[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59988-59992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27316]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 241 / Monday, December 18, 2017 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 59988]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 205

[Doc. No. AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06]
RIN 0581-AD75


National Organic Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry 
Practices--Withdrawal

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule sets forth the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's (USDA or Department) intention to withdraw the Organic 
Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) final rule published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 2017, by USDA's Agricultural Marketing 
Service (AMS). The OLPP final rule amends the organic livestock and 
poultry production requirements in the USDA organic regulations by 
adding new provisions for livestock handling and transport for 
slaughter and avian living conditions; and expands and clarifies 
existing requirements covering livestock care and production practices 
and mammalian living conditions. The OLPP final rule was originally set 
to take effect on March 20, 2017. The effective date has been extended 
to May 14, 2018 under separate actions.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on 
this proposed rule on or before January 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on the proposed rule by any 
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, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 
2642-So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the docket 
number AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06, and/or Regulatory Information Number 
(RIN) 0581-AD75 for this rulemaking. You should clearly indicate the 
reason(s) for your stated position. All comments received and any 
relevant background documents will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Document: For access to the document and to read background 
documents or 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 2642-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, Standards 
Division, Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax: (202) 720-7808.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as amended (7 
U.S.C. 6501-6522), authorizes the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) to establish national standards governing the 
marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced to 
assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent 
standard and to facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed 
food that is organically produced. USDA's Agricultural Marketing 
Service (AMS) administers the National Organic Program (NOP) under 7 
CFR part 205.
    On April 13, 2016, AMS published the OLPP proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (81 FR 21956).
    On January 19, 2017, AMS published the OLPP final rule in the 
Federal Register (82 FR 7042). This rule was scheduled to take effect 
on March 20, 2017.
    On January 20, 2017, the Assistant to the President and Chief of 
Staff sent a memorandum titled ``Regulatory Freeze Pending Review'' to 
USDA and other federal executive departments and agencies. Accordingly, 
on February 9, 2017, AMS published a notice in the Federal Register (82 
FR 9967) delaying the OLPP final rule's effective date until May 19, 
2017.
    On May 10, 2017, AMS published two documents regarding the OLPP 
final rule in the Federal Register. The first document delayed the OLPP 
final rule's effective date until November 14, 2017 (82 FR 21677). The 
second document presented four options for agency action (82 FR 21742). 
Interested parties were invited to submit comments on the four options 
on or before June 9, 2017.
    On November 14, 2017, AMS published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (82 FR 52643) delaying the effective date of the OLPP final 
rule until May 14, 2018 to allow AMS the opportunity to gather 
additional public comments on important questions regarding USDA's 
statutory authority to promulgate the OLPP final rule and the likely 
costs and benefits of the rule.

II. Overview of Action Being Considered

    By this notice, AMS is proposing to withdraw the OLPP final rule. 
See 82 FR 7042 (January 19, 2017). USDA has reviewed the OLPP final 
rule and is initiating this action based on the outcome of that review. 
Specifically, USDA proposes withdrawing the OLPP rule based on its 
current interpretation of 7 U.S.C. 6905, under which the OLPP final 
rule would exceed USDA's statutory authority. Withdrawal of the OLPP 
rule also is independently justified based upon USDA's revised 
assessments of its benefits and burdens and USDA's view of sound 
regulatory policy. If this withdrawal is finalized, the existing 
organic livestock and poultry regulations now published at 7 CFR part 
205 would remain effective. AMS seeks comments on the proposal to 
withdraw the OLPP final rule.

III. Related Documents

    Documents related to this OLPP final rule include: OFPA (7 U.S.C. 
6501--6524) and its implementing regulations (7 CFR part 205); the 
Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices proposed rule published in the 
Federal Register on April 13, 2016 (81 FR 21956); the OLPP final rule 
published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7042); the 
final rule delaying the OLPP

[[Page 59989]]

final rule's effective date until May 19, 2017, published by AMS in the 
Federal Register on February 9, 2017 (82 FR 9967); the final rule 
delaying the OLPP final rule's effective date until November 14, 2017, 
published by AMS in the Federal Register on May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21677); 
a second proposed rule presenting the four options for agency action 
listed in Section I, supra, published by AMS in the Federal Register on 
May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21742); and a final rule further delaying the OLPP 
final rule's effective date until May 14, 2018, published by AMS in the 
Federal Register on November 14, 2017 (82 FR 52643).

IV. Legal Authority

    The basis for the proposed withdrawal of the OLPP final rule is 
USDA's current interpretation of OFPA, which is discussed in this 
notice and USDA's revised assessment of the regulatory benefits and 
burdens of the OLPP rule.\1\ USDA invites comment generally on the 
regulatory and other policy implications of the legal interpretation of 
OFPA proposed in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ USDA's legal authority to revisit the OLPP final rule is 
well-established. As an initial matter, agencies have broad 
discretion to reconsider a regulation at any time. Clean Air Council 
v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 8-9 (DC Cir. 2017). Furthermore, USDA's 
interpretation of OFPA ``is not instantly carved in stone,'' but may 
be evaluated ``on a continuing basis.'' Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 
Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 863-64 (1984). This is true when, as is the case 
here, the agency's review is undertaken in response to a change in 
administrations. National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand 
X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OFPA is the statutory authority for the OLPP final rule as well as 
for this rulemaking. AMS believes that withdrawing the Organic 
Livestock and Poultry Practices final rule is appropriate in light of 
its interpretation of the scope of authority granted to USDA by OFPA 
and to maintain consistency with USDA regulatory policy principles. If 
this proposed rule to withdraw is finalized, the existing organic 
livestock and poultry regulations now published at 7 CFR part 205 would 
remain effective.

V. Rationale for Withdrawing Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices 
OLPP Final Rule

    This section provides AMS' primary reasons for proposing to 
withdraw the OLPP final rule.

A. Authority Under the OFPA To Issue Animal Welfare Regulations

    The OLPP final rule consisted, in large part, of rules clarifying 
how producers and handlers participating in the National Organic 
Program must treat livestock and poultry to ensure their wellbeing (82 
FR 7042). AMS is proposing to withdraw the OLPP final rule because it 
now believes OFPA does not authorize the animal welfare provisions of 
the OLPP final rule. Rather, the agency's current reading of the 
statute, given the relevant language and context, suggests OFPA's 
reference to additional regulatory standards ``for the care'' of 
organically produced livestock should be limited to health care 
practices similar to those specified by Congress in the statute, rather 
than expanded to encompass stand-alone animal welfare concerns. 7 
U.S.C. 6509(d)(2).
    USDA believes that the Department's power to act and how it may act 
are authoritatively prescribed by statutory language and context; USDA 
believes that it may not lawfully regulate outside the boundaries of 
legislative text.\2\ Therefore, in considering the scope of its lawful 
authority, USDA believes the threshold question should be whether 
Congress has authorized the proposed action. If, however, a statute is 
silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, then USDA 
believes that its interpretation is entitled to deference and the 
question becomes simply whether USDA's action is based on a permissible 
statutory construction.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1868 (2013).
    \3\ See Chevron, U.S.A., 467 U.S. at 843; City of Arlington, 133 
S. Ct. at 1871. USDA believes that fidelity to the Constitution and 
to the rule of law are better served when regulatory authority is 
firmly grounded in plain statutory text. Id. at 1876 (Scalia, J.) 
(``The fox-in-the-henhouse syndrome is to be avoided. . . . by 
taking seriously, and applying rigorously, in all cases, statutory 
limits on agencies' authority'') (emphasis added); id. at 1879 
(Roberts, CJ., dissenting) (``the danger posed by the growing 
administrative state cannot be dismissed''); Youngstown Sheet & Tube 
Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., 
concurring) (``The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a 
day. . . . [but] slowly, from the generative force of unchecked 
disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most 
disinterested assertion of authority''); FTC v. Ruberoid Co., 343 
U.S. 470, 487 (1952) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (the administrative 
state ``has deranged our three-branch legal theories''). USDA 
generally believes that it may promulgate rules that are reasonable 
in light of the text, nature, and purpose of the relevant statute in 
cases of gaps or ambiguity. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 
218, 229 (2001). However, USDA also believes Congress knows to speak 
in plain terms when it wishes to circumscribe, and in capacious 
terms when it wishes to enlarge, USDA's discretion. Compare 7 U.S.C. 
6509(g), with 7 U.S.C. 2151 (``The Secretary is authorized to 
promulgate such rules, regulations, and orders as he may deem 
necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter''), 15 
U.S.C. 1823(c) (``The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation 
requirements . . . to detect and diagnose a horse that is sore . . 
.''), 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(4) (the Patent Office has the authority to 
issue ``regulations . . . establishing and governing inter parties 
review under this chapter''), and 49 U.S.C. 40103(b) (FAA shall 
``prescribe air traffic regulations''); see generally Cuzzo Speed 
Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142-43 (2016); City of 
Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USDA believes 7 U.S.C. 6509 is the relevant authority for OFPA-
related regulations governing animal production practices. USDA further 
believes that it should adhere to this legislative text and that it 
lacks the power to tailor legislation to policy goals, however worthy, 
by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms. Rather, USDA believes it may 
properly exercise discretion only in the interstices created by 
statutory silence or ambiguity and must always give effect to the 
unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See generally Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2441, 2445-46 (2014) (citations 
omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OLPP final rule is a broadly prescriptive animal welfare 
regulation governing outdoor access and space, transport, and 
slaughter, among other things. (82 FR 7042, 7074, 7082). USDA's general 
OFPA implementing authority was used as justification for the OLPP 
final rule, which cited 7 U.S.C. 6509(g) as ``convey(ing) the intent 
for the USDA to develop more specific standards. . . .'' (82 FR 7043), 
and 7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(2) as authorizing regulations for animal 
``wellbeing'' and the ``care of livestock.'' (82 FR 7042, 7074, 7082).
    But nothing in Section 6509 authorizes the broadly prescriptive, 
stand-alone animal welfare regulations contained in the OLPP final 
rule.\5\ Rather, section 6509 authorizes USDA to regulate with respect 
to discrete aspects of animal production practices and materials: 
Breeder stock, feed and growth promoters, animal health care, forage, 
and record-keeping. Section 6509(d) is titled ``Health Care.''

[[Page 59990]]

Subsection 6509(d)(1) identifies prohibited health care practices, 
including subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics; routine synthetic 
internal parasiticides; and medication, other than vaccinations, absent 
illness. Reading the plain language in context, AMS now believes that 
the authority granted in section 6509(g) for the Secretary to issue 
regulations fairly extends only to those aspects of animal care that 
are similar to those described in section 6509(d)(1) and that are shown 
to be necessary to meet the congressional objectives specified in 7 
U.S.C. 6501.\6\ The Secretary's authority to promulgate rules under 
section 6509(g) is similarly circumscribed: He may ``develop detailed 
regulations'' only to ``guide the implementation of the standards for 
livestock products provided under this section.'' 7 U.S.C. 6509(g) 
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Congress directed USDA to establish national standards 
governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as 
organically produced products; to assure consumers that organically 
produced products meet a consistent standard; and to facilitate 
interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is organically 
produced, assure consumers that organically produced products meet a 
consistent standard, among other things. 7 U.S.C. 6501. However, 
OFPA's plain language does not mandate, and arguably limits, the 
Secretary's authority to promulgate prescriptive rules governing how 
producers meet programmatic standards. Instead, USDA believes a 
contextual reading of OFPA suggests a regulatory approach based on 
market-based solutions is more appropriate. See 7 U.S.C. 6503-11 
(setting standards); 7 U.S.C. 6509(g) (authorizing promulgation of 
regulations to ``guide implementation of standards . . .''); 7 
U.S.C. 6512 (``If a production or handling practice is not 
prohibited or otherwise restricted under this chapter, such practice 
shall be permitted unless it is determined that such practice would 
be inconsistent with the applicable organic certification 
program'').
    \6\ Compare 7 U.S.C. 6509(g) (regulations to ``guide the 
implementation of standards for livestock products'') with 7 U.S.C. 
2151 (``The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such rules, 
regulations, and orders as he may deem necessary in order to 
effectuate the purposes of this chapter''), 15 U.S.C. 1823(c) (``The 
Secretary shall prescribe by regulation requirements . . . to detect 
and diagnose a horse that is sore . . .'', and 49 U.S.C. 40103(b) 
(FAA shall ``prescribe air traffic regulations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMS finds that its rulemaking authority in section 6509(d)(2) 
should not be construed in isolation, but rather should be interpreted 
in light of section 6509(d)(1) and section 6509(g). Furthermore, even 
if OFPA is deemed to be silent or ambiguous with respect to this issue, 
AMS believes that a decision to withdraw the OLPP final rule based on 
section 6509's language, titles, and position within Chapter 94 of 
Title 7 of the United States Code; \7\ controlling Supreme Court 
authorities; and general USDA regulatory policy, would be a permissible 
statutory construction. AMS seeks comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074, 1082 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Impact of OLPP Final Rule on Producers

    AMS notes that organic producers have already made significant 
investments in facilities and infrastructure to support the growing 
organic market under the current USDA organic regulations, and there 
has been significant growth in the organic market under the existing 
regulatory regime. This suggests that the present regulatory regime is 
meeting statutory objectives of reassuring consumers of organic 
integrity and facilitating interstate commerce in organic products, 
which coincides with the growth in the organic poultry sector. From 
2007 to 2016, the organic egg market grew 12.7 percent annually which 
shows consumer confidence in the products produced under the current 
standards. The organic industry continues to grow domestically and 
globally, with USDA's Organic Integrity Database listing 24,650 
certified organic operations in the United States, and 37,032 around 
the world, at the end of 2016. The 2016 count of U.S. certified organic 
farms and businesses reflects a 13% increase between the end of 2015 
and 2016, continuing a trend of double-digit growth in the organic 
sector. The number of certified operations has continuously increased 
since the count began in 2002; the 2015-2016 increase was one of the 
highest annual increases since 2008. According to the Organic Trade 
Association's (OTA's) 2017 Organic Industry Survey, organic sales 
reached almost $47 billion in 2016, reflecting an increase of almost 
$3.7 billion above the $43 billion mark achieved in 2015.
    Furthermore, as a policy matter and a general principle, USDA is 
concerned that the OLPP final rule's prescriptive codification of 
current industry practices in the dynamic, evolving marketplace could 
have the unintended consequence of preventing or stunting future 
market-based innovation in response to rapidly evolving social and 
producer norms. Overly prescriptive regulation can discourage 
technological and social innovation, especially by small firms and 
consumers, distorting or even preventing technological development. 
Lacking evidence of the material market failure to justify prescriptive 
regulatory action, AMS is concerned that the OLPP rule may hamper 
market-driven innovation and evolution and impose unnecessary 
regulatory burdens. AMS welcomes comment on these concerns.

C. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

    This section provides an Executive Summary of the Preliminary 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA). Copies of the full analysis are 
available on the Regulations.gov website. This rulemaking has been 
designated as an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866, and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB).
    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, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
    Executive Order 13771 directs Agencies to identify at least two 
existing regulations to be repealed for every new regulation unless 
prohibited by law. The total incremental cost of all regulations issued 
in a given fiscal year must have costs within the amount of incremental 
costs allowed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
unless otherwise required by law or approved in writing by the Director 
of the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is expected 
to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost 
savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's PRIA, posted 
separately and summarized below.
    The estimated costs in the OLPP final rule were based on three 
potential scenarios. First, if the OLPP final rule were implemented and 
if all organic livestock and poultry producers were to come into 
compliance, the estimated cost to the industry would have been $28.7 to 
$31 million each year. Second, if 50 percent of the organic egg 
producers moved to the cage-free egg market and the organic industry 
continues to grow at historical rates, the costs would be $11.7-$12.0 
million. Third, if 50 percent of the organic egg producers moved to the 
cage-free egg market and there were no new entrants that could not 
already comply, the costs would be $8.2 million. These costs do not 
include an additional $1.95-$3.9 million associated with paperwork 
burden.
    The OLPP final rule estimated the benefits from the rule's 
implementation as $4.1 to $49.5 million annually. The estimated 
benefits spanned a wider range than the estimated costs and were based 
on research that measured consumers' willingness-to-pay for outdoor 
access for laying hens. The OLPP final rule acknowledged that the 
benefits were difficult to quantify.
    In reviewing the OLPP final rule, AMS found that the calculation of 
benefits contained mathematical errors in calculating the discount 
rates of 7% and 3%. AMS also found the estimated benefits over time 
were handled differently than were the estimated costs over time. In 
addition, the range used for estimating the benefit interval could be 
replaced with more suitable estimates. The revised calculations of 
benefits are presented in the accompanying PRIA.

[[Page 59991]]

    As a result of reviewing the calculation of estimated benefits, AMS 
reassessed the economic basis for the rulemaking as well as the 
validity of the estimated benefits. On the basis of that reassessment, 
AMS finds little, if any, economic justification for the OLPP final 
rule.
    The RIA for the OLPP final rule did not identify a significant 
market failure to justify the need for rule. The RIA for the OLPP final 
rule noted that there is wide variance in production practices within 
the organic egg sector and asserted that ``as more consumers become 
aware of this disparity, they will either seek specific brands of 
organic eggs or seek animal welfare labels in addition to the USDA 
organic seal.'' AMS also found the ``majority of organic producers also 
participate in private, third-party verified animal welfare 
certification programs.'' OLPP final rule RIA (https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/OLPPSupplementalDocAnalysis.pdf) at 14. Variance in production practices and 
participation in private, third-party certification programs, however, 
do not constitute evidence of significant market failure.
    First, while AMS recognizes that the purpose of the OFPA is to 
assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent 
and uniform standard, that purpose does not imply that there should be 
no variation in organic production practices. Rather, a variety of 
production methods may be employed to meet the same standard. Some may 
be more labor intensive and others more capital intensive, and some may 
be appropriate for small operations while others are appropriate for 
large operations. Importantly, producers will adopt different 
production methods over time as technology evolves and enables 
operations to meet the same standard more efficiently. Thus, variation 
in production practices is expected and does not stand as an indicator 
of a significant market failure.
    Second, private, third-party certification programs are common in 
the dynamic food sector. The fact that organic suppliers participate in 
such programs does not indicate a market failure with respect to the 
standards promulgated under the USDA NOP. Rather, the use of third-
party certifications in addition to the USDA organic seal merely 
indicates that participants in the food sector seek ways to 
differentiate their products from those of their competitors. The fact 
that some aspects of a private certification may overlap with the 
requirements underlying the USDA organic seal demonstrates that food 
producers, manufacturers, and retailers use multiple methods to 
communicate with consumers about the attributes of the foods that they 
produce and sell. Private, third-party certifications reflect 
attributes that food sellers wish to emphasize, and the existence of 
such certifications on organic products provides no evidence of a 
significant market failure relating to USDA organic standards.
    Notwithstanding the lack of a market failure justification for the 
OLPP final rule, the accompanying PRIA explains several calculation 
errors associated with the OLPP final rule RIA. The PRIA also provides 
additional information regarding the estimated benefits and explains 
why they likely were overstated in the OLPP final rule RIA. In any 
case, withdrawing the OLPP final rule would prevent the negative cost 
impacts from taking effect, resulting in substantial organic poultry 
producer cost savings of $8.2 to $31 million annually, plus additional 
cost savings of $1.95-$3.9 million from paperwork reduction.
Consideration of Alternatives
    AMS considered three alternatives in developing this proposed rule. 
The first alternative considered was to implement the Organic Livestock 
and Poultry Practices final rule on May 14, 2018, which is the current 
effective date. The second alternative was to further delay the final 
rule. The third alternative, which is the selected alternative, was to 
withdraw the final rule.
    For the first alternative, if the OLPP final rule were to become 
effective on May 14, 2018, the costs and transfers described in the 
PRIA would be expected to occur, resulting in requirements with 
substantial costs not supported by evidence of significant market 
failure.
    The second alternative considered was to further delay the OLPP 
final rule. This alternative, however, would defer the decision on 
whether to implement or withdraw to a future date, despite the agency 
having performed its review and received comments from the public. This 
alternative fails to achieve USDA's goal of reducing regulatory 
uncertainty.
    AMS is proposing the third alternative, to withdraw the OLPP final 
rule as the preferred alternative. This alternative estimates cost 
savings for poultry producers of $8.2 to $31 million per year (based on 
15-year costs). In addition, $1.95-$3.9 million in annual paperwork 
burden would not be incurred. As described in the PRIA, the range of 
benefits could be expected to be lower than shown in the OLPP final 
rule RIA. Moreover, a priori, the benefits associated with any 
government intervention without there being an identifiable market 
failure will be lower than the required costs of imposing such an 
intervention. Given the unclear nature of the market failure being 
addressed by the OLPP final rule, AMS would give clear preference to 
the lower end of the benefit range, which consistently fall below the 
costs associated with the OLPP final rule.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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.
    Data suggest nearly all organic egg producers qualify as small 
businesses. OLPP Final Rule RIA (https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/OLPPSupplementalDocAnalysis.pdf) at 140-141. Small 
egg producers are listed under NAICS code 112310 (Chicken Egg 
Production) as grossing less than $15,000,000 per year, and AMS 
estimates that out of 722 operations reporting sales of organic eggs, 
only four are not small businesses. However, the RIA found that some 
small egg producers and small chicken (broiler) producers will be 
affected by the poultry outdoor access and space provisions. See OLPP 
Final Rule RIA at 136-138, 142, 145-146. Furthermore, the RIA of the 
OLPP final rule notes that some producers were particularly concerned 
about limited land availability for outdoor access requirements and the 
potential for increased mortality attendant to the new regulatory 
demands. These were identified as sources of burdensome costs and/or 
major obstacles to compliance for some small businesses. See id. at 26-
28. Based on surveys of organic egg producers, AMS believes 
approximately fifty percent of layer production will not be able to 
acquire additional land needed to comply with the OLPP final rule. Id. 
at 142. Also, certain existing certified organic slaughter facilities 
could surrender their organic certification as a result of the OLPP 
final rule and 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 
livestock transit requirements. Id. at 149.
    Withdrawing the OLPP final rule would avoid these economic impacts,

[[Page 59992]]

without introducing any incremental burdens or erecting barriers that 
would restrict the ability of small entities to compete in the market. 
This conclusion is supported by the historic growth of the organic 
industry without the regulatory amendments. The demand for organic food 
has continued to grow over the past ten years under the current 
regulatory regime.
    This proposed rule would relieve producers of the costs of 
complying with the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices final rule. 
The effects would be beneficial, but not significant. A small number of 
entities may experience time and money savings as a result of not 
having to change practices to comply with the OLPP final rule. Affected 
small entities would include organic egg and organic broiler producers. 
The proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Agricultural 
Marketing Service has determined that this action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VII. Executive Order 12988

    Executive Order 12988 instructs each executive agency to adhere to 
certain requirements in the development of new and revised regulations 
to avoid unduly burdening the court system.
    Pursuant to section 6519(f) of OFPA, if finalized, this 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. 451-471), 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) or the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201-300), nor the authority of the 
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136-
136(y)).

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    No additional collection or recordkeeping requirements would be 
imposed on the public by withdrawing the OLPP final rule. Accordingly, 
OMB clearance is not required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501), Chapter 35. Withdrawing the OLPP final rule will 
avoid an estimated $1.95-$3.9 million in costs for increased paperwork 
burden associated with that final rule.

IX. Executive Order 13175

    This 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 would 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.

X. Civil Rights Impact Analysis

    AMS has reviewed this draft rule in accordance with the Department 
Regulation 4300-4, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, to address any major 
civil rights impacts the rule might have on minorities, women, and 
persons with disabilities. AMS has determined that withdrawing the OLPP 
final rule would not affect producers in protected groups differently 
than the general population of producers.

XI. Conclusion

    In compliance with USDA's interpretation of the OFPA and consistent 
with USDA regulatory policy, AMS is proposing to withdraw the OLPP 
final rule.

    Dated: December 14, 2017.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-27316 Filed 12-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-02-P