 50 percent soil,
outside a building or shelter where there are no solid walls or solid
roof attached to the indoor living space structure. Fencing or netting
that does not block sunlight or rain may be used as necessary.
* * * * *
Perch. A rod or branch type structure that serves as a roost and
allows birds to utilize vertical space in the house.
* * * * *
Pullet. A female chicken or other avian species being raised for
egg production that has not yet started to lay eggs.
* * * * *
Roost. A flat structure over a manure pit that allows birds to grip
with their toes as they would on a perch.
* * * * *
Soil. The outermost layer of the earth comprised of minerals,
water, air, organic matter, fungi and bacteria in which plants may grow
roots.
* * * * *
Stocking density. The weight of animals on a given unit of land at
any one time.
* * * * *
Toe clipping. The removal of the nail and distal joint of the back
two toes of a male bird.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 205.238 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 205.238 Livestock health care practice standard.

(a) The producer must establish and maintain preventive health care
practices, including:
(1) Selection of species and types of livestock with regard to
suitability for site-specific conditions and resistance to prevalent
diseases and parasites.
(2) Provision of a feed ration sufficient to meet nutritional
requirements, including vitamins, minerals, protein and/or amino acids,
fatty acids, energy sources, and fiber (ruminants), resulting in
appropriate body condition.
(3) Establishment of appropriate housing, pasture conditions, and
sanitation practices to minimize the occurrence and spread of diseases
and parasites.
(4) Provision of conditions which allow for exercise, freedom of
movement, and reduction of stress appropriate to the species.
(5) Physical alterations may be performed to benefit the welfare or
hygiene of the animals, or for identification purposes or safety.
Physical alterations, if used, must be performed on livestock at a
reasonably

[[Page 22006]]

young age, with minimal stress and pain by a competent person.
(i) The following practices must not be routinely used on pigs and
must be used only with documentation that alternative methods to
prevent harm failed: needle teeth trimming (no more than top one-third
of the tooth) and tail docking.
(ii) The following practices must not be performed on a certified
operation: de-beaking, de-snooding, caponization, dubbing, toe trimming
of chickens, toe trimming of turkeys unless with infra-red at hatchery,
beak trimming after 10 days of age, tail docking of cattle, wattling of
cattle, face branding of cattle, tail docking of sheep shorter than the
distal end of the caudal fold, and mulesing of sheep.
(6) Administration of vaccines and other veterinary biologics.
(7) All surgical procedures necessary to treat an illness must
employ best management practices to minimize pain, stress and
suffering, with the use of appropriate and allowed anesthetics,
analgesics and sedatives.
(8) Monitoring of lameness and keeping records of the percent of
the herd or flock suffering from lameness and the causes.
(9) Ammonia levels in poultry houses must be less than 25 parts per
million indoors. When ammonia levels in poultry houses exceed 10 parts
per million, an operation must implement additional practices to reduce
the ammonia levels below 10 parts per million.
(b) When preventive practices and veterinary biologics are
inadequate to prevent sickness, an operation may administer synthetic
medications allowed under Sec. 205.603. Parasiticides allowed under
Sec. 205.603 may be used on:
(1) Breeder stock, when used prior to the last third of gestation
but not during lactation for progeny that are to be sold, labeled, or
represented as organically produced.
(2) Dairy stock, when used a minimum of 90 days prior to the
production of milk or milk products that are to be sold, labeled, or
represented as organic.
(3) Synthetic medications may be administered in the presence of
illness or to alleviate pain and suffering: Provided, that such
medications are allowed under Sec. 205.603.
(c) An organic livestock operation must not:
(1) Sell, label, or represent as organic any animal or edible
product derived from any animal treated with antibiotics, any substance
that contains a synthetic substance not allowed under Sec. 205.603, or
any substance that contains a nonsynthetic substance prohibited in
Sec. 205.604. Milk from animals undergoing treatment with synthetic
substances allowed under Sec. 205.603 having withholding time cannot
be sold as organic but may be fed to their own offspring. Milk from
animals undergoing treatment with prohibited substances cannot be sold
as organic or fed to organic livestock.
(2) Administer any animal drug in the absence of illness or to
alleviate pain or suffering; with the exception of vaccinations and
other veterinary biologics.
(3) Administer hormones for growth promotion, production or
reproduction.
(4) Administer synthetic parasiticides on a routine basis.
(5) Administer synthetic parasiticides to slaughter stock.
(6) Administer animal drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act.
(7) Withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to
preserve its organic status. All appropriate medications must be used
to restore an animal to health when methods acceptable to organic
production fail. Livestock treated with a prohibited substance must be
clearly identified and neither the animal nor its products shall be
sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced.
(8) Withhold individual treatment designed to minimize pain and
suffering for injured, diseased or sick animals, which may include
forms of euthanasia as recommended by the American Veterinary Medical
Association.
(9) Neglect to identify and record treatment of sick and injured
animals in animal health records.
(10) Practice forced molting or withdrawal of feed to induce
molting.
(d) Organic livestock operations must have comprehensive plans to
minimize internal parasite problems in livestock. The plan will include
preventive measures such as pasture management, fecal monitoring, and
emergency measures in the event of a parasite outbreak. Parasite
control plans shall be approved by the certifying agent.
(e) Euthanasia. (1) Organic livestock operations must have written
plans for prompt, humane euthanasia for sick or injured livestock.
(2) The following methods of euthanasia are not permitted:
suffocation; blow to the head by blunt instrument; and the use of
equipment that crushes the neck, including killing pliers or burdizzo
clamps.
(3) Following a euthanasia procedure, livestock must be carefully
examined to ensure that they are dead.
0
4. Section 205.239 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 205.239 Mammalian livestock living conditions.

(a) The producer of an organic livestock operation must establish
and maintain year-round livestock living conditions which accommodate
the health and natural behavior of animals, including:
(1) Year-round access for all animals to the outdoors, soil, shade,
shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean water for drinking, and
direct sunlight, suitable to the species, its stage of life, the
climate, and the environment: Except, that, animals may be temporarily
denied access to the outdoors in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section. Yards, feeding pads, and feedlots may be used to
provide ruminants with access to the outdoors during the non-grazing
season and supplemental feeding during the grazing season. Yards,
feeding pads, and feedlots shall be large enough to allow all ruminant
livestock occupying the yard, feeding pad, or feedlot to feed without
competition for food in a manner that maintains all animals in a good
body condition. Continuous total confinement of any animal indoors is
prohibited. Continuous total confinement of ruminants in yards, feeding
pads, and feedlots is prohibited.
(2) For all ruminants, management on pasture and daily grazing
throughout the grazing season(s) to meet the requirements of Sec.
205.237, except as provided for in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section.
(3) Animals must be kept clean during all stages of life with the
use of appropriate, clean, dry bedding, as appropriate for the species.
When roughages are used as bedding, they must be organically produced
and handled in accordance with this part by certified operations except
as provided in Sec. 205.236(a)(2)(i).
(4) Shelter designed to allow for:
(i) Sufficient space and freedom to lie down in full lateral
recumbence, turn around, stand up, fully stretch their limbs without
touching other animals or the sides of the enclosure, and express
normal patterns of behavior;
(ii) Temperature level, ventilation, and air circulation suitable
to the species;
(iii) Reduction of potential for livestock injury; and
(iv) Areas for bedding and resting that are sufficiently large,
solidly built, and comfortable so that animals are kept clean, dry, and
free of lesions.
(5) The use of yards, feeding pads, feedlots and laneways that
shall be well-

[[Page 22007]]

drained, kept in good condition (including frequent removal of wastes),
and managed to prevent runoff of wastes and contaminated waters to
adjoining or nearby surface water and across property boundaries.
(6) Housing, pens, runs, equipment and utensils shall be properly
cleaned and disinfected as needed to prevent cross infection and build-
up of disease-carrying organisms.
(7) Dairy young stock may be housed in individual pens under the
following conditions:
(i) Until weaning, providing that they have enough room to turn
around, lie down, stretch out when lying down, get up, rest, and groom
themselves; individual animal pens shall be designed and located so
that each animal can see, smell, and hear other calves.
(ii) Dairy young stock shall be group-housed after weaning.
(iii) Dairy young stock over six months of age shall have access to
the outdoors at all times including access to pasture during the
grazing season, except as allowed under paragraph (c) of this section.
(8) Swine must be housed in a group, except:
(i) Sows may be housed individually at farrowing and during the
suckling period.
(ii) Boars.
(iii) Swine with documented instance of aggression or recovery from
an illness.
(9) Piglets shall not be kept on flat decks or in piglet cages.
(10) Exercise areas for swine, whether indoors or outdoors, must
permit rooting, including during temporary confinement events.
(11) In confined housing with stalls, at least one stall must be
provided for each animal in the facility at any given time. A cage must
not be used as a stall. For group-housed swine, the number of
individual feeding stalls may be less than the number of animals as
long as all animals are fed routinely over a 24-hour period.
(12) At least 50 percent of outdoor access space must be soil,
except when conditions threaten the soil or water quality, outdoor
access without soil must be provided temporarily.
(b) The producer of an organic livestock operation may provide
temporary confinement or shelter for an animal because of:
(1) Inclement weather;
(2) The animal's stage of life. Lactation is not a stage of life
that would exempt ruminants from any of the mandates set forth in this
part;
(3) Conditions under which the health, safety, or well-being of the
animal could be jeopardized;
(4) Risk to soil or water quality;
(5) Preventive healthcare procedures or for the treatment of
illness or injury (neither the various life stages nor lactation is an
illness or injury);
(6) Sorting or shipping animals and livestock sales, provided that
the animals shall be maintained under continuous organic management,
including organic feed, throughout the extent of their allowed
confinement;
(7) Breeding. Animals shall not be confined any longer than
necessary to perform the natural or artificial insemination. Animals
may not be confined to observe estrus; and
(8) 4-H, National FFA Organization, and other youth projects, for
no more than one week prior to a fair or other demonstration, through
the event and up to 24 hours after the animals have arrived home from
the event. These animals must have been maintained under continuous
organic management, including organic feed, during the extent of their
allowed confinement for the event. Notwithstanding the requirements in
paragraph (b)(6) of this section, facilities where 4-H, National FFA
Organization, and other youth events are held are not required to be
certified organic for the participating animals to be sold as organic,
provided all other organic management practices are followed.
(c) The producer of an organic livestock operation may, in addition
to the times permitted under paragraph (b) of this section, temporarily
deny a ruminant animal pasture or outdoor access under the following
conditions:
(1) One week at the end of a lactation for dry off (for denial of
access to pasture only), three weeks prior to parturition (birthing),
parturition, and up to one week after parturition;
(2) In the case of newborn dairy cattle for up to six months, after
which they must be on pasture during the grazing season and may no
longer be individually housed: Except, That, an animal shall not be
confined or tethered in a way that prevents the animal from lying down,
standing up, fully extending its limbs, and moving about freely;
(3) In the case of fiber bearing animals, for short periods for
shearing; and
(4) In the case of dairy animals, for short periods daily for
milking. Milking must be scheduled in a manner to ensure sufficient
grazing time to provide each animal with an average of at least 30
percent DMI from grazing throughout the grazing season. Milking
frequencies or duration practices cannot be used to deny dairy animals
pasture.
(d) Ruminant slaughter stock, typically grain finished, shall be
maintained on pasture for each day that the finishing period
corresponds with the grazing season for the geographical location.
Yards, feeding pads, or feedlots may be used to provide finish feeding
rations. During the finishing period, ruminant slaughter stock shall be
exempt from the minimum 30 percent DMI requirement from grazing. Yards,
feeding pads, or feedlots used to provide finish feeding rations shall
be large enough to allow all ruminant slaughter stock occupying the
yard, feeding pad, or feed lot to feed without crowding and without
competition for food. The finishing period shall not exceed one-fifth
(\1/5\) of the animal's total life or 120 days, whichever is shorter.
(e) The producer of an organic livestock operation must manage
manure in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops,
soil, or water by plant nutrients, heavy metals, or pathogenic
organisms and optimizes recycling of nutrients and must manage pastures
and other outdoor access areas in a manner that does not put soil or
water quality at risk.
0
5. Section 205.241 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 205.241 Avian living conditions.

(a) General requirement. An organic poultry operation must
establish and maintain year-round poultry living conditions which
accommodate the health and natural behavior of poultry, including:
Year-round access to outdoors; shade; shelter; exercise areas; fresh
air; direct sunlight; clean water for drinking; materials for dust
bathing; adequate outdoor space to escape from predators and aggressive
behaviors suitable to the species, its stage of life, the climate and
environment. Poultry may be temporarily denied access to the outdoors
in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
(b) Indoor space requirements. (1) All birds must be able to move
freely, and engage in natural behaviors.
(2) Ventilation must be adequate to prevent build-up of ammonia.
Ammonia levels must not exceed 25 parts per million. Operations must
monitor ammonia levels monthly. When ammonia levels exceed 10 parts per
million, operations must implement additional practices to reduce
ammonia levels below 10 parts per million.
(3) For layers and mature birds, artificial light may be used to
prolong the day length up to 16 hours. Artificial light intensity must
be lowered

[[Page 22008]]

gradually to encourage hens to move to perches or settle for the night.
Natural light must be sufficient indoors on sunny days so that an
inspector can read and write when all lights are turned off.
(4) The following types of flooring may be used in shelter for
avian species:
(i) Mesh or slatted flooring under drinking areas to provide
drainage.
(ii) Houses, excluding pasture housing, with slatted/mesh floors
must have 30 percent minimum of solid floor area available with
sufficient litter available for dust baths so that birds may freely
dust bathe without crowding.
(iii) Litter must be provided and maintained in a dry condition.
(5) Poultry houses must have sufficient exit areas, appropriately
distributed around the building, to ensure that all birds have ready
access to the outdoors.
(6) Flat roosts areas must allow birds to grip with their feet. Six
inches of perch space must be provided per bird. Perch space may
include the alighting rail in front of the nest boxes. All birds must
be able to perch at the same time except for multi-tiered facilities,
in which 55 percent of birds must be able to perch at the same time.
Facilities for species which do not perch do not need to have perch or
roost space.
(7) For layers, no more than 2.25 pounds of hen per square foot of
indoor space is allowed at any time, except:
(i) Pasture housing. No more than 4.5 pounds of hen per square foot
of indoor space.
(ii) Aviary housing. No more than 4.5 pounds of hen per square foot
of indoor space.
(iii) Slatted/mesh floor housing. No more than 3.75 pounds of hen
per square foot of indoor space.
(iv) Floor litter housing. No more than 3.0 pounds of hen per
square foot of indoor space.
(8) For pullets, no more than 3.0 pounds of pullet per square foot
of indoor space is allowed at any time.
(9) For turkeys, broilers and other meat type species, no more than
5.0 pounds of birds per square foot of indoor space is allowed at any
time.
(10) All birds must have access to scratch areas in the house.
(11) Poultry housing must be sufficiently spacious to allow all
birds to move freely, stand normally, stretch their wings and engage in
natural behaviors.
(c) Outdoor space requirements. (1) Outside access and door spacing
must be designed to promote and encourage outside access for all birds
on a daily basis. Producers must provide access to the outdoors at an
early age to encourage (train) birds to go outdoors. Outdoor areas must
have suitable enrichment to entice birds to go outside. Birds may be
temporarily denied access to the outdoors in accordance with paragraph
(d) of this section.
(2) Exit areas must be designed so that more than one bird can exit
at a time and all birds in the house can exit within one hour.
(3) For layers, no more than 2.25 pounds of bird per square foot of
outdoor space is allowed at any time.
(4) For pullets, no more than 3.0 pounds of pullet per square foot
of outdoor space is allowed at any time.
(5) For turkeys, broilers and other meat type species, no more than
5.0 pounds of bird per square foot of outdoor space is allowed at any
time.
(6) Space that has a solid roof overhead and is attached to the
structure providing indoor space is not outdoor access and must not be
included in the calculation of outdoor space.
(7) Shade may be provided by structures, trees, or other objects in
the environment.
(8) At least 50 percent of outdoor access space must be soil,
except when conditions threaten the soil or water quality, outdoor
access without soil must be provided temporarily.
(d) The producer of an organic poultry operation may temporarily
confine birds. Each instance of confinement must be recorded.
Operations may confine birds because of:
(1) Inclement weather, including when air temperatures are under 40
degrees F or above 90 degrees F.
(2) The animal's stage of life, including the first 4 weeks of life
for broilers and other meat type birds and the first 16 weeks of life
for pullets.
(3) Conditions under which the health, safety, or well-being of the
animal could be jeopardized, however the potential for disease outbreak
is not sufficient cause. A documented occurrence of a disease in the
region or relevant migratory pathway must be present in order to
confine birds.
(4) Risk to soil or water quality.
(5) Preventive healthcare procedures or for the treatment of
illness or injury (neither various life stages nor egg laying is an
illness or injury).
(6) Sorting or shipping birds and poultry sales. Provided the birds
are maintained under continuous organic management throughout the
extent of their allowed confinement.
(7) Nest box training. Birds shall not be confined any longer than
two weeks to teach the proper behavior.
(8) 4-H, National FFA Organization, and other youth projects, for
no more than one week prior to a fair or other demonstration, through
the event and up to 24 hours after the birds have arrived home at the
conclusion of the event. These birds must have been maintained under
continuous organic management, including organic feed, during the
extent of their allowed confinement for the event. Notwithstanding the
requirements in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, facilities where 4-H,
National FFA Organization, and other youth events are held are not
required to be certified organic for the participating birds to be sold
as organic, provided all other organic management practices are
followed.
(e) The producer of an organic poultry operation must manage manure
in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil,
or water by plant nutrients, heavy metals, or pathogenic organisms and
optimizes recycling of nutrients and must manage outdoor access in a
manner that does not put soil or water quality at risk.
0
6. Section 205.242 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 205.242 Transport and slaughter.

(a) Transport. (1) Certified organic livestock must be clearly
identified as organic, transported in pens within the livestock trailer
clearly labeled for organic use and be contained in those pens for the
duration of the trip.
(2) All livestock must be fit for transport to auction or slaughter
facilities.
(i) Calves must have a dry navel cord and be able to stand and walk
without human assistance.
(ii) Sick, injured, weak, disabled, blind, and lame animals must
not be transported for sale or slaughter. Such animals may be medically
treated or euthanized.
(3) Adequate and season-appropriate ventilation is required for all
livestock trailers, shipping containers and any other mode of
transportation used to protect animals against cold and heat stresses.
(4) Bedding must be provided on trailer floors and in holding pens
as needed to keep livestock clean, dry, and comfortable during
transportation and prior to slaughter. Poultry crates are exempt from
the bedding requirement. When roughages are used for bedding, they must
have been organically produced and handled by a certified organic
operation(s).
(5) Arrangements for water and organic feed must be made if
transport time exceeds twelve hours.
(i) Organic livestock operations must transport livestock in
compliance with the Federal Twenty-Eight Hour Law (49

[[Page 22009]]

U.S.C. 80502) and the regulations at 9 CFR 89.1 through 89.5.
(ii) The producer or handler of an organic livestock operation must
provide all non-compliant records and subsequent corrective action
related to livestock transport during the annual inspection.
(6) Organic operations must have in place emergency plans to
address possible animal welfare problems that might occur during
transport.
(b) Mammalian slaughter. (1) Organic operations that slaughter
organic livestock must be in compliance with the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(b) and 21 U.S.C. 610(b) and the
regulations at 9 CFR part 313) regarding humane handling and slaughter
of livestock.
(2) Organic operations that slaughter organic exotic animals must
be in compliance with the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C.
1621, et seq.) and the regulations at 9 CFR parts 313 and 352 regarding
the humane handling and slaughter of exotic animals.
(3) Organic operations that slaughter organic livestock must
provide all non-compliant records related to humane handling and
slaughter issued by the controlling national, federal or state
authority and all records of subsequent corrective actions during the
annual organic inspection.
(c) Avian slaughter. (1) Organic operations that slaughter organic
poultry must be in compliance with the Poultry Products Inspection Act
requirements (21 U.S.C. 453(g)(5) and the regulations at 9 CFR
381.1(b)(v), 381.90, and 381.65(b)).
(2) Organic operations that slaughter organic poultry must provide
all non-compliant records related to the use of good manufacturing
practices in connection with slaughter issued by the controlling
national, federal or state authority and all records of subsequent
corrective actions during the annual organic inspection.
(3) Organic operations that slaughter organic poultry, but are
exempt from or not covered by the requirements of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act, must ensure that:
(i) No lame birds may be shackled, hung or carried by their legs;
(ii) All birds shackled on a chain or automated system must be
stunned prior to exsanguination; and
(iii) All birds must be irreversibly insensible prior to being
placed in the scalding tank.

Dated: April 4, 2016.
Elanor Starmer,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-08023 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P