[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75394-75449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23726]



[[Page 75393]]

Vol. 88

Thursday,

No. 211

November 2, 2023

Part II





Department of Agriculture





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





 Agricultural Marketing Service





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





7 CFR Part 205





 National Organic Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry 
Standards; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2023 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 75394]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 205

[Doc. No. AMS-NOP-21-0073]
RIN 0581-AE06


National Organic Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry 
Standards

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) amends the organic livestock and 
poultry production requirements by adding new provisions for livestock 
handling and transport, slaughter, and avian (poultry) living 
conditions; and expanding and clarifying existing requirements covering 
livestock care and production practices and non-avian living 
conditions. These changes will ensure organically produced foods meet a 
transparent and consistent standard to allow the industry to maintain 
consumer confidence in USDA organic products, to align with consumer 
expectations regarding outdoor access, and to further facilitate 
interstate commerce in organic products.

DATES: 
    Effective Date: This rule is effective January 2, 2024.
    Compliance Dates: All organic operations must comply with the 
requirements of this rule by January 2, 2025, except:
    (1) Currently certified organic layer operations and layer 
operations that are certified before January 2, 2025, must comply with 
the Sec. Sec.  205.241(c)(2), (c)(4), and (c)(5), concerning outdoor 
stocking density requirements and soil and vegetation requirements, by 
January 2, 2029.
    (2) Currently certified organic broiler operations and broiler 
operations that are certified before January 2, 2025, must comply with 
Sec. Sec.  205.241(b)(10), (c)(2), and (c)(6), concerning indoor and 
outdoor stocking density requirements and soil and vegetation 
requirements, by January 5, 2029.
    (3) Currently certified organic poultry operations and poultry 
operations that are certified before January 2, 2025 must comply with 
Sec.  [thinsp]205.241(b)(4), concerning poultry house exit area 
requirements, by January 2, 2029.
    For more information, see the IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE DATES 
FOR THE FINAL RULE section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Healy, Director, Standards 
Division, Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
    A. Introduction
    B. Summary of Provisions
    C. Costs and Benefits
I. General Information
    Does this action apply to me?
II. Background
    A. Purpose and Need for the Rule
    B. Statutory Authority To Issue Final Rule
    C. NOSB Recommendations on Livestock Production
    D. Organic Livestock Regulatory History
III. Overview of Public Comments
    A. Responses to Comment on Statutory Authority
    B. Responses to Comment on Market Failure
IV. Overview of Final Rule and Responses to Comments
    A. Terms Defined (Sec.  [thinsp]205.2)
    B. Livestock Care and Production Practices Standard (Sec.  
[thinsp]205.238)
    C. Mammalian and Non-Avian Livestock Living Conditions (Sec.  
[thinsp]205.239)
    D. Avian Living Conditions (Sec.  [thinsp]205.241)
    E. Transport and Slaughter (Sec.  205.242)
    F. Implementation and Compliance Dates for the Final Rule
    G. Severability
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Summary of Economic Analyses
    B. Executive Order 12988
    C. Executive Order 13132
    D. Executive Order 13175
    E. Civil Rights Impact Analysis
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. Related Documents
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205
Part 205--National Organic Program

Executive Summary

A. Introduction

    The Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards (OLPS) final rule 
amends the USDA organic regulations (7 CFR part 205) related to the 
production of livestock, including poultry, marketed as organic. The 
rule adds detailed regulations related to animal health care, indoor 
and outdoor space standards, manure management, temporary confinement 
of livestock, access to the outdoors, transportation conditions, and 
humane euthanasia and slaughter. USDA expects that the detailed 
regulations established by this final rule will clarify aspects of the 
existing USDA organic regulations that are not interpreted or enforced 
in a consistent manner. In turn, the detailed regulations in this final 
rule will better assure consumers that organic livestock products meet 
a consistent standard, as intended by the Organic Foods Production Act 
(OFPA or ``the Act'').
    The OLPS proposed rule received extensive public comment that 
indicated broad support for its policy changes. Ninety-four percent of 
the public comments and petition signatures that AMS received support 
the rule and its goals. Many comments also suggested policy revisions 
and provided helpful economic data, which AMS took into account when 
writing this final rule.

B. Summary of Provisions

    Livestock that are certified organic under the USDA organic 
regulations include mammalian species (e.g., cattle, swine, sheep, 
goats), avian or poultry species (e.g., chickens, turkeys, ducks), and 
other animal species used for food or in the production of food, fiber, 
feed, or other agricultural-based consumer products. The changes in 
this rule address a range of topics related to the care of organic 
livestock, including:
    Livestock health care practices--the rule specifies which physical 
alteration procedures are prohibited or restricted for use on organic 
livestock. The livestock health care practice standards include 
requirements for euthanasia to reduce suffering of irreversibly sick or 
disabled livestock;
    Living conditions--the rule sets livestock living condition 
standards that reflect the needs and behaviors of different types of 
animals and consumers' expectations about the living conditions of 
animals in organic production. The avian (or poultry) livestock living 
standards include indoor and outdoor space requirements and require 
that housing provides sufficient exit areas for birds to access the 
outdoors;
    Transport of animals--the rule adds new requirements for the 
transport of organic livestock to sale or slaughter;
    Slaughter--the rule adds a new section to clarify how organic 
facility slaughter practices and USDA Food Safety and Inspection 
Service (FSIS) regulations work together to support animal welfare.

C. Costs and Benefits

    AMS analyzed the rule's impact on the organic broiler market and 
the organic egg market. Table 1 summarizes the full range of benefits 
and costs related to the implementation of this rule. AMS has sought to 
quantify these benefits and costs to the greatest extent possible in 
Section F of the RIA.

[[Page 75395]]



        Table 1--Qualitative Summary of Rule's Benefits and Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Benefits                              Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduces information asymmetries between  On-going compliance costs: more
 producers and consumers, resulting in    indoor space for organic
 a more optimal distribution of organic   broilers and more outdoor
 and other value-added products.          space for organic layers.*
 Reduces consumer search costs for
 consumers aware of these
 inconsistencies.
Adds value to organic products:          Temporary losses of economic
 consistent minimum animal welfare        welfare: total surplus in
 standards, increased space for organic   organic egg market decreases
 broilers*, and increased outdoor         more than total surplus
 access for organic layers.*              increases in the cage-free egg
                                          market as organic egg
                                          production unable to comply
                                          with the rule shifts to cage-
                                          free markets.*
Reduces risk to the integrity of the
 organic label, increasing the
 likelihood of sustained demand and
 continued growth of organic sales.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These benefits/costs are quantified in the analysis.

    Table 2 below captures the monetized costs, benefits, and net 
benefit in these markets. AMS estimates annual costs for organic layer 
operations of $28.1-$32.9 million and costs for organic broiler 
operations of $4.8-$5.5 million. Additionally, AMS estimates that 
organic egg production exiting for the cage-free egg market will lead 
to a temporary economic welfare loss of approximately $8.7-$16.0 
million over the first 20 years of the rule. AMS estimates annual 
benefits for layer operations of $76.6-$89.6 million and benefits for 
organic broiler operations of $31.5-$35.6 million. In total, AMS 
anticipates this rule will produce an annualized net benefit ranging 
from $59.1 million (assuming a 7% discount rate overall) to $78.1 
million (assuming a 3% discount rate overall). For more detailed 
discussion of the economic analysis, including its assumptions and 
methods, see the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AMS finds it likely that controversy or confusion about one 
product under the organic scheme will cause secondary effects to the 
overall label and other products, including, but not limited to, 
risk to consumer confidence, trust, and demand. Because of the 
unique nature of the organic label, quantifying or monetizing this 
risk based on existing literature is not possible. See further 
discussion in Section F. For general information on the relationship 
between trust reputations and labels see: Jahn, G., Schramm, M., & 
Spiller, A. (2005). The reliability of certification: Quality labels 
as a consumer policy tool. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 53-73. 
For more on the relation between trust and organic label sales see: 
Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2014). Governmental and private 
certification labels for organic food: Consumer attitudes and 
preferences in Germany. Food Policy, 49, 437-448. For more 
information on the erosion of trust see: Golan, E., Kuchler, F., 
Mitchell, L., Greene, C., & Jessup, A. (2001). Economics of food 
labeling. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(2), 117-184.

    Table 2--Executive Summary: Unit Costs and Benefits for Eggs and
                                Broilers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Eggs          Broilers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Unit Benefits and Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. Benefit Per Unit (Consumer              0.205/dozen        0.14/lb.
 Willingness to Pay) *..................
Cost Change in Average Total Cost of          0.06/dozen        0.02/lb.
 Production Per Unit....................
Net Benefit per Unit Gaining Outdoor         0.145/dozen        0.16/lb.
 Access.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Total Annualized Benefits and Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-Year Annualized Discounted Benefits           $89,564         $35,641
 (3%) ($1,000) *........................
20-Year Annualized Discounted Benefits            76,641          31,467
 (7%) (1,000) *.........................
20-Year Annualized Discounted Costs (3%)          32,893           5,491
 (1,000)................................
20-Year Annualized Discounted Costs (7%)          28,147           4,848
 (1,000)................................
20-Year Annualized Discounted Economic             8,709               0
 Welfare Loss (3%) (1,000)..............
20-Year Annualized Discounted Economic            16,046               0
 Welfare Loss (7%) (1,000)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Total Annualized Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-Year Annualized Discounted Net                 47,962          30,149
 Benefits (3%) (1,000)..................
20-Year Annualized Discounted Net                 32,448          26,619
 Benefits (7%) (1,000)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-time Domestic Information Collection Cost (1,000)...           4,930
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Layer benefit reports the mid-point benefits of the two estimates
  ($0.16/dz. and $0.25/dz.).

I. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    You may be 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; and
--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

[[Page 75396]]

business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine 
the regulatory text. If you have questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed above 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. Background

A. Purpose and Need for the Rule

    The purpose of this rule is to address several inconsistencies in 
organic livestock production that have arisen due to varying 
interpretations of the current livestock standards. This rule will add 
detail to the organic livestock health care and living conditions 
standards and add new standards specific to avian species. This 
additional detail will help producers and certifiers interpret and 
apply the organic livestock regulations more consistently, ensuring 
fair competition between producers and bolstering consumer confidence 
in the organic label.
    In 2021, U.S. sales of organic livestock and poultry were $2.2 
billion, and sales of organic livestock and poultry products were $2.9 
billion.\2\ Compared to 2011, this represents a 715 percent increase in 
sales of organic livestock and poultry and a 175 percent increase in 
sales of organic livestock and poultry products.\3\ The organic 
regulations have included general standards for livestock production 
since they were first published in 2000, however, the regulations lack 
specific standards for certain topics such as physical alterations, 
euthanasia, transport, slaughter, and avian-specific living conditions. 
This means producers and certifying agents must interpret and apply 
these general standards to different livestock production systems, each 
of which has its own unique needs and practices. This has led to 
different interpretations of the organic regulations--both differences 
in how some operations produce organic livestock and differences in how 
some certifying agents enforce the organic livestock standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2021 
Certified Organic Survey (released December 15, 2022), https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Organic_Production/.
    \3\ USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2011 
Certified Organic Survey (released October 2012), https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Organic_Production/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Production practices may differ substantially among different 
producers and certifiers, and a key purpose of this rule is to resolve 
widely divergent interpretations of existing organic production 
standards. For example, the existing regulation at Sec.  205.239(a)(1) 
requires ``[y]ear-round access for all animals to the outdoors.'' Some 
operations and certifying agents have interpreted this general 
requirement for outdoor access to mean that organically managed poultry 
need only to have access to fresh air and sunlight, and this can be 
satisfied by screened, elevated patio structures known as ``porches.'' 
Other certifying agents require operations to provide outdoor spaces 
with soil and vegetation, but even then, may differ in their 
interpretations of how much space must be provided outdoors. The final 
rule also details requirements for other aspects of organic livestock 
production for the purpose of reducing divergent interpretations of the 
regulations and divergent practices among organic livestock producers. 
These aspects include living conditions (both indoors and outdoors), 
health care practices, transport, and slaughter conditions.
    Inconsistencies in livestock practices and enforcement such as 
these have several detrimental effects on the organic market: producers 
can have significantly different production costs for the same organic 
product, and in some cases, consumers are unaware that not all organic 
products are produced with attributes they desire (e.g., outdoor 
access), resulting in consumers paying for an attribute they are not 
receiving.\4\ If consumers become aware that they are paying for an 
attribute that does not exist, like access to soil and vegetation, they 
are likely to lose confidence in the organic label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Recent survey data shows that 65% of frequent organic 
purchasers and 54% of all organic purchasers think that all organic 
animals have outdoor access throughout the day. See ASPCA and the 
Animal Welfare Institute survey, September 2022. https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/awi_aspca_organic_consumer_survey_summary_2022_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMS has found that inconsistent application of the organic 
livestock standards has likely produced a market failure, that has been 
in some part allowed to exist through government failure (action or 
inaction). ``Market failure'' occurs when the free market does not 
allocate resources efficiently--in other words, there is some market 
distortion such as information asymmetry--despite consumers making 
rational economic choices; analogously, ``government failure,'' for the 
purposes of this document, is the government's failure to refine its 
approach to addressing information asymmetry through regulation or 
through other government action. For example, if consumers are paying 
for an attribute that they believe they are receiving, such as an 
animal's full access to the outdoors, the money they spend on an 
attribute they do not receive is likely associated with the combination 
of information asymmetry from market and government failure. After 
reviewing the economic data, AMS believes that inconsistent application 
of the organic program standards has led to information asymmetry 
within the organic egg market and could be present in other organic 
livestock markets.\5\ For more discussion of market failure, see 
Section II.D, ORGANIC LIVESTOCK REGULATORY HISTORY, and this rule's 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, based on data from the ASPCA/AWI Organic 
Consumer Survey, AMS estimates that at least 31.5% of organic eggs 
are purchased by consumers who mistakenly think the chickens 
producing their eggs have outdoor access that includes soil or 
pasture. See Section II Subsection D for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of these failures, some consumers are losing trust in 
the organic label. In public comments, consumers conveyed they lost 
trust when they became aware that the organic label has not necessarily 
meant animals are raised under the conditions they expected. During the 
public comment period for the proposed OLPS rule, over 26,000 members 
of the public submitted letters that specifically referenced their 
diminished trust in the organic label. For example, AMS received more 
than 6,000 thousand copies of one letter saying, ``the lack of clear 
standards undermines consumer confidence in the organic label,'' and 
more than 700 copies of another saying, ``I expect the USDA Organic 
seal to include robust standards for animal welfare and outdoor access 
. . . without [that], I'm left wondering what I'm really getting when I 
purchase products with the USDA Organic seal.'' Similarly, the 
extensive and detailed comments submitted by several organic producers 
and trade groups identified loss of consumer confidence in the organic 
label as a primary concern. For more information on the relationship 
between trust and demand for labels, see Section F of the RIA.
    Additionally, public comments highlighted the uneven production 
costs due to the inconsistencies in outdoor access.\6\ One comment 
specifically stated that ``The allowance by some ACAs of ``porches'' to 
satisfy the outdoor access requirements, created an uneven competitive 
landscape as well as ``certifier shopping'' which is unrebutted 
evidence of inconsistency in the federal standards as well as

[[Page 75397]]

evidence of inconsistent products in the stream of commerce.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/AMS-NOP-21-0073-39096 and https://www.regulations.gov/comment/AMS-NOP-21-0073-39082.
    \7\ https://www.regulations.gov/comment/AMS-NOP-21-0073-39082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market failure, uneven production costs, and loss of trust in the 
organic label are three consequences that AMS seeks to address with 
this rule. The rule will establish avian-specific living conditions for 
poultry and provide more detail on living conditions and health care 
standards for all organic livestock. As a result of this rulemaking, 
AMS predicts that producers and certifying agents will be able to 
interpret and apply the organic regulations more consistently, assuring 
consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent and 
uniform standard, and safeguarding confidence in the organic label.

B. Statutory Authority To Issue Final Rule

Introduction
    USDA is issuing these regulations under its authority as delegated 
by OFPA and described below. In particular, USDA has statutory 
authority to promulgate the regulations in the final rule pursuant to 
USDA's authority: (1) to better assure consumers that organic livestock 
products meet a consistent standard (7 U.S.C. 6501); (2) to establish a 
national organic certification program (7 U.S.C. 6503(a)); (3) to 
promulgate ``other terms and conditions as may be determined by the 
Secretary to be necessary'' to the organic program (7 U.S.C. 
6506(a)(11)); and (4) to develop and implement standards for livestock 
production under the organic program (7 U.S.C. 6509). A discussion of 
public comments received on the topic of USDA's authority, and AMS's 
responses, can be found below in Section III., OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC 
COMMENTS.
Reasons for Changing Interpretation From the OLPP Withdrawal Rule
    USDA acknowledges that its position on USDA's statutory authority 
to issue this rule differs from the rationale that USDA relied on for 
the withdrawal of the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) 
final rule (Withdrawal Rule) in March 2018 (83 FR 10775). The sequence 
of events related to this rule is outlined below in the section titled 
``OLPP Rule and Legal Challenges.'' USDA discusses the reasons for its 
change in position following a brief discussion of USDA's previous 
rationale for the withdrawal of the OLPP final rule.
    In the Withdrawal Rule, USDA stated it withdrew the OLPP rule based 
on its then-interpretation of 7 U.S.C. 6509, which it believed did not 
``authorize the animal welfare provisions of the OLPP final rule'' (83 
FR 10776). At the time, USDA held that its authority under sec. 6509 to 
issue regulations for the ``care'' of livestock was limited to physical 
health care issues for livestock like those described in sec. 
6509(d)(1), i.e., relating to the ``ingestion of chemical, artificial, 
or non-organic substances'' (83 FR 10776). Based on this 
interpretation, USDA stated that the OLPP final rule had included 
``stand-alone animal welfare regulations'' that Congress had not 
specifically authorized under sec. 6509. Additionally, the Withdrawal 
Rule reasoned that if the statutory text could be construed as ``silent 
or ambiguous,'' its interpretation was entitled to deference and based 
on a permissible statutory construction'' (83 FR 10776).
    USDA now disagrees with the rationale and narrow textual reading in 
the Withdrawal Rule, and USDA finds it has ample authority to issue 
this final rule based on the text and structure of sec, 6509 and the 
statute's plain meaning (at sec. 6509 and elsewhere, including 7 U.S.C. 
6501, 7 U.S.C. 6503(a), 7 U.S.C. 6506(a)(11)). Additionally, USDA's 
longstanding interpretation of OFPA both prior to and since the 
Withdrawal Rule, as reflected in numerous regulations promulgated by 
AMS, confirms USDA's statutory authority to issue this rule (see ``D. 
Organic Livestock Regulatory History'').
    With this rule, USDA is using its authority to address regulatory 
issues that (1) prevent fair competition among producers (as the 
regulations are not interpreted consistently or applied equally to 
producers), and (2) lead to such widely varying practices among some 
producers that consumers cannot be assured an organic product meets a 
consistent standard--a key purpose of OFPA. The promulgation of this 
final rule is preferred to the alternative of relying on current 
regulations that are inconsistently interpreted and enforced (see 
Purpose and Need for the Rule). Data indicates that nothing since the 
withdrawal of the OLPP final rule has changed to reduce the 
inconsistency in practices, which continues to cause harm to consumers 
(see additional discussion of Market/Government Failure in the RIA for 
this final rule). Taking no action when known inconsistencies exist 
would run counter to a fundamental purpose of OFPA to assure consumers 
that organically produced products meet a consistent standard (7 U.S.C. 
6501). This final rule addresses these inconsistencies and, in turn, 
satisfies OFPA's purposes. For these reasons above and others discussed 
throughout this final rule, USDA finds that it has good reasons to 
revise its previous position from the Withdrawal Rule and issue this 
final rule.
Long-Standing Interpretation of OFPA and Promulgation of Livestock 
Regulations
    Since the implementation of the December 2000 final rule (65 FR 
80548) that established the AMS National Organic Program (NOP) and the 
USDA organic requirements, organic livestock producers have been 
required to meet requirements related to origin of livestock (Sec.  
205.236), livestock feed (Sec.  205.237), livestock health care 
practice standards (Sec.  205.238), and livestock living conditions 
(Sec.  205.239). These regulations address measures to avoid disease 
and illness; provisions about feed and pasture; principles governing 
housing, pasture conditions, sanitation practices; and requirements for 
access to the outdoors and a natural environment. As described in the 
December 2000 final rule, a producer must, ``establish and maintain 
livestock living conditions for the animals under his or her care which 
accommodate the health and natural behavior of the livestock. The 
producer must provide access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise 
areas, fresh air, and direct sunlight suitable to the species, its 
stage of production, the climate, and the environment.'' These 
regulations that have been effective since April 2001 (66 FR 15619) 
reflect our longstanding interpretation of care of livestock, and 
necessarily implicate animal welfare considerations.
    USDA, through its National Organic Program (NOP), oversees the 
entirety of the national organic certification program, from production 
standards to accreditation of USDA-accredited certifying agents, to 
noncompliance and appeal procedures, to international organic 
agreements, and more. The NOP does this through its comprehensive 
regulations at 7 CFR part 205. While the bulk of these specific 
regulations were published by USDA in December 2000, the NOP has 
elaborated on the regulations regularly since December 2000 under its 
authority delegated by OFPA.
    AMS has updated the organic livestock regulations, specifically, 
multiple times since 2000. Notably, the 2010 Access to Pasture final 
rule (75 FR 7153) expanded the organic regulations to, ``satisfy 
consumer expectations that ruminant livestock animals are grazing 
pastures and that pastures are managed to support grazing throughout 
the

[[Page 75398]]

grazing season.'' \8\ The rule specifically addressed areas related to 
production of organic ruminants (e.g., cattle, sheep, goats), including 
pasture management, recordkeeping, access to the outdoors, temporary 
confinement from the outdoors and pasture, and the amount of pasture 
required in proportion to the total diet or ration. More recently, a 
2022 Origin of Livestock final rule (87 FR 19740) clarified the manner 
in which organic dairy operations can transition livestock to organic 
production to increase uniformity in production practices for organic 
dairy animals and reduce variance between certifying agents. The 
regulatory history demonstrates a long precedent of AMS promulgating 
detailed regulations on organic livestock production. Similarly, this 
rule clarifies requirements for livestock production and supports the 
purposes of OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6501).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2010-3023/p-453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has also amended OFPA multiple times, but amendments to 
OFPA have never sought to restrict the types of organic livestock 
production practices that USDA may regulate under its delegated 
authority. In fact, Congress has occasionally urged USDA to finalize 
certain livestock regulations rather than clarify requirements through 
amendments to OFPA. For example, in the Further Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94, div. B, title VII, sec. 756, 
Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2654)), Congress directed USDA to issue a 
final rule based on the ``Origin of Livestock'' proposed rule that AMS 
published in April 2015.
OFPA Provisions and OFPA History
    The plain language and the legislative history of OFPA and USDA's 
longstanding interpretation of the statute support USDA's authority to 
issue these regulations. OFPA includes few details about organic 
livestock production, organic crop production, and handling of organic 
products. In all cases, the USDA organic regulations (7 CFR part 205) 
have, since their inception, include more detailed requirements than 
included in OFPA, as Congress authorized and intended. For livestock, 
Congress was particularly clear in stating that the livestock 
requirements in OFPA were not fully developed, and delegated rulemaking 
authority to USDA to develop more detailed livestock production 
requirements and standards (7 U.S.C. 6509(g)).
    As stated in the Conference Report of October 22, 1990 (p. 1177):

    The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an 
amendment which requires the Secretary to hold hearings and develop 
regulations regarding livestock standards in addition to those 
specified in this title . . . the Managers recognize the need to 
further elaborate on the standards set forth in the title and expect 
that by holding public discussions with interested parties and with 
the National Organic Standards Board, the Secretary will determine 
the necessary standards . . .

Moreover, as stated in the Senate Report, Congress made clear that USDA 
would develop ``more detailed'' livestock production standards, as well 
as implement them:

    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. The Committee recommends as well 
that, over time, USDA and the Organic Standards Board develop 
standards for aquaculture products.

S. Rep. No. 101-357, at 292 (1990).

    In addition, OFPA grants USDA authority to establish standards for 
the national organic program. Sec. 6503(a) states: ``The Secretary 
shall establish an organic certification program for producers and 
handlers of agricultural products that have been produced using organic 
methods as provided for in this chapter,'' and 7 U.S.C. 6506(a)(11) 
which provides: ``A program established under this chapter shall 
require such other terms and conditions as may be determined by the 
Secretary to be necessary.''
    OFPA also specifically authorizes USDA to develop detailed 
requirements for animal production practices (7 U.S.C. 6509). 7 U.S.C. 
6509(a) specifies that ``Any livestock that is to be slaughtered and 
sold or labeled as organically produced shall be raised in accordance 
with this chapter.'' ``Organically produced,'' as defined by OFPA, is 
broad. It is defined as ``an agricultural product that is produced and 
handled in accordance with this chapter.'' \9\ Sec. 6509(d)(1) 
addresses a handful of specific prohibited health care practices 
related to use of medications and feed on organic farms. Notably, OFPA 
specifies at subsection 6509(d)(2): ``The National Organic Standards 
Board shall recommend to the Secretary standards in addition to those 
in paragraph (1) [titled ``Prohibited practices''] for the care of 
livestock to ensure that such livestock is organically produced.'' 
Finally, 7 U.S.C. 6509(g) also provides that ``the Secretary shall hold 
public hearings and shall develop detailed regulations, with notice and 
public comment, to guide the implementation of the standards for 
livestock products provided under this section'' (italics added). USDA 
has long interpreted these provisions to grant the authority to address 
animal welfare as part of the organic standards, regularly developing 
and promulgating detailed regulations that implicate animal welfare 
through the statutorily outlined process of consulting NOSB and 
offering notice and public comment on additional standards developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 7 U.S.C. 6502(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In withdrawing the OLPP Rule, USDA at that time asserted that 
standards for animal care practices are limited to physical health care 
practices similar to those specified in 7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(1) and could 
not encompass concerns about animal welfare. However, sec. 6509(d)(2) 
provides that the NOSB shall consider and propose additional standards, 
and the language of that section broadly allows the NOSB to recommend 
standards for the ``care of livestock'', and nowhere explicitly limited 
to provisions that prohibit the ingestion or administration of 
chemical, synthetic, or non-naturally occurring substances for 
livestock. Indeed, the two subsections of sec. 6509(d) address certain 
prohibited health care practices and other types of care separately, 
suggesting Congress's intent that the NOSB consider and propose 
standards for each type of care. Sec. 6509(d)(1) lists ``prohibited 
practices'' in health care of livestock, including prohibiting 
administering routine antibiotics, synthetic internal parasiticides, or 
any medication beyond vaccines, in the absence of illness. Sec. 
6509(d)(2) instead provides that NOSB shall recommend ``standards in 
addition to'' those prohibited practices ``for the care of livestock to 
ensure that such livestock is organically produced.'' (7 U.S.C. 
6509(d)(2)). That Congress went to the effort of distinguishing certain 
prohibited medical practices from the general ``care'' for which NOSB 
can recommend standards reflects an intent that USDA's authority to 
regulate livestock production practices extends beyond the medication 
and feed examples in sect. 6509(d)(1).
    In addition, OFPA did not define ``raised,'' ``health care,'' or 
``care,'' and instead authorized USDA to promulgate regulations and 
implement standards for the organic program, generally, and for organic 
livestock products more specifically. Moreover, the plain meaning of 
the terms ``care,'' (7 U.S.C.

[[Page 75399]]

6509(d)(2)) ``raised,'' (7 U.S.C. 6509(a) and (e)) and ``health care,'' 
(7 U.S.C. 6509(d)) includes considerations of animal welfare. Merriam-
Webster defines ``care'' as ``charge, supervision . . . especially: 
responsibility for or attention to health, well-being, and safety.'' 
\10\ Similarly, the American Heritage Dictionary defines ``care'' as 
``watchful oversight; charge or supervision,'' \11\ and the Cambridge 
Dictionary defines ``care'' as ``the process of protecting or providing 
for the needs of someone or something.'' \12\ Merriam-Webster defines 
``raise'' as ``to breed and bring (an animal) to maturity,'' \13\ and 
the American Heritage Dictionary defines ``raise'' as ``to breed and 
care for to maturity: raise cattle.'' \14\ In addition, ``health care'' 
is defined as ``efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, 
or emotional well-being especially by trained and licensed 
professionals.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/care.
    \11\ American Heritage Dictionary, available at https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=care.
    \12\ Cambridge Dictionary, available at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/essential-american-english/care.
    \13\ Merriam Webster, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/raise.
    \14\ American Heritage Dictionary, available at https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=raise.
    \15\ Merriam Webster, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/health%20care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast to the narrow interpretation of the OFPA term ``health 
care'' used in the Withdrawal Rule, the OLPS final rule returns to 
USDA's longstanding interpretation of ``health care'' which goes beyond 
specific healthcare practices for organic livestock and can reasonably 
encompass production practices related to the welfare and well-being of 
livestock. This interpretation aligns with longstanding organic 
regulations related to health care at 7 CFR 205.238 titled ``Livestock 
health care practice standard'' and included in the 2000 final rule. 
Section 205.238(a) includes provisions that support livestock health, 
including provisions related to housing, feed, sanitation, species 
selection, exercise and movement, and conditions which allow for 
reduction of stress.
    The aforementioned terms (``care,'' ``raised,'' and ``health 
care'') connote a broader conception of livestock health care and 
livestock care that includes livestock living conditions and 
considerations of welfare, and these terms allow USDA to prescribe 
modes of caring for livestock that extend beyond prohibiting specific 
health care practices such as the ``ingestion of chemical, artificial, 
or non-organic substances.'' (83 FR 10776). The language in sec. 6509, 
including allowing the NOSB to recommend regulations ``in addition to'' 
those in subsection 6509(d)(1) ``for the care of livestock'' indicates 
that the scope of USDA's authority extends beyond regulations 
prohibiting the ingestion of chemical, artificial, or non-organic 
substances. Sec. 6509(e)(1) and (2) describe ``additional guidelines'' 
for ``rais[ing] and handl[ing]'' poultry and dairy livestock, 
respectively. The use of the phrase ``[r]aised and handled in 
accordance with this chapter'' (6509(e)(1), (2)(A)) suggests a more 
comprehensive understanding of care that goes beyond narrow conceptions 
of medical care of organic livestock and can reasonably encompass 
production practices related to livestock living conditions and 
welfare. Thus, USDA believes that sec. 6509 supports the promulgation 
of these regulations concerning the humane raising of livestock. 
However, even if the text of sec. 6509 were silent or ambiguous about 
this issue, USDA believes that its interpretation is a permissible 
reading, an interpretation that is entitled to deference.
Animal Welfare
    This rule's focus on animal welfare, especially outdoor access 
requirements, supports the organic regulations' existing principles of 
resource cycling and ecological balance (see ``organic production'' 
defined at 7 CFR 205.2 and Sec.  205.239(e)). Nevertheless, USDA 
recognizes that NOSB recommendations and public comments that have 
shaped this final rule may have intended to enhance the welfare or 
well-being of animals marketed as organic. Many in the contemporary 
organic industry do not view animal welfare as distinct from the 
concerns expressly reflected in the statutory text of OFPA. A growing 
body of research is showing that livestock and poultry with access to 
pasture and the outdoors to forage and engage in natural behaviors may 
be positively associated with the following outcomes: improved well-
being of the animals, environmental benefits, and healthier livestock 
and poultry products \16\ for human consumption.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Is Grassfed Meat and Dairy Better for Human and 
Environmental Health? Frederick D. Provenza, Scott L. Kronberg, and 
Pablo Gregorini, Front Nutr. 2019; 6: 26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6434678/.
    \17\ Palupi, Eny; Jayanegara, Anuraga; Ploegera, Angelika and 
Kahla, Johannes (2012) ``Comparison of nutritional quality between 
conventional and organic dairy products: a meta-analysis,'' Journal 
of the Science of Food and Agriculture, Vol. 92, pp. 2774-2781. 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22430502/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public perception and the expectations of organic consumers 
parallel this research. For example, a 2021 study found that consumers 
expect less need for antibiotics and other medications that sec. 
6509(d) expressly limits when animals are raised with practices that 
improve the health and welfare of livestock.\18\ Since OFPA was 
enacted, expectations for the conditions under which animals are raised 
(i.e., animal welfare) have become an integral part of organic 
production, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of public 
comments that USDA has received on this topic over three decades, as 
well as an emerging body of research on the motivations that drive 
consumers to buy organic livestock products. Several studies point to 
animal welfare concerns as significant or even primary drivers for 
organic consumers.\19\ Likewise, consumers perceive organic livestock 
to be raised according to higher animal welfare standards than non-
organic livestock.\20\ Literature also suggests government-sponsored 
ecolabels provide the highest levels of consumer confidence.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Wemette, M., Safi, A.G., Wolverton, A.K., Beauvais, W., 
Shapiro, M., Moroni, P., . . . & Ivanek, R. (2021). Public 
perceptions of antibiotic use on dairy farms in the United States. 
Journal of Dairy Science, 104(3), 2807-2821 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33455793/.
    \19\ Alonso, Marta E.; Gonz[aacute]lez-Monta[ntilde]a, 
Jos[eacute] R.; and Lomillos, Juan M. (2020) ``Consumers' Concerns 
and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare,'' Animals, Vol. 10, pp. 385-
397. McEachern, M.G.; Willock, J. (2004) ``Producers and consumers 
of organic meat: A focus on attitudes and motivations.'' British 
Food Journal, Vol. 106, pp.534-552.
    \20\ Harper, Gemma C; Makatouni, Aikaterini (2002) ``Consumer 
perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare.'' 
British Food Journal; Vol. 104, Iss. 3-5, pp. 287-299.
    \21\ Kim Mannemar S. [Atilde]nderskov, and Carsten Daugbjerg. 
``The State and Consumer Confidence In Eco-labeling: Organic 
Labeling In Denmark, Sweden, The United Kingdom and The United 
States.'' Agriculture and human values, v. 28,.4 pp. 507-517. doi: 
10.1007/s10460-010-9295-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The March 2018 Withdrawal Rule reasoned that OFPA did not authorize 
``stand-alone animal welfare regulations.'' USDA's current position is 
that the OLPS final rule is not a stand-alone animal welfare 
regulation. Some provisions of the rule may improve animal welfare, but 
USDA's primary objective is to clarify requirements for products sold 
as ``organic.'' This role and its corresponding authority are clearly 
intended by OFPA, where Congress delegated authority to USDA ``to 
establish an organic certification program for producers and handlers 
of agricultural products'' (7 U.S.C. 6503(a)) and develop standards for 
the care of

[[Page 75400]]

livestock (7 U.S.C. 6509) to meet the purposes of the OFPA, including 
``to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a 
consistent standard'' (7 U.S.C. 6501(2)). Since the enactment of OFPA, 
the USDA has worked to establish, develop, and administer standards on 
numerous aspects of organic production, including standards for the 
care of livestock that extend beyond the Withdrawal Rule's narrow 
interpretation of ``health care.'' USDA maintains that, notwithstanding 
the novel interpretation of the Withdrawal Rule, the authority of its 
national organic certification program to establish, develop, and 
administer livestock standards--including those that implicate the 
welfare of animals used in organic production--is confirmed by USDA's 
present and longstanding interpretation of OFPA.
NOSB Consultation (OFPA) and Development of OLPS
    Congress directed USDA to consult with the NOSB to establish a 
national organic certification program (7 U.S.C. 6503(c), 6509(d)) and 
develop detailed livestock regulations with notice and public comment 
(7 U.S.C. 6509(g)). USDA has done just that in developing this and 
previous livestock regulations (see, for example, ``History of AMS 
Livestock Policy'' in Section D; to see recommendations related to the 
OLPS rule, see ``C. NOSB Recommendations on Livestock Production''). 
The vast majority of NOSB recommendations and public comments agree 
with and support the USDA's decision to establish the regulations 
included in the OLPS final rule.
Conclusion
    AMS is issuing this rule after determining, in consultation with 
the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and following notice and 
public comment, that regulations are necessary to clarify the existing 
livestock production standards. This follows the process intended for 
livestock standards development authorized by OFPA at 7 U.S.C. 6503 and 
6509. USDA determined that existing organic livestock production 
regulations have not been interpreted or enforced in a consistent 
manner among certifiers to assure consumers that organic livestock and 
products from livestock (e.g., eggs) meet a consistent standard. Under 
the authority granted by OFPA, AMS is issuing this rule with clearer 
standards to address inconsistencies in livestock production 
regulations.
    Comment summaries and AMS responses on the topic of USDA's 
statutory authority to promulgate these regulations can be found below 
in Section III, OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC COMMENTS.

C. NOSB Recommendations on Livestock Production

    The NOSB is a federal advisory committee established by OFPA (7 
U.S.C. 6518) to provide recommendations to USDA on the development of 
organic standards and regulations. NOSB recommendations are developed 
through a rigorous process involving technical information, stakeholder 
input through public comment, open meetings, and a decisive two-thirds 
majority vote of the Board. Although the Board cannot direct or bind 
USDA through its recommendations, USDA utilizes the NOSB 
recommendations to inform rulemaking, including this rulemaking.
    Between 1994 and 2011, the NOSB made nine recommendations regarding 
livestock health care, living conditions, 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. Members of 
the public commented on these rules regarding the health care and 
welfare of livestock. Summarized below are the key actions from that 
period that led to the development of the existing standards for 
organic livestock and that have informed this OLPS final rule.
    (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 health care and welfare of livestock, 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 addenda to the June 1994 recommendations. These 
recommendations further addressed various health care practices, a 
requirement for outdoor access, and the use of vaccines.
    (3) On December 16, 1997, AMS incorporated 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 livestock could be confined. That 
proposed rule was not finalized.
    (4) In March 1998, the NOSB reaffirmed its earlier recommendations 
on livestock 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) that incorporated 
public feedback on the December 1997 proposed rule. AMS also 
incorporated the NOSB's March 1998 recommendations related to livestock 
health care and living conditions. 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) (``NOP Rule''). Through this 
action, AMS finalized the standards for health care practices and 
livestock living conditions. This rule addressed a range of matters 
related to organic livestock production, including organic feed; use of 
hormones and supplements; measures to avoid disease and illness; 
veterinary biologics, medications, synthetic parasiticides, and other 
drugs; and general principles governing housing, pasture conditions, 
sanitation practices, and physical alterations. The NOP Rule also 
generally required producers to provide organic livestock with ``access 
to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, and direct 
sunlight suitable to the species, its stage of production, the climate, 
and the environment,'' but allowed producers to satisfy those criteria 
in different ways. That rule became effective on April 21, 2001 
(correction of effective date; 66 FR 15619) and was fully implemented 
on October 21, 2002.

[[Page 75401]]

    (7) In May 2002, the NOSB again addressed outdoor access, stating 
this should include open air and direct access to sunshine.\22\ In 
addition, the May 2002 recommendation stated that bare surfaces other 
than soil do not meet the NOP Rule's intent for outdoor access for 
poultry. This recommendation also included clarifications as to when 
livestock could be temporarily confined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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.'' \23\ The NOSB reasoned that confinement for a ``stage of 
life'' would limit producers from confining animals for long periods, 
such as confinement during the entire period that a dairy animal is 
lactating. ``Stage of life'' was reasoned to be more specific than 
``stage of production.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NOSB, 2005. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to 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), based on several NOSB 
recommendations regarding ruminant livestock feed and living conditions 
and public comments. AMS published the final rule, Access to Pasture 
(Livestock), on February 17, 2010 (75 FR 7154). This rule amended 
numerous areas of the organic livestock regulations, including 7 CFR 
205.237, 205.239, 205.240, as described below in Section D, ``Organic 
Livestock Regulatory History.''
    (10) Between 2009 and 2011, the NOSB issued a series of 
recommendations on livestock 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.\24\ The NOSB recommended banning or restricting certain 
physical alterations and requiring organic producers to keep records on 
livestock that 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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.\25\ 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. In April 2010, 
the NOSB passed a recommendation to clarify that milk from animals 
treated with allowed synthetic medical treatments and annotated with a 
milk withholding time may be fed to young organic livestock still 
receiving milk in their diet.\26\ The NOSB stated that such changes 
would improve the welfare of organic livestock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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.
    \26\ NOSB, 2010. Formal Recommendation by the NOSB to the NOP, 
Clarification of 205.238(c)(1). Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (12) In December 2011, the NOSB passed an additional livestock 
welfare recommendation.\27\ The 2011 recommendation added definitions 
for terms related to livestock production and provisions for health 
care standards and living conditions. The NOSB also revised its prior 
recommendation on physical alterations to provide a broader list of 
prohibited 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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 the slaughter process, including transportation of 
livestock to slaughter facilities.\28\ 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 meet certain performance-
based standards assessed via observations of animal handling and any 
slips, falls or vocalizations before and during slaughter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The series of recommendations described above demonstrate the 
collective effort of NOSB to develop specific standards for certain 
livestock production topics such as physical alterations, euthanasia, 
transport, slaughter, and avian-specific living conditions. AMS has 
utilized these recommendations to inform standards set forth in the 
OLPS rule. In doing so, NOSB and AMS have followed the process required 
by OFPA to consult with the NOSB (7 U.S.C. 6503(c)) to develop detailed 
regulations for livestock production (7 U.S.C. 6509(d) and (g)).

D. Organic Livestock Regulatory History

History of AMS Livestock Policy
    This final rule clarifies and expands on the original December 2000 
organic requirements (the ``NOP Rule'') to support consistent 
interpretation and enforcement of organic livestock standards. USDA has 
revised the regulations related to organic livestock production since 
December 2000. On October 29, 2002, AMS issued a memorandum to clarify 
outdoor access and temporary confinement requirements for livestock 
under the USDA organic regulations.\29\ 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. It 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.\30\ However, NOP determined that additional specificity 
was required to improve compliance and enforcement and satisfy consumer 
expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ National Organic Program, 2002. Access to the Outdoors for 
Livestock. Retained as Policy Memo 11-5. Available in the NOP 
Handbook: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Program%20Handbk_TOC.pdf.
    \30\ This memorandum was incorporated into the NOP Handbook (as 
``PM 11-5'') on January 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 15, 2002, an operation applied for organic certification of 
its

[[Page 75402]]

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'' (enclosed, covered, and screened areas attached to a 
poultry house, either elevated or at ground level). The certifying 
agent denied certification for failing 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 sustained the appeal on October 
25, 2002, and directed the certifying agent 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 granted USDA's motion to dismiss the case (Massachusetts 
Independent Certification, Inc. v. Johanns, 486 F. Supp. 2d 105). As a 
result of these adjudications, use of porches to meet the requirement 
in the USDA organic regulations for outdoor access expanded, and 
certain producers have settled on production practices that rely on 
porches, leading to inconsistencies with producers that offer animals 
access to outdoor spaces with soil, vegetation, direct sunlight, and 
considerable space per animal.
    While the use of porches was expanding in the organic poultry 
industry, AMS was more precisely defining outdoor access for other 
species. On February 17, 2010, AMS published a final rule adopting new 
provisions relating to organic livestock production. The Access to 
Pasture Rule was informed by NOSB's 2005 recommendation and extensive 
public input requesting clear outdoor access requirements for ruminant 
livestock. It required that ruminants graze at least 120 days per year, 
described situations that warrant denying ruminants access to the 
outdoors (e.g., birthing cows or newborn calves), required that 
ruminants receive not less than 30 percent of dry matter intake from 
grazing, and addressed several other matters related to the management 
of pasture and feeding yards, pads, and lots. The Access to Pasture 
Rule also clarified that the requirements for outdoor access and 
species-appropriate access to shade, shelter, exercise, fresh air, and 
direct sunlight required by the NOP Rule must be provided for all 
organic livestock, including poultry, on a year-round basis.
    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.\31\ The OIG found inconsistent certification 
practices regarding outdoor access for poultry. For example, one 
operation they visited provided a total of 300 square feet of outdoor 
access for approximately 15,000 chickens, while two other operations 
provided large pasture areas. Of the four certifying agents OIG 
visited, only one had developed stocking density requirements for 
livestock. The OIG recommended that AMS issue further guidance on 
outdoor access for livestock, especially poultry.
    In response, AMS published draft guidance, Outdoor Access for 
Organic Poultry, on October 13, 2010 and sought public comment.\32\ 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.\33\ It informed certifying agents and 
producers that maintaining poultry on soil or outdoor runs would 
demonstrate compliance with the outdoor access requirement in 7 CFR 
205.239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 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).
    \33\ 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. Several commenters, including organic poultry producers, 
requested a change to the draft guidance language to say that poultry, 
when outdoors, should be maintained on soil, pasture, or vegetation. 
They described health benefits and protection of the environment that a 
pasture or other vegetated outdoor access area would afford. 
Additionally, some supported more specific and stringent stocking 
densities. Commenters suggested a maximum stocking rate of 1.75 square 
feet per bird in henhouses that provide access to perches, with an 
additional 5 square feet per bird available in vegetated outdoor runs 
accessible to all birds at the same time.
    On the other hand, some commenters favored allowing porches as 
acceptable outdoor access, citing biosecurity and animal health 
concerns. One trade association, some organic egg producers, and 
consultants described several benefits in the use of production systems 
that limit outdoor access via the use of enclosed porches that keep 
poultry from contact with soil or pasture. These benefits included 
protection from predation and parasites, and seclusion from contact 
with pathogens that cause food safety problems and wild birds that 
could carry diseases. The commenters asserted that these systems are 
consistent with the 2002 NOSB recommendation and noted that organic egg 
producers had 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 layers 
are not fully immunized (including for protection against Salmonella) 
until 16 weeks of age. These producers said that pullets should not be 
exposed to uncontrolled environments until that time.
    However, many comments suggested that AMS's draft guidance was 
unenforceable, and rulemaking would be a better action. These stated 
that certifying agents would be able to enforce a rule more clearly and 
decisively than guidance. Given this request that USDA address the 
issue of outdoor access for poultry through the rulemaking process, AMS 
determined to pursue rulemaking and did not finalize the draft 
guidance.
OLPP Rule and Legal Challenges
    In April 2016, AMS published a proposed rule, Organic Livestock and 
Poultry Practices (OLPP), which incorporated NOSB recommendations. The 
proposed rule included provisions related to livestock health care 
practices (such as physical alteration procedures, euthanasia, and 
treatment of sick animals), living conditions for mammalian and avian 
livestock (including minimum indoor and outdoor space requirements for 
avian livestock), and requirements for care during transport and for 
slaughter practices. It received 6,675 written comments during the 90-
day comment period, and petition signatures numbering in the tens of 
thousands. Comments were received from

[[Page 75403]]

producers, producer associations, handlers, certifying agents, 
consumers and consumer groups, animal welfare organizations, 
veterinarians, state government agencies, foreign government agencies, 
and trade associations or organizations. They provided insight on 
topics such as regulatory authority, import impact, trade agreements, 
and alternatives to regulation. Comments generally found the rule 
beneficial for the industry and the organic label, but several raised 
challenges with the proposed standards.
    In response to public comment, AMS made a number of changes to the 
proposed rule to further clarify the requirements and mitigate economic 
impact on the industry. AMS published the Organic Livestock and Poultry 
Practices final rule (OLPP Rule) on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7042). 
Prior to the OLPP Rule becoming effective, USDA (under a new 
Administration) delayed the effective date of the rule to allow the 
Administration to review it.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 82 FR 9967 (February 9, 2017); 82 FR 21677 (May 19, 
2017); and 82 FR 52643 (November 14, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After delaying the OLPP Rule's effective date and conducting its 
review, AMS proposed withdrawing the OLPP Rule. It determined that the 
agency lacked the legal authority to issue the rulemaking, cited 
substantive errors in OLPP's economic analysis, and maintained that 
there was no market failure (82 FR 59988, December 18, 2017). On March 
13, 2018, AMS published a final rule withdrawing the OLPP Rule for 
those reasons (Withdrawal Rule; 83 FR 10775). Plaintiffs challenged 
USDA's delay and subsequent withdrawal the OLPP Rule. The Center for 
Food Safety (CFS) and Center for Environmental Health (CEH) sued USDA, 
and the Organic Trade Association (OTA) separately filed a suit, see 
Organic Trade Association v. USDA, No. 17-cv-1875-RMC (D.D.C.); CEH v. 
USDA, No. 3:18-cv-1763 (N.D. Cal.)).
    In March 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 
granted USDA's motion to remand to USDA for purposes of clarifying and 
supplementing the records regarding the economic analyses underlying 
the OLPP Rule and the Withdrawal Rule. The District Court set a 
deadline of 180 days for USDA to complete these economic analysis 
actions.
    AMS reviewed the economic analyses for both the OLPP Rule and the 
Withdrawal Rule. It discovered additional errors in the OLPP Rule, 
beyond those already cited by the Withdrawal Rule, and substantive 
errors in the economic analysis of the Withdrawal Rule itself. AMS 
published the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practice Economic Analysis 
Report on April 23, 2020, describing all the errors and seeking public 
comment on the Report (85 FR 22664). After considering the comments, 
AMS published the Final Decision on Organic Livestock and Poultry 
Practices Rule and Summary of Comments on the Economic Analysis Report 
on September 17, 2020 (85 FR 57937). In the Final Decision, AMS 
concluded that ``[t]o the extent the Withdrawal Rule formed an 
assessment of the likely costs and benefits of the OLPP Rule based on 
that flawed analysis, AMS hereby modifies that assessment and concludes 
simply that the Final RIA does not support promulgation of the OLPP 
Rule in light of its significant flaws.'' AMS further concluded that 
``[i]mplementing the OLPP Rule based on such a flawed economic analysis 
is not in the public interest'' and decided not to take any further 
regulatory action with respect to the OLPP Rule (85 FR 57944).
    In June 2021, Secretary Vilsack announced that USDA would 
``reconsider the prior Administration's interpretation that [OFPA] does 
not authorize USDA to regulate the practices that were the subject of 
the [OLPP Rule].'' He further directed NOP ``to begin a rulemaking to 
address this statutory interpretation and to include a proposal to 
disallow the use of porches as outdoor space in organic production over 
time and on other topics that were the subject of the OLPP Final 
Rule.''
Economic Analysis and Market Failure
    In the Economic Analysis Report, AMS described the three errors 
that had been identified in the economic analysis of the Withdrawal 
Rule: (1) the incorrect application of the discounting formula; (2) the 
use of an incorrect willingness to pay value for eggs produced under 
the new outdoor access requirements; and (3) the incorrect application 
of a depreciation treatment to the benefit calculations. The Report 
explained that although the economic analysis of the Withdrawal Rule 
correctly identified these errors and properly addressed the first two 
errors (incorrect discounting methodology and willingness-to-pay 
values), it had not fully removed the incorrect depreciation treatment 
from the cost and benefit calculations, which erroneously reduced the 
calculation of both costs and benefits.
    The Report went on to identify and discuss four categories of 
additional errors in the economic analysis of the OLPP Rule that were 
previously undetected and therefore inadvertently carried forward to 
the economic analysis of the Withdrawal Rule. These were: (1) 
inconsistent or incorrect documentation of key calculation variables; 
(2) an error in the volume specification affecting benefits 
calculations in two of three scenarios considered; (3) the incorrect 
use of production values in the benefits calculations that do not 
account for projected increased mortality loss; and (4) aspects of the 
cost calculations that resulted in certain costs being ignored, 
underreported, or inconsistently applied. In addition, the Report 
described certain minor errors that did not have a material impact on 
the cost and benefit calculations (85 FR 57938).
    In this OLPS final rule, AMS has worked to ensure that the RIA 
addresses these concerns. Some of the mathematical or descriptive 
concerns were addressed with rewriting the rule. AMS specifically 
addressed issues with discounting and depreciation in the analysis and 
fixed various errors found by the report. Additionally, AMS adjusted 
the willingness to pay for outdoor access in eggs to the more precise 
measure suggested by the economic analysis report. While AMS maintains 
the use of enterprise budgets in the original rule to model costs, AMS 
updated costs in the rule to the extent possible based on data 
availability, as they provide the most detailed estimates for the 
organic industry and USDA ERS has shown that both feed and land costs 
have remained approximately steady since their 
development.35 36
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ USDA ERS. Farmland Value. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-useland-value-tenure/farmland-value.
    \36\ USDA NASS. Paid Indexes by Farm Origin and Month, Feed and 
Livestock & Poultry. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Agricultural_Prices/prod3.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on data provided through public comment, AMS determined that 
there is inconsistent application of outdoor access requirements for 
organic livestock, leading to information asymmetry.\37\ This 
inconsistency and information asymmetry threatens both consumer 
confidence in the organic label and future industry growth. One of the 
primary purposes of OFPA is ``to assure consumers that organically 
produced products meet a consistent standard (7 U.S.C. 6501).'' 
Therefore, USDA must issue additional regulations to ensure that 
organic livestock products meet a consistent, nationwide standard 
across the industry. This rule will

[[Page 75404]]

minimize the inconsistency and information asymmetry in the organic 
livestock industry and meet one of OFPA's main purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ For example, based on data from the ASPCA/AWI Organic 
Consumer Survey, AMS estimates that at least 31.5% of organic eggs 
are purchased by consumers who mistakenly think the chickens 
producing their eggs have outdoor access that includes soil or 
pasture. See below for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third-party certification can result in different certifiers 
interpreting the standards differently. In the case of organic animals, 
including organic poultry, there has been significant divergence among 
certifiers in how the ``access to the outdoors'' requirement in 7 CFR 
205.239(a)(1) is interpreted and enforced. As a matter of practice, 
certifiers determine how much outdoor access is needed to meet the 
rule's requirements, and this has led to divergent certification and 
production practices.
    While differing practices within a given industry do not 
necessarily constitute a market failure, highly varied practices under 
a single marketing label can create a market failure through 
information asymmetry. Information asymmetry occurs because consumers 
may not know how their organic livestock products are being produced 
but producers do, resulting in some organic consumers paying a premium 
for organic products that they incorrectly believe contain specific 
attributes (e.g., outdoor access). When consumers pay for a product 
that does not include certain attributes they expect, this may 
represent a market failure caused by an information asymmetry between 
consumers and organic operations. The existence of this information 
asymmetry has been a driver of the creation and operation of USDA's 
organic certification program, and organic labeling thus communicates 
product attributes in accordance with the program's ``organic'' 
definition, standards, and enforcement; as a result, suboptimal past 
program choices may have contributed to the baseline market 
distortions.
    In the organic egg industry, AMS estimates that approximately 30% 
of organic egg production comes from hens with access to outdoor areas 
that include soil or pasture, while approximately 70% of organic egg 
production only has access to the outdoors through enclosed porches 
with no soil or pasture. Recent survey data shows that 65% of frequent 
organic purchasers and 54% of all organic purchasers think that all 
organic animals have access to ``outdoor pastures and fresh air 
throughout the day.'' \38\ Using this data, AMS estimates that 31.5% of 
organic eggs are purchased by consumers who mistakenly think the 
chickens producing their eggs have outdoor access that includes soil or 
pasture. This survey also demonstrates consumers may face similar 
information asymmetries about space and welfare requirements in organic 
agriculture, with 59% of consumers believing organic animals have more 
space and 45% of consumers believing organic animals are prohibited 
from having their beaks and tails removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ ASPCA and the Animal Welfare Institute. Survey. September 
2022. https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/awi_aspca_organic_consumer_survey_summary_2022_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, rulemaking is the best solution to resolve the market/
government failure and meet the OFPA purpose of ``assur[ing] consumers 
that organically produced products meet a consistent standard''--in 
this case assuring consumers that organic livestock products are 
produced using consistent animal welfare and outdoor access standards. 
Given that third-party labels are not regulated by USDA, it would be 
difficult to attain informational consistency needed to address the 
information asymmetry. Additionally, stakeholders have expressed 
concerns about the additional producer costs and consumer confusion 
these labels may create.39 40 This rulemaking aligns with 
existing third-party labels regarding outdoor access, easing the burden 
on producers (relative to a hypothetical rulemaking with similar goals 
but no such alignment). AMS also believes that rulemaking is a better 
option than increased consumer education about the livestock attributes 
of the organic label. Consumer education may help consumers know what 
to expect from the organic label, but it would not address inconsistent 
production practices among organic livestock producers, which 
undermines AMS's statutory mission to ensure that products produced and 
sold under the organic label are meeting a consistent national 
standard. AMS believes rulemaking is the best option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Producer costs under the various requirements are estimated 
in Section F of the RIA.
    \40\ Theoretical discussion about the relations between consumer 
confusion and label trust can be found in Section F of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summaries of comments received on the topic of market failure and 
AMS's responses to comments on the topic are below. Many of the 
comments received supported AMS's conclusion that there is a market 
failure caused by a lack of clear standards.

III. Overview of Public Comments

    AMS published the OLPS proposed rule on August 9, 2022, opening a 
60-day public comment period. On August 19, AMS held an online public 
listening session on the proposed rule to gather additional feedback; 
132 listeners attended the listening session, and 19 gave oral 
comments. At the request of several organic stakeholders, AMS extended 
the public comment period another 30 days to allow more time for the 
public to develop detailed comments on the rule's requirements. By the 
close of the 90-day public comment period on November 10, 2022, AMS had 
received 40,336 written comments from a variety of stakeholders, 
including consumers, operations, certifying agents, retailers, trade 
associations, and advocacy groups. Some of these comments (which can be 
found at Regulations.gov) included signed petitions, which totaled 
57,000 signatures to petitions (in addition to the written comments). 
The subjects of the comments (including petitions) are discussed below. 
The organic industry demonstrated considerable interest in this rule 
and provided AMS detailed feedback on this rule.
    By a large majority (94%), public comments and petitions supported 
the rule, with many saying that consumers already expect outdoor access 
to be part of the organic label in keeping with animals' natural 
behaviors. Several organic operations, certifying agents, and organic 
trade groups asserted the rule is necessary to ensure all producers 
have a consistent interpretation of what qualifies as outdoor access 
under the organic regulations. Most of the comments opposing the rule 
did not think it went far enough in protecting animal welfare and asked 
AMS to include additional animal welfare protections in the rule. Other 
comments disputed the need for the rule, AMS's authority to promulgate 
the rule, and the effect of the rule on animal safety and organic 
markets. AMS responds to these comments below.
    In addition to soliciting general comments, AMS sought specific 
feedback on USDA's statutory authority to issue this rule, the rule's 
clarity, the accuracy of its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), its consistency with current 
organic livestock production practices, and on specific implementation 
timeline options. The implementation timeline received by far the most 
public comment, with the nearly all commenters on that topic requesting 
implementation timelines shorter than the 15-year option. Poultry space 
requirements received the second most attention, and commenters 
responded in detail to several other livestock production practices and 
to issues regarding food and animal safety. AMS took public comments 
into

[[Page 75405]]

consideration when revising the policy and setting the implementation 
timeline.
    AMS also received many public comments on the specific policies and 
livestock production practices we proposed. The revisions to this final 
rule took those public comments into account. Discussion of comments 
specific to the rule's policy follow in Section IV, OVERVIEW OF FINAL 
RULE.

A. Responses to Comment on Statutory Authority

    (Comment) Many comments posited that AMS is appropriately 
exercising its authority under OFPA to establish regulations regarding 
livestock and poultry health care practices, living conditions, and 
welfare. Comments asserted that OFPA directs AMS to regulate the care 
of farmed animals, which broadly encompasses animal welfare. 
Specifically, comments stated that OFPA commands AMS to ``establish an 
organic certification program for producers and handlers of 
agricultural products that have been produced using organic methods'' 
and to consult with the NOSB in development of that program.\41\ 
Comments stated that OFPA provides that the NOSB may recommend 
standards specifically for the ``care of livestock to ensure that such 
livestock is organically produced'' in addition to provisions related 
to animal health care.\42\ As OFPA does not define ``care,'' comments 
argued that it should be interpreted by its ordinary use definition 
\43\ to include animal welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 7 U.S.C. 6503(a), (c).
    \42\ 7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(2).
    \43\ F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments asserted that the legislative purpose and history 
demonstrate that Congress unambiguously intended for animal welfare 
practices to be required at certified organic operations. These 
comments argued that to meet OFPA's broad purposes of establishing 
``national standards governing the marketing of [organically produced] 
agricultural products,'' assuring consumers that ``organically produced 
products meet a consistent standard,'' and facilitating interstate 
commerce with fresh and processed [organically produced] food,'' \44\ 
AMS must regulate animal welfare to align with consumer expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 7 U.S.C. 6501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments also cited AMS's historical interpretation that OFPA 
grants the authority to regulate animal welfare through NOSB 
recommendations, as AMS did in the 2010 Access to Pasture rule. The 
Pasture rule was promulgated ``in response to the 2005 NOSB 
recommendation and extensive public input requesting clear outdoor 
access requirements for ruminant livestock,'' \45\ and received over 
4,000 public comments.\46\ Comments noted the Pasture rule, which 
regulates animal welfare, was promulgated through the same process as 
this rule, based on recommendations, public hearings, and public 
comments.\47\ Similarly, commenters said the OLPS proposed rule is 
based on NOSB recommendations, so both rulemaking precedent and NOSB 
recommendations reinforce AMS's authority to regulate animal welfare in 
the OLPS final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 87 FR at 48567.
    \46\ National Organic Program (NOP)--Access to Pasture 
(Livestock) Proposed Rule: https://www.regulations.gov/document/AMS-TM-06-0198-0001.
    \47\ 75 FR 7154, 7154-56 (Feb. 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, comments cited concepts of statutory construction to 
support the notion that both OFPA and current livestock regulations 
authorize OLPS. One comment argued that ``the accepted canons of 
statutory construction'' support the interpretation that OFPA 
``expressly give[s] USDA authority to set the Organic Livestock Rule 
standards.'' \48\ This comment details how these ``three core canons of 
statutory construction''--ordinary meaning, whole text, and 
surplusage--each support AMS's legal authority to regulate animal 
welfare under OFPA. The ordinary meaning canon holds that absent 
specific definitions, words in a statute must be interpreted using 
``their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.'' \49\ Comments stated 
that the terms ``care,'' ``health,'' and ``health care,'' which are 
referenced but not defined in OFPA, are broad in their ordinary 
meanings to include animal welfare. The whole text canon calls for 
interpretation of statutory language to be based on consideration of 
the entire text and its logical relations.\50\ Comments stated that 
this canon supports USDA's authority to issue this final rule, as OFPA 
provisions work together to require USDA to expand livestock care 
standards beyond prohibitions of certain substances: USDA cited 
Sec. Sec.  6509(d)(2) and (g) when it promulgated the rule, explaining 
that Sec.  6509(d)(2) authorizes the NOSB to recommend standards in 
addition to the OFPA provisions for livestock health care to ensure 
that livestock is organically produced. Sec. 6509(g) directs the 
Secretary to develop detailed regulations through notice and comment 
rulemaking to implement livestock production standards. Comments found 
that when read as a whole, OFPA's structure supports the USDA's 
authority to issue this final rule. The surplusage canon, which 
commands that ``every word and every provision is to be given effect,'' 
\51\ prevents interpretations that would render a provision pointless; 
instead, courts should interpret a provision in a way that ``leaves 
both provisions with some independent operation.'' \52\ Comments found 
that this provision allows for the agency to adopt additional standards 
``for the care of livestock,'' including standards that promote animal 
welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/AMS-NOP-21-0073-39096.
    \49\ Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979); see 
generally A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 69-77 (1st ed. 2012).
    \50\ Mont v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1826, 1833-34 (2019).
    \51\ Scalia & Garner, supra at 174.
    \52\ Scalia & Garner, supra at 176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Response) ``Care of livestock'' necessarily includes livestock 
wellbeing and welfare. AMS agrees that ordinary definitions of ``care'' 
and ``health care''--which are not explicitly defined in OFPA nor its 
regulations--encompass living conditions included in the rule, and that 
``care of livestock'' includes animal welfare.\53\ Additionally, as 
OFPA provides, NOSB has previously issued recommendations regarding 
organic livestock production, and AMS has revised the organic 
regulations in response to the recommendations (e.g., ``Access to 
Pasture'' and ``Origin of Livestock''). Several NOSB recommendations 
are relevant to this final rule. At its Fall 2009 meeting, NOSB issued 
a final recommendation on animal welfare,\54\ which was updated by 
subsequent recommendations. These recommendations set the framework for 
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(2).
    \54\ 2009 NOSB Sunset Recommendation: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%20Final%20Sunset%20Rec%20Animal%20Welfare.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Comment) Several comments disagreed with AMS's statutory authority 
to regulate organic livestock welfare. These comments posited that AMS 
lacks the legal authority to promulgate the rule, arguing that OFPA 
authority is limited to livestock and poultry feeding and medication 
practices. In this view, animal handling practices are not a defining 
characteristic of organic agriculture and are not germane to the NOP as 
authorized by Congress. Comments also referenced a previous rulemaking 
that was withdrawn in March 2018, specifically AMS's rationale for 
withdrawing the OLPP Final Rule. Reasons cited include AMS's own stated

[[Page 75406]]

lack of statutory authority to promulgate the OLPP Final Rule, errors 
in calculating estimated benefits, and a lack of evidence of market 
failure to justify prescriptive regulatory action.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 82 FR 59990, Dec. 18, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of these comments stated that because OFPA is limited in scope 
to organic production, regulations enacted pursuant to its authority 
must be narrowly tailored to specific practices that differentiate 
organic from any other method of agricultural production--and that 
animal welfare is not unique to organic production. One comment 
referenced the NOSB definitions of organic agriculture that omit 
mention of animal welfare.\56\ Additionally, the definition of organic 
production at 7 CFR 205.2 does not explicitly mention animal 
welfare.\57\ Another comment referenced a 2006 USDA Sustainable 
Agriculture Research and Education bulletin Transitioning to Organic 
Production that describes organic farming as an ecologically focused, 
input-based system as well as a 2007 USDA Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service publication Organic Agriculture 
Overview that emphasizes biological diversity and economic 
sustainability. This comment questioned the justification of the 
proposed rule under OFPA given the cited publications do not mention 
nor consider animal welfare as a defining characteristic of organic 
agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ ``Organic agriculture is an ecological production 
management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, 
biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on 
minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that 
restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.'' & `` `Organic' 
is a labeling term that denotes products produced under the 
authority of the Organic Foods Production Act. The principal 
guidelines for organic production are to use materials and practices 
that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and that 
integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological 
whole.'' (April 1995 NOSB meeting).
    \57\ ``A production system that is managed in accordance with 
the Act and regulations in this part to respond to site-specific 
conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical 
practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological 
balance, and conserve biodiversity.'' (7 CFR 205.2 ``Organic 
production'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Response) AMS finds that as animal health and welfare are 
intertwined, OLPS provisions for both fall under the statutory 
authority of OFPA. Given OFPA's plain language, legislative purpose and 
history, and historical regulatory interpretations, OLPS is consistent 
with the purposes of OFPA, and it establishes standards similar to 
existing organic standards. As animal welfare is intrinsically part of 
animal management,\58\ AMS is clearly within its statutory bounds to 
mandate specific animal welfare requirements as part of organic animal 
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ https://www.avma.org/resources/animal-health-welfare/
animal-welfare-what-
it#:~:text=Good%20animal%20welfare%20requires%20disease,humane%20hand
ling%2C%20and%20humane%20slaughter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the 1990 Senate Report that accompanied OFPA demonstrates 
Congressional expectation that USDA would update organic standards as 
organic production systems evolve.\59\ The report states that ``with 
additional research and as more producers enter into organic livestock 
production, the [Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry] expects that USDA, with the assistance of the [NOSB] will 
elaborate on livestock criteria.'' \60\ The report further states that 
``[t]he Board shall recommend livestock standards, in addition to those 
specified in this bill, to the Secretary.'' \61\ Furthermore, in its 
October 1990 Conference Report, conference members noted, ``[t]he 
Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment 
which requires the Secretary to hold hearings and develop regulations 
regarding livestock standards in addition to those specified in this 
title.'' (p. 1177). This amendment is reflected in OFPA at sec. 
6509(g). For further discussion of the statutory authority to issue 
this rule, see Section II.B, STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE FINAL RULE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Sen. Rep. No. 101-357 (July 1990)).
    \60\ Sen. Rep. No. 101-357, at 292 (July 1990).
    \61\ Sen. Rep. No. 101-357, at 303 (July 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Responses to Comment on Market Failure

    AMS received approximately 300 comments discussing the market 
failure addressed by the rule. Discussion of specific themes and AMS's 
responses are below. Additional discussion of market failure can be 
found in the rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis.
    (Comment) Many comments agreed there is market failure, citing 
confusion over multiple certifications, cost of maintaining 
certifications, and consumer expectation that the organic label 
requires meaningful outdoor access for poultry. Some comments argued 
that market failure has not occurred in the organic poultry industry, 
pointing to the industry's rapid growth in the last five years. Most of 
these comments asked for additional justification of the claim of 
market failure in the organic label. However, most comments agreed that 
uneven compliance with and enforcement of the outdoor access 
requirement in organic livestock regulations creates a market failure. 
Some comments highlighted the possible negative impacts of this market 
failure, including loss of consumer confidence in the organic label and 
economic harm to producers.
    Some comments provided context on consumer confusion about organic 
animal welfare requirements by sharing recent survey results. Several 
comments cited a 2017 Consumer Reports survey that found 83 percent of 
organic consumers ``think it's highly important that organic eggs come 
from hens that were able to go outdoors, and have enough space to move 
around freely.'' \62\ Others cited a 2022 ASPCA survey finding that 65% 
of ``frequent purchasers'' (respondents who purchased organic animal 
products once a week or more) believed that ``all animals raised on 
organic farms have access to outdoor pastures and fresh air throughout 
the day,'' with another 23% indicating they were not sure.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ ``Consumer Reports Survey Finds Consumers think it's 
Important to Have High Animal Welfare Standards for Food Labeled 
Organic,'' Consumer Reports, April 20, 2017, https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2017/04/consumer_reports_survey_finds_consumers_thin_its_important_to_have_high_animal_welfare_standards_for_food_labeled_organic/.
    \63\ Organic Consumer Survey, Animal Welfare Institute, 2022, 
https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/awi_aspca_organic_consumer_survey_summary_2022_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Response) AMS agrees with comments that some combination of market 
failure and government failure (action or inaction) exists in poultry 
products under the organic label. Market failure can occur even when a 
market experiences rapid growth because consumers could be paying for 
attributes they are not receiving. As some organic broilers and layers 
are not currently raised with ``access to outdoor pastures and fresh 
air throughout the day,'' AMS concludes, based on the survey data 
submitted in public comments, that some organic consumers are not 
receiving attributes they believe they are paying for (for example AMS 
estimates that at least 31.5% of organic eggs are purchased by 
consumers who mistakenly think the chickens producing their eggs have 
outdoor access that includes soil or pasture).\64\ This gap in the 
organic poultry market could impact the entire organic label, as 
lowered consumer confidence in one product can impact consumer 
confidence across the label and

[[Page 75407]]

threatening organic integrity.\65\ AMS revised the discussion on market 
failure for this final rule in response to comments arguing that a 
market failure likely exists under the current organic regulations. AMS 
included references to surveys provided in comments where appropriate 
and discussed concerns from commenters about how to address market 
distortions in the organic context. Additional information regarding 
market failure can be found in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Based on data from ASPCA and the Animal Welfare Institute 
survey, September 2022. https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/awi_aspca_organic_consumer_survey_summary_2022_final.pdf.
    See Section II Subsection D for more detail.
    \65\ AMS finds it likely that controversy or confusion about one 
product under the organic scheme will cause secondary effects to the 
overall label and other products, including, but not limited to, 
risk to consumer confidence, trust, and demand. Because of the 
unique nature of the organic label, quantifying or monetizing this 
risk was not possible.
    See Section F of the RIA for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Comment) Some comments expressed the view that third-party labels 
allowed for flexibility in the market, however, most who commented on 
this topic felt that third-party labels do not address the problem and 
cause additional consumer confusion. Several comments pointed out that 
it costs producers to maintain additional third-party animal welfare 
certifications and asserted that consumers were confused by the various 
competing labels. A few comments stated that third-party labeling may 
be sufficient to address the market failure. Comments pointed to the 
many animal welfare certifying and labeling programs available for both 
organic and conventional producers, offering flexibility to producers 
and a range of options for consumers; these represent the diversity of 
livestock and poultry production, differing priorities of certifying 
organizations, and evolving scientific understanding of animal welfare.
    (Response) AMS believes the existing combination of market failure 
and government failure cannot be solved solely through third-party 
labeling. Many organic poultry producers currently incur additional 
costs by using third-party labels to solve the issue of different 
production practices between operations. This rule's additional 
specificity would improve the consistency of production practices and 
could reduce the need for and cost of additional third-party labels. 
Further, AMS agrees with other commenters who claim that third-party 
labels cannot address the problem because they create more consumer 
confusion. AMS revised the discussion on market failure in this final 
rule to include discussion of the inability of third-party labels to 
efficiently solve the observed information asymmetry. (See Section A, 
``Need for the Rule,'' in the Regulatory Impact Analysis.)

IV. Overview of Final Rule and Responses to Comments

    AMS provides a detailed description of the final rule below, 
section by section, and responds to comments received on each section. 
The descriptions of the requirements are meant to explain AMS's intent 
and provide examples of how to comply with the requirements.

A. Terms Defined (Sec.  205.2)

    This rule adds seventeen new terms to 7 CFR 205.2: beak trimming, 
caponization, cattle wattling, de-beaking, de-snooding, dubbing, 
indoors or indoor space, induced molting, mulesing, non-ambulatory, 
outdoors or outdoor space, perch, pullet, religious (or ritual) 
slaughter, stocking density, toe clipping, and vegetation. The 
definitions are discussed below.
Eight New Terms To Define Prohibited Physical Alterations
    Current organic regulations permit ``physical alterations'' of 
animals ``as needed to promote the animal's welfare and in a manner 
that minimizes pain and stress'' (7 CFR 205.238(a)). This rule 
elaborates on this requirement and prohibits some specific types of 
physical alterations. Defining these physical alterations supports 
common understanding of the meaning of the terms, as some terms could 
otherwise be interpreted in various ways (e.g., ``caponization'' may be 
referred to as ``castrating'' in some regions). AMS prohibits some 
alterations because they do not promote animal welfare or may be overly 
painful or stressful without a corresponding benefit to animal welfare. 
NOSB recommended prohibiting these specific physical alterations in 
2009.
    The following terms are defined in this rule: beak trimming, 
caponization, cattle wattling, de-beaking, de-snooding, dubbing, 
mulesing, and toe clipping.
Indoors or Indoor Space
    The rule defines ``indoors or indoor space'' as the space inside of 
an enclosed building or housing structure that is available to 
livestock. The definition includes four examples of structures that are 
commonly used in poultry production. These indoor housing types are 
defined, in part, because space requirements are based on the housing 
type. AMS also includes an indoor space requirement at Sec.  
205.241(b)(8)(v) for housing that does not fit within one of the 
specific types defined in Sec.  205.2. While all organic livestock must 
be provided with species-appropriate shelter, structures providing 
indoor space are not necessarily required. For example, beef cattle 
raised on pasture or range in mild climates may not need to be provided 
with indoor space.
    The final rule uses the term ``enclosed'' to establish if a space 
should be considered indoors or outdoors. Under the definition, the 
space within the building or structure that can be enclosed is 
considered the indoor space. The rule defines ``outdoors or outdoor 
space'' separately (see discussion below).
Induced Molting
    The rule defines ``induced molting'' as molting that is 
artificially initiated. The term is broadly defined to include the 
various methods a producer may use to induce, or force, molting in a 
flock, such as withdrawal of feed or manipulation of light. The term 
aligns with the definition that currently appears in FDA requirements 
related to the production, storage, and transportation of shell eggs at 
21 CFR 118.3.
Non-Ambulatory
    The rule adds the term ``non-ambulatory'' and references FSIS 
regulations at 9 CFR 309.2(b). FSIS describes non-ambulatory as 
``livestock that cannot rise from a recumbent position or that cannot 
walk, including, but not limited to, those with broken appendages, 
severed tendons or ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral 
column, or metabolic conditions.'' The rule now requires that any non-
ambulatory livestock on organic farms must be medically treated--even 
if the treatment causes the livestock to lose organic status--or be 
humanely euthanized.
Outdoors or Outdoor Space
    The rule defines ``outdoors or outdoor space'' to clarify the 
meaning of outdoor areas for mammalian and avian species. ``Outdoors or 
outdoor space'' is defined as any area outside of an enclosed building 
or enclosed housing structure. In this definition, ``outdoors or 
outdoor space'' includes all the non-enclosed space encompassing soil-
based areas such as pastures, pens, or sacrifice lots; hardened surface 
areas such as feedlots, walkways, or loafing sheds; and areas providing 
outdoor shelter such as windbreaks and shade structures. For avian 
species, the definition specifies that pasture pens are considered 
outdoor space. These are floorless pens that are moved regularly and 
provide direct access to vegetation, soil, and direct sunlight. These 
pens (often

[[Page 75408]]

referred to as ``chicken tractors'') may include roofing to provide 
shelter for the birds, so long as birds are still able to express 
natural behaviors (e.g., scratching) and meet all applicable 
requirements at Sec.  205.241. To assist with the mitigation of 
biosecurity and predation risks, fencing, netting, or other materials 
are permitted over all or part of the outdoor areas to prevent 
predators and other wild birds from entering. For example, bird netting 
above a chicken pasture, where the chickens still have access to soil 
underneath, would be permitted. This area would qualify as outdoor 
space because it is not enclosed and allows access to soil. In 
contrast, a structure that is enclosed and has a hard floor (i.e., no 
soil) would not qualify as outdoor space.
    The definition also clarifies that enclosed open sided structures 
do not qualify as outdoors or outdoor space. This includes freestall 
barns and ``open'' sided poultry housing (enclosed by gates and/or 
wire, respectively). While housed in these structures, animals cannot 
be ``outdoors.'' Similarly, screened poultry ``porches'' or 
``verandas'' attached to poultry houses and enclosed by wire on the 
sides, are not considered outdoors.
    In this definition, ``outdoors or outdoor space'' includes all the 
non-enclosed space encompassing soil-based areas such as pastures, 
pens, or sacrifice lots; hardened surface areas such as feedlots, 
walkways, or loafing sheds; and areas providing outdoor shelter such as 
windbreaks and shade structures. For avian species, the definition 
specifies that pasture pens are considered outdoor space. These are 
floorless pens that are moved regularly and provide direct access to 
vegetation, soil, and direct sunlight. These pens (often referred to as 
``chicken tractors'') may include roofing to provide shelter for the 
birds, so long as birds are still able to express natural behaviors 
(e.g., scratching) and meet all applicable requirements at Sec.  
205.241. To assist with the mitigation of biosecurity and predation 
risks, fencing, netting, or other materials are permitted over all or 
part of the outdoor areas to prevent predators and other wild birds 
from entering.
    Many producers also use portable or permanent shade structures 
throughout their pastures, and the definition clarifies that unenclosed 
structures used for shade are considered outdoor space. For example, 
the area within a stand-alone, roofed shade structure in a pasture 
could be included as outdoor space area. Non-enclosed areas under the 
eaves or the awning of a building can also be considered outdoors. 
While these areas may have solid roofs overhead, they offer the same 
quality of outdoor space as uncovered outdoor areas, including natural 
ventilation/open air and open access to uncovered areas with direct 
sunlight, soil, and vegetation.
Perch
    The rule defines the term ``perch'' as a rod- or branch-type 
structure above the floor or ground that accommodates roosting and 
allows birds to utilize vertical space. Perches may be indoors or 
outdoors. The final rule includes specific requirements for perch space 
for layers (Gallus gallus) indoors.
Pullets
    AMS modified the definition of pullets, which is used by the AMS 
Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, to include species other than 
chickens. This rule defines ``pullets'' as female chickens or other 
avian species being raised for egg production that have not yet started 
to lay eggs. Once avian females begin laying eggs, AMS refers to them 
as layers. The term ``pullets'' is not used to describe young broilers 
used for meat production; broilers of any age are referred to as 
broilers in this rule.
Religious (or Ritual) Slaughter
    The rule adds the term ``religious (or ritual) slaughter.'' This 
definition is very similar to a description in the Humane Methods of 
Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1902(b)), which allows for ritual slaughter in 
accordance with religious faith. This method of slaughter relies on the 
simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a 
sharp instrument. Organic livestock and handling operations may use 
religious (or ritual) slaughter to convert their mammalian or avian 
livestock to meat or poultry without loss of organic status.
Stocking Density
    The rule defines ``stocking density'' as the liveweight or number 
of animals on a given area or unit of land. This term is used to 
describe the indoor and outdoor space requirements for organic 
livestock. For example, this rule establishes maximum stocking 
densities for chickens, and the producer must ensure that the area 
provided is large enough to not exceed the maximum stocking density 
when all birds in the flock are in the area (i.e., assume all birds are 
either indoors or all birds are outdoors when calculating space 
available to each bird).
Vegetation
    The rule adds the term ``vegetation'' and defines it as living 
plant matter that is anchored in the soil by roots and provides ground 
cover. This term applies to the requirement for vegetation in outdoor 
areas, which is central to protecting soil and water quality as well as 
providing for livestock to exhibit their natural behaviors. The roots 
of vegetation provide stability and structure to soil. Vegetation helps 
water soak into the soil rather than running off, which can cause 
erosion. Livestock also have natural behaviors such as grazing, 
rooting, nesting, etc., which require vegetation.
Changes From Proposed to Final Rule
    AMS has made several changes to the regulatory text of the OLPS 
proposed rule when writing this final rule. Changes to the final rule 
are discussed below and are followed by specific topics and themes from 
public comment.
     AMS added the defined term ``induced molting.'' This term 
was added to clarify the rule's prohibition on induced molting, as 
described at Sec.  205.238, Livestock care and practice standards. This 
term aligns with FDA regulations and includes all methods used to 
artificially initiate molting.
     AMS revised the definition of ``mobile housing'' to more 
clearly state that this type of housing must allow birds continuous 
access to outdoors during the daytime.
     AMS revised the definition of ``outdoors or outdoor 
space'' to clarify that open-sided but enclosed structures, such as 
freestall barns, are not considered outdoor space. The revised 
definition also clarifies that unenclosed shade structures are 
considered outdoor space.
     AMS revised the definition of avian ``pasture pens'' to 
clarify that they must allow birds to express natural behaviors.
     AMS revised the definition of ``perch'', so it more 
broadly applies to perches in indoor and outdoor spaces.
     AMS changed the term ``ritual slaughter'' to ``religious 
(or ritual) slaughter.'' AMS amended this term for clarification and to 
better align with current and preferred language.
     AMS restructured the definition of ``slatted/mesh 
flooring'' into a single paragraph to improve clarity.
     AMS removed the definition of ``soil.'' Soil is a commonly 
understood term and a definition is not necessary to understand or 
implement this rule.
Responses to Public Comment
    AMS received many public comments from stakeholders across the 
organic

[[Page 75409]]

industry discussing this section of the proposed rule. The majority of 
comments generally supported AMS's proposed revisions. Many commenters 
requested further clarification of the proposed changes, particularly 
regarding the definitions of soil and vegetation, and what qualifies as 
indoor or outdoor space.
Soil
    (Comment) Many of the comments that discussed soil requested either 
modifying or removing the definition of ``soil'' included in the 
proposed rule. Some commenters stated that because it did not originate 
from an NOSB recommendation, it should not be included in the rule. 
Others argued that defining ``soil'' for the purposes of livestock 
production standards could lead to unintended effects on other organic 
production areas, such as crop production.
    (Response) AMS agrees that a regulatory definition of ``soil'' 
should take the entire organic standard into consideration and that 
defining the term only for use in the livestock area of operation may 
affect other areas of organic production. Because soil is generally a 
well-understood term, a regulatory definition is not necessary for the 
successful implementation of this rule. AMS has removed the definition 
of ``soil'' from the final rule.
Vegetative Cover
    (Comment) Some commenters requested a new definition for the term 
``maximal vegetative cover.'' This term was used in the proposed rule 
to describe a requirement for outdoor areas, but the term was not 
defined. Comments requested a more exact description of the term to 
support consistent enforcement of the proposed requirement.
    (Response) AMS has elected to maintain the proposed language in the 
definition of ``vegetation'' and does not define ``maximal vegetative 
cover'' in this rule. The word ``maximal'' is removed in the final rule 
from Sec.  205.239(a)(12) and Sec.  205.241(c)(2). Removing ``maximal'' 
gives operations the necessary flexibility to maintain vegetation in 
outdoor areas that is appropriate to their region, climate, and other 
site-specific conditions. See the ``Mammalian and non-avian livestock 
living conditions'' and ``Avian living conditions'' sections of this 
preamble for further information about vegetation in outdoor spaces.
Mobile Housing
    (Comment) Several commenters stated that the definition of ``mobile 
housing'' should be revised to better align with the industry's current 
use of this type of avian indoor living space, and to ensure that these 
types of structures allow appropriate outdoor access to outdoor areas.
    (Response) AMS revised the definition of ``mobile housing'' to 
specify that mobile housing structures must allow birds to continuously 
access areas outside the structure during the daytime. AMS also removed 
the previous term ``during the grazing season'' to clarify that mobile 
housing is commonly used year-round. These changes better align with 
how the organic industry uses mobile housing and will allow operations 
to meet this rule's avian indoor living requirements with this type of 
structure.
Pasture Pens (Avian)
    (Comment) Commenters expressed concern with the definition of 
``pasture pen,'' stating that some types of pasture pens (e.g., those 
with wire or partial floor covering) should not be counted as outdoor 
space because these pens may prevent the natural behaviors of birds or 
limit movement of birds.
    (Response) AMS recognizes the concerns and has revised the 
definition of ``pasture pens'' to include the phrase ``allow birds to 
express their natural behaviors.'' To be considered outdoor space, 
pasture pens must provide direct access to soil and allow birds to 
express natural behaviors, such as scratching and dust bathing. 
Producers with pasture pens must also meet requirements at Sec.  
205.241(a).
Stocking Density
    (Comment) Some commenters requested changing the word ``animal'' in 
the proposed definition to ``bird'' because the rule only defines 
stocking density for poultry, not other types of livestock.
    (Response) AMS has chosen to continue using ``animal'' in the 
definition of ``stocking density.'' The word ``animal'' includes birds 
and is therefore suitable for discussing and describing stocking 
densities of birds.
Euthanasia and Death
    (Comment) Several comments requested clarification on what the term 
``euthanasia'' means, and asked AMS to develop a definition for 
``euthanasia,'' ``death'' or ``dead'' to clarify what methods can be 
used to verify death following a euthanasia procedure.
    (Response) AMS has elected not to define ``euthanasia,'' ``death,'' 
or ``dead'' in the rule. Section 205.238, Livestock care and production 
practices standard, addresses euthanasia, including how operations must 
ensure animals are dead following euthanasia. The final rule does not 
require operations to use a specific method to verify death. However, 
AMS does recommend that operations use methods of euthanasia and 
confirmation of death consistent with the American Veterinary Medical 
Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. See Sec.  
205.238(e) of this rule for more information on euthanasia and 
livestock care practices.
Outdoor Space
    (Comment) One comment expressed concern that the proposed rule's 
definition of outdoor space may allow operations to consider freestall 
or hoop barns with the sides up as outdoor space. The commenter 
requested such structures be counted as indoor space only.
    (Response) AMS amended the definition of outdoor space to 
specifically clarify that ``enclosed housing structures with open sides 
(e.g., open-sided freestall barns) are not to be considered outdoors or 
outdoor space.'' The definition was amended to remove language about 
roofed areas that are not enclosed being permitted as outdoor space. 
The language was replaced with a specification that open-sided enclosed 
structures are not considered outdoor space. Because such structures 
may not always allow animals free access to outdoor areas, the space is 
enclosed and therefore considered indoor space, not outdoor space.

B. Livestock Care and Production Practices Standard (Sec.  205.238)

Description of Final Policy
    This final rule updates Sec.  205.238 of the USDA organic 
regulations. This section discusses requirements for the care and 
management of organic livestock that apply to all species of livestock. 
The two following sections of this rule (Sec. Sec.  205.239 and 
205.241) cover living condition requirements specific to mammalian/non-
avian and avian species, respectively. The following discussion 
describes the changes that this final rule makes to Sec.  205.238.
    Updates to Sec.  205.238(a) require that producers select a species 
suitable for the conditions of their site, establish appropriate 
housing, and provide a feed ration sufficient to the nutritional 
requirements of the animal. During on-site inspections, certifying 
agents must verify the suitability of the breed to its housing and 
living conditions and the adequacy of the animals' diet.
    AMS revises Sec.  205.238(a)(5) to clarify the conditions under 
which operations may perform physical alterations on

[[Page 75410]]

livestock. Physical alterations may be performed for identification 
purposes or the safety of the animal. Alterations must be done at a 
young age for the species, and in a manner that minimizes the animals' 
pain and stress during and after the procedure. Alterations may only be 
performed by an individual who is capable of doing so in a manner than 
minimizes stress and pain. Operations may use an individual's training 
or experience to demonstrate that individual's capability to perform 
physical alterations.
    A 2009 NOSB recommendation allowed teeth clipping and tail docking 
in piglets, but this proposal was retracted in the 2011 NOSB 
recommendation.\66\ Section 205.238(a)(5)(i) of this final rule 
restricts needle teeth clipping and tail docking. These two types of 
physical alterations may not be performed on a routine basis, but they 
are not prohibited in all cases. As Sec.  205.238(a)(5)(i) specifies, 
needle teeth clipping and tail docking may only be performed in 
response to documented instances of harm, and only with documentation 
that alternative steps to prevent such harm failed. 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 a sow or piglets, or document tail biting on piglets in 
the litter. In this case, the producer also must document that 
alternative methods to prevent scarring had 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. 
Teeth clipping, if performed, is limited to the top third of each 
needle tooth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMS adds new paragraph (a)(5)(ii) to list the physical alterations 
that an organic operation must not perform. Based on 2011 NOSB 
recommendations, the following physical alterations to avian species 
are prohibited: de-beaking, de-snooding, caponization, dubbing, toe 
clipping of chickens, toe clipping of turkeys unless with infra-red at 
hatchery, and beak clipping after 10 days of age. In addition, the 
following physical alterations to mammalian species are prohibited: 
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 adds new requirements at Sec.  205.238(a)(7) to specify that 
surgical procedures on livestock to treat illness or injury must be 
done in a manner that minimizes pain, stress, and suffering. The NOSB 
recommended that all surgical procedures for livestock be done with the 
use of anesthetics, analgesics, and sedatives. USDA organic regulations 
require that all surgical procedures for treatment of disease be 
undertaken in a manner that employs best management practices in order 
to minimize pain, stress, and suffering. Operations may only use 
synthetic anesthetics, analgesics, and sedatives if listed on the 
National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (``National List'') 
at Sec.  205.603(a) and (b), which lists the synthetic substances that 
are allowed in organic livestock production.
    The final rule adds new Sec.  205.238(a)(8) that requires organic 
producers to actively monitor lameness within the herd or flock and to 
undertake timely and appropriate treatment and mitigation strategies. 
Lameness can be an issue in various livestock species, including 
broilers, sheep, and dairy cattle. This requirement for producers to 
create a plan for monitoring and treating lameness in the OSP will 
enable them to identify and address potential problems among animals 
before they become widespread.
    The final rule amends Sec.  205.238(b) to state that synthetic 
medications allowed under Sec.  205.603 of the National List may be 
administered to alleviate pain or suffering, as well as when preventive 
practices and veterinary biologics are inadequate to prevent sickness. 
Similarly, parasiticides allowed by the National List may be used on 
breeder stock, dairy animals, and fiber bearing animals, as allowed 
under Sec.  205.603. When using these substances, operations must 
follow all applicable limitations of use as listed in Sec.  205.603, 
including any withholding or withdrawal periods.
    AMS amends Sec.  205.238(c)(1) to clarify that milk from an animal 
treated with a substance that is allowed on the National List and has a 
withdrawal period may not be sold, labeled, or represented as organic 
during that withdrawal period. However, that milk may be fed to organic 
calves on the same operation during the withdrawal period. This is 
consistent with the 2010 NOSB recommendation that a calf nursing a cow 
treated topically with lidocaine or other approved synthetic with a 
withdrawal period should not lose organic status. For example, if an 
organic cow became injured and was treated with lidocaine to minimize 
pain, she could continue to nurse her organic calf during lidocaine's 
seven-day withholding period, and the calf would not lose its organic 
status.
    The final rule revises Sec.  205.238(c)(2) to clarify that 
producers may administer allowed synthetic medication (i.e., those on 
the National List at Sec.  205.603) to alleviate pain and suffering, in 
addition to use for the treatment of illness.
    AMS revises Sec.  205.238(c)(3) to clarify that organic livestock 
producers are prohibited from administering synthetic or non-synthetic 
hormones to promote growth, or for production or reproductive purposes. 
Hormones listed in Sec.  205.603 could be used as medical treatments 
(e.g., oxytocin). Stakeholders have noted that the USDA organic 
regulations fail to address use of hormones to stimulate production or 
for reproductive purposes. AMS is not aware of any hormones used by 
organic producers for these purposes, and no hormones are included on 
the National List for these uses. Therefore, the final rule's change 
maintains the status quo; that is, it affirms and supports the current 
prohibition on using hormones to promote growth, production, or 
reproduction. All hormones--unless used as medical treatments and 
included on the National List--are prohibited in organic production.
    The final rule adds new 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 that appears on the National List 
without losing their organic status. However, if no medication allowed 
for organic production suffices to ease the animal's suffering, organic 
livestock producers are required to administer treatment even if the 
animals subsequently lose their organic status. Euthanasia is an 
acceptable practice for minimizing pain and suffering only when the 
animal is suffering from disease or injury that cannot be healed by 
other treatments, including treatments that would cause an animal to 
lose its organic status.
    AMS adds new Sec.  205.238(c)(9), which requires livestock 
producers to identify and record treatment of sick and injured animals 
in animal health records. Early identification can lead to more 
effective prevention or treatment, which can enhance the overall health 
of the livestock on that operation. Certifiers should review treatment 
during on-site inspections to verify that operations are individually 
identifying treated animals

[[Page 75411]]

and that treatments comply with the organic regulations.
    AMS adds new Sec.  205.238(c)(10) prohibiting induced molting in 
poultry production. This rule also defines induced molting at Sec.  
205.2 as any type of molting that is artificially induced. Section 
205.238(a)(2) of this rule requires a nutritionally sufficient feed 
ration for livestock. Induced molting, a practice by which feed 
restriction, severe light manipulation, or other management practices 
are used to rejuvenate egg production, runs counter to the welfare 
intent of this final rule. An explicit prohibition on induced molting 
is consistent with the organic regulation's general animal welfare 
requirements, and the fall 2009 NOSB recommendation.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMS adds new Sec.  205.238(d) requiring organic livestock 
operations to have a plan to minimize internal parasite problems in 
livestock. The plan must include preventive measures such as pasture 
management, fecal monitoring, and emergency measures in the event of a 
parasite outbreak. Certifying agents must approve a livestock 
operation's parasite control plan as part of the operation's OSP.
    In certain cases, livestock may suffer from an illness or injury 
where recovery is unlikely. AMS adds new Sec.  205.238(e) to address 
euthanasia based on the 2011 NOSB recommendations. Section 
205.238(e)(1) requires livestock producers to maintain written plans 
for euthanizing sick or injured livestock suffering from irreversible 
disease or injury. Section 205.238(e)(2) prohibits the following 
methods of euthanasia: suffocation, manual blows to the head by blunt 
instrument or manual blunt force trauma, and use of equipment that 
crushes the neck (e.g., killing pliers or Burdizzo clamps). In the 
event of an emergency situation where a local, State, or Federal 
government agency requires the use of a non-organic method of 
euthanasia, organic livestock operations would not lose organic 
certification or face other penalties for that instance of euthanasia. 
The NOSB recommended listing the allowable methods of euthanasia; 
however, given that new humane euthanasia methods may emerge, AMS does 
not intend to discourage producers from using these techniques. AMS 
therefore directs organic livestock producers to use methods of 
euthanasia consistent with the most recent editions of the American 
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of 
Animals.\68\ The list of specifically prohibited methods could be 
amended to include other techniques, if needed, through future 
rulemaking. AMS also requires in Sec.  205.238(e)(3) that organic 
producers carefully examine livestock to ensure they are dead following 
a euthanasia procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/avma-policies/avma-guidelines-euthanasia-animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes From Proposed to Final Rule
    AMS has made several changes to the regulatory text of the OLPS 
proposed rule when writing this final rule. Changes to the final rule 
are discussed below and are followed by specific topics and themes from 
public comment.
     AMS removed the phrase ``resulting in appropriate body 
condition'' from the feed ration requirement in Sec.  205.238(a)(2) 
because some comments found this phrase to be unnecessarily 
prescriptive or confusing. Removing this phrase reinforces that this 
requirement is meant to ensure operations provide adequate and 
nutritional feed to organic livestock.
     AMS amended the requirements in Sec.  205.238(a)(5) 
regarding physical alterations. AMS removed the phrase ``to benefit the 
welfare of the animal'' as this is redundant with ``for . . . the 
safety of the animal.'' In response to public comment, the final rule 
clarifies who may perform alterations (``a person . . . capable of 
performing the physical alteration in a manner that minimizes stress 
and pain'') and when the alteration may be performed (``at a young age 
for the species'').
     In response to public comment, AMS amended the surgical 
procedure requirements in Sec.  205.238(a)(7). AMS clarified that 
surgical procedures may be required to treat ``illness or injury.'' AMS 
also clarified that the reason for using surgical best practices is to 
``promote the animal's wellbeing.''
     AMS removed a requirement to record lameness and the 
percent of herd suffering from lameness at Sec.  205.238(a)(8) and 
revised the section to focus on a more general requirement to monitor, 
treat, and prevent lameness as appropriate to the species. This 
provides additional flexibility because some species are more prone to 
lameness.
     To align with changes made by AMS's Origin of Livestock 
final rule (April 5, 2022; 87 FR 19740) to the preventive medicine and 
parasiticide livestock practice standards, AMS amended Sec.  
205.238(b).
     In response to public comment, AMS clarified in Sec.  
205.238(c)(1) that milk from animals treated with synthetic substances 
that ``have associated withdrawal periods'' cannot be sold, labeled, or 
represented as organic during the withdrawal period.
     AMS revised the language in Sec.  205.238(c)(10) that 
prohibits induced molting. The proposed rule used the term ``forced 
molting or withdrawal of feed to induce molting.'' AMS finds that 
``induced molting'' is a more common and comprehensive term that better 
captures AMS's intent for a total ban on this practice, and it also 
aligns with the FDA definition of induced molting (21 CFR 118.3).
     AMS removed the sentence in Sec.  205.238(d)(1) stating 
that ``Parasite control plans shall be approved by the certifying 
agent.'' Because parasite control plans are part of an OSP, and 
certifying agents must approve organic systems plans, the sentence was 
unnecessary, and AMS removed the language to avoid confusion.
     In response to public comment, AMS revised Sec.  
205.238(e)(1) to state that euthanasia is for ``sick or injured 
livestock suffering from irreversible disease or injury.'' This change 
clarifies that euthanasia should be used only if treatment is not an 
option.
Responses to Public Comment
    AMS received many public comments from stakeholders across the 
organic industry discussing this section of the proposed rule. The 
topics that received the most public comment were physical alterations, 
body condition, induced molting, monitoring of lameness, medicines with 
withholding periods, and euthanasia. AMS summarizes and responds to 
those comments below.
Physical Alterations
    (Comment) Several commenters requested that AMS clarify the 
requirements in Sec.  205.238(a)(5) for when physical alteration is 
permitted and who may perform it. Commenters found ``reasonably young 
age'' (the language in the proposed rule) vague and requested a 
definition or species-specific listing of ages. Similarly, commenters 
said the requirement that alterations be performed ``by a competent 
person'' was vague. Some proposed alternative definitions of 
``competent person'' while others asked that the regulation specify the 
person must be a veterinarian or that that the phrase be replaced with 
language such as ``a person skilled in the procedure.
    (Response) AMS agrees that ``reasonably young age'' is too vague 
and has instead required that alterations

[[Page 75412]]

must be performed ``at a young age for the species.'' This clarifies 
that operations should choose an age that is appropriate to the species 
of livestock. Similarly, AMS has added a phrase to clarify who may 
perform physical alterations: ``a person who is capable of performing 
the physical alteration in a manner that minimizes stress and pain.'' 
This language avoids being overly prescriptive and leaves flexibility 
to operations and certifiers while emphasizing that an operator's 
ability to minimize the animals' stress and pain during the alteration 
is the key qualification. Operations should choose a person capable of 
performing physical alterations based on their training and experience. 
This means that the capability of the person performing the physical 
alteration should scale with the complexity of the alteration. For 
example, ear tagging of cattle is a simple procedure that requires 
minimal knowledge and training, while a physical alteration that 
necessitates a permitted sedative and pain reliever may require the 
expertise of a more experienced or specially trained individual such as 
a veterinarian. These revisions clarify the use of permitted physical 
alterations, but also provide appropriate flexibility for operations to 
choose safe and responsible methods that best match their species of 
livestock.
    (Comment) Several comments asked AMS to require that pain relief be 
administered--some said by a licensed veterinarian--both before and 
after physical alterations.
    (Response) While AMS agrees that pain relief is an important 
element of physical alteration procedures, we believe that the final 
rule adequately addresses this concern. The final rule at Sec.  
205.238(a)(5) requires that ``physical alterations must be performed . 
. . in a manner that minimizes stress and pain.'' Operations should 
provide pain relief before and after physical alterations if this is 
necessary to minimize the stress and pain of the livestock.
    (Comment) Some commenters objected to the proposed requirement to 
use anesthetics, analgesics, and sedatives for surgical procedures in 
cattle and sheep. Commenters interpreted the proposed requirement as 
requiring these drugs for all surgical procedures and stated the 
requirement was, ``inappropriate given that FDA has not approved any 
post-surgical analgesic products for pain management.''
    (Response) Section 205.238(a)(7) of the final rule requires that 
surgical procedures be conducted using best practices to promote animal 
well-being and to minimize pain, stress, and suffering. In response to 
comments about the requirement to use medications for surgical 
procedures, AMS revised the final rule to clarify that medications 
should be used, ``as appropriate''. This section does not require use 
of anesthetics, analgesics, and sedatives for all procedures, although 
some surgical procedures may require medication to minimize pain, 
stress, and suffering. As to the commenters' point about lack of FDA 
approval for analgesics, AMS is aware that the National List (Sec.  
205.603) includes animal drugs that are not necessarily labeled (i.e., 
FDA approved) for use on all species. AMS also understands that the 
Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA) allows 
veterinarians to prescribe ``extra-label'' use of drugs under certain 
conditions (see https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/guidance-regulations/animal-medicinal-drug-use-clarification-act-1994-amduca), 
which may include use of a drug on a species that is not included on 
the approved drug label. AMS anticipates that operations will work with 
veterinarians to determine the appropriate, legal, and safe drugs for 
surgical procedures to minimize pain, stress, and suffering. The use of 
any individual substance in Sec.  205.603 in a formulated product that 
is intended or used as a medical treatment is under the authority of 
FDA and must comply with all FDA regulations.
    (Comment) Several comments requested that AMS add detusking to the 
list of prohibited pig management practices. Commenters cited that 
prohibiting tusk removal would align with third party boar welfare 
standards, namely the Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AGW (AWA), 
Global Animal Partnership (GAP), Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC), 
and Certified Humane Standards for pigs. They argued that physical 
alterations should be limited to those only necessary for an animal's 
well-being.
    (Response) Consistent with NOSB recommendations, the final rule 
prohibits needle teeth clipping and tail docking as routine procedures 
and allows them only ``with documentation that alternative methods to 
prevent harm failed.'' AMS elected not to include detusking among the 
prohibited practices listed at Sec.  205.238(a)(5)(ii). The NOSB 
recommendations did not address detusking or recommend that the 
practice be prohibited, and most pigs are slaughtered prior to an age 
when tusks would be present. Although not expressly prohibited by the 
final rule, an operation could only detusk if it could demonstrate it 
meets the requirements at Sec.  205.238(a)(5).
Body Condition
    (Comment) Several commenters pointed out that the proposed rule's 
requirement in Sec.  205.238(a)(2) that feed and nutrition result in 
``appropriate body condition'' was unclear. Many found the term 
``appropriate'' too subjective. Others warned that the phrase ``body 
condition'' could be confused with ``body condition scoring'' as used 
in the livestock industry and be interpreted to mean that an animal's 
body condition score would establish whether a producer complied with 
the requirement.
    (Response) AMS appreciates and agrees with these comments and has 
removed the phrase ``resulting in appropriate body condition'' from the 
final rule. By removing the phrase, the requirement correctly focuses 
on an operation's ability to meet nutritional needs by providing an 
appropriate food ration. Certifying agents and inspectors should verify 
that operations are meeting this requirement by reviewing an 
operation's feeding and nutrition practices. In some cases, a body 
condition score may be an appropriate measure of compliance.
Milk From Animals Treated With Substances That Have a Withdrawal Period
    (Comment) Many commenters noted that the proposed regulatory text 
at Sec.  205.238(c)(1) lacked helpful language from the preamble, which 
specified that milk from an animal treated with an allowed substance 
``which has a withholding time'' could not be sold, labeled, or 
represented as organic ``during that withholding time.'' Commenters 
suggested that the language from the preamble should be included in the 
regulatory text.
    (Response) AMS appreciates and agrees with this editorial 
suggestion. In the final rule, Sec.  205.238(c)(1) specifies that milk 
from animals treated with substances ``that are allowed under Sec.  
205.603 but have associated withdrawal periods'' may not be sold, 
labeled, or represented as organic ``during the withdrawal period.'' 
Additionally, the regulatory text now says ``withdrawal period'' rather 
than ``withholding time'' for consistency with the language in the 
National List.
Preventive Medicines and Parasiticides
    (Comment) Several comments noted that the OLPS proposed language at 
Sec.  205.238(b) had not been updated to reflect changes to this 
section of the regulations by a recent AMS final rule

[[Page 75413]]

on the ``Origin of Livestock'' (April 5, 2022; 87 FR 19740).
    (Response) AMS acknowledges the error and has revised the language 
at Sec. Sec.  205.238(b)(2) and (b)(3) to reflect the regulatory text 
finalized by the Origin of Livestock final rule. The regulatory text 
now simplifies the reference to dairy and includes a reference to fiber 
bearing animals.
Induced (Forced) Molting
    (Comment) Several comments requested a definition of the term 
``forced or induced molting,'' as the term is used but not defined in 
the rule. Many commenters found it unclear whether all induced molting 
was prohibited, or only certain practices to induce molting. Some 
comments noted that the phrase ``or withdrawal of feed to induce 
molting'' may suggest that some methods of induced molting may be 
allowed. Commenters overwhelmingly requested that AMS prohibit any form 
of induced molting.
    (Response) The final rule adopts the term ``induced molting'' as it 
better aligns with existing industry standards. AMS also added 
``induced molting'' as a defined term in Sec.  205.2 to mean ``molting 
that is artificially initiated.'' This term aligns with the FDA's 
definition of the term (21 CFR 118.3). The definition of induced 
molting and the language at Sec.  205.238(c)(10) that ``An organic 
livestock operation must not . . . practice induced molting,'' 
clarifies that no form of artificially initiated molting is permitted 
in organic production.
Euthanasia
    (Comment) Several commenters requested definitions for the terms 
``death'' and ``euthanasia,'' which are used several times in the rule 
but not defined. Some wanted clarity on how death should be properly 
assessed following euthanasia.
    (Response) AMS has chosen not to define ``death'' or ``euthanasia'' 
in the rule. AMS appreciates the feedback on this topic; however, 
commenters asked AMS to require very specific methods of confirming 
death. AMS believes that requiring such specific ways to confirm death 
would limit the options available to operations and make the 
requirement difficult to meet. AMS has chosen to keep the proposed 
rule's language, which requires that euthanized livestock ``must be 
carefully examined to ensure that they are dead.'' This will give 
operations the flexibility needed to confirm death in a way that best 
matches their livestock, production system and practices, and site-
specific conditions. AMS recommends that operations use methods of 
euthanasia and confirmation of death consistent with the American 
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of 
Animals.
    (Comment) Several commenters requested that the language in Sec.  
205.238(e) clearly state that euthanasia should only be used in cases 
where there is incurable illness or disease and cannot be used in lieu 
of treatment that would cause an animal to lose its organic status. 
Some commenters also believed that the proposed rule could be 
interpreted to suggest that euthanasia is the only or preferred option 
for sick or injured animals.
    (Response) The final rule adds a phrase to clarify that organic 
operations must have written plans for ``prompt, humane euthanasia for 
sick or injured livestock suffering from irreversible disease or 
injury.'' Sick or injured livestock must be treated if recovery is 
possible, even if treatment would cause the animal to lose its organic 
status. Section 205.238(c)(7) clearly states that operations must not 
withhold medical treatment to protect organic status. AMS intends for 
euthanasia to be used in the humane management of irreversibly diseased 
or injured animals, not as a way to conveniently dispose of sick or 
injured animals.
Lameness
    (Comment) One commenter noted that the proposed rule only required 
producers to monitor for lameness but that the rule did not require 
producers to treat animals for lameness or to modify conditions on the 
operation that might contribute to lameness. The comment requested that 
AMS include these additional requirements in the final rule to better 
align OLPS with third-party welfare standards.
    (Response) AMS revised Sec.  205.238(a)(8) to require that, in 
addition to monitoring lameness, operations provide ``timely and 
appropriate treatment of lameness'' and ``mitigation of the causes of 
lameness.'' Like all requirements in Sec.  205.238 and subpart C of the 
organic regulations, an operation must describe in their OSP how they 
meet this requirement. However, AMS is not prescribing specific types 
of recordkeeping or documentation regarding lameness. The requirement 
in the final rule is sufficient to address monitoring, prevention, and 
treatment of lameness, while also being flexible enough that producers 
can choose options that best fit their operation, species of livestock, 
and site-specific conditions.
    (Comment) Several comments suggested revising or removing Sec.  
205.238(a)(8). One commenter stated that interpretations of lameness 
can vary greatly, so additional clarification would be needed. Another 
commenter stated that this requirement is redundant, as recording sick 
livestock is already required in Sec.  205.238(c)(9), and recordkeeping 
is required in Sec.  205.103.
    (Response) AMS agrees that other recordkeeping requirements in the 
rule and the existing organic regulations are sufficient to address 
lameness. AMS has removed the proposed rule's requirement to keep 
``records of the percent of the herd or flock suffering from lameness 
and the causes.'' The final rule replaces the recordkeeping language 
with requirements for ``timely and appropriate treatment of lameness 
for the species; and mitigation of the causes of lameness.''
Vaccines
    (Comment) Two certified operations and a veterinarian suggested 
that poultry vaccines should be allowed regardless of how they are 
produced.
    (Response) Like the existing regulations and the proposed rule, the 
final rule in Sec.  205.238(a)(6) continues to allow ``vaccines and 
other veterinary biologics'' as part of a producer's preventive health 
care practices. The status of specific vaccine manufacturing processes 
under Sec.  205.603(a) (National List) or Sec.  205.105(e) (Excluded 
Methods) is outside the scope of practice standards addressed in this 
rule.

C. Mammalian and Non-Avian Livestock Living Conditions (Sec.  
[thinsp]205.239)

Description of Final Policy
    The final rule separates the organic regulation's livestock living 
condition requirements into two distinct sections: one for mammalian 
and non-avian livestock species and one for avian species. Using two 
distinct sections acknowledges that these types of animals have 
different physiologies and therefore require certain unique husbandry 
practices. Section 205.239 includes requirements for mammalian and non-
avian species. Avian living conditions are addressed in new Sec.  
[thinsp]205.241. Applicable sections of Sec.  205.239 may be used for 
the certification of non-avian and non-mammalian livestock defined as 
``livestock'' at Sec.  205.2. For example, this may include 
certification of honeybees for the production of organic honey and 
honey products. However, livestock as defined in Sec.  205.2 does not 
include aquatic animals for the production of food, fiber, feed, or 
other agricultural-based consumer products.

[[Page 75414]]

    The final rule revises Sec.  [thinsp]205.239(a)(1) to remove the 
requirement that all ruminant livestock must be able to feed 
simultaneously. 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 livestock at all times though 
they may not feed at the exact same time. Allowing self-feeding and 
creep-feeding systems provides organic ruminant producers with more 
flexibility and options to manage their farm and livestock in farm-
specific methods.
    AMS is making no changes to the current Sec.  
[thinsp]205.239(a)(3), which requires the use of appropriate, clean, 
dry bedding. If roughages are used as bedding, they must be organically 
produced and handled by certified operations, with the exception of 
transitioning dairy producers, who may provide crops and forage from 
third-year transitioning land--that is, land included in the OSP of the 
dairy farm in its third year of organic management, during the 12-month 
period immediately prior to the sale of organic milk and milk products 
(7 CFR 205.236(a)(2)(iii)).
    Section[thinsp]205.239(a)(4) describes the requirements for 
livestock shelter. Shelter must have sufficient space for the animals 
to lie down, stand up, and fully stretch their limbs and allow 
livestock to express their normal patterns of behavior over a 24-hour 
period. Shelter for livestock must provide temperatures, ventilation, 
and air circulation that is appropriate to the species using the 
shelter. This means that shelter must be designed to protect animals 
from extreme weather conditions they may face, including extreme cold, 
heat, precipitation, wind, or other conditions that could endanger the 
physical safety or well-being of the animal. Shelter must also be 
designed and managed in a way that reduces the potential for livestock 
to be injured when using the shelter.
    AMS recognizes that there are times when an animal's freedom of 
movement may need to be temporarily limited for handling or management 
purposes. For example, an operation may need to temporarily limit 
freedom of movement for short periods of time for milking, feeding, or 
to ensure the well-being of animals. Stalls for organic dairy cattle 
are often designed to limit the animals from turning to the sides. This 
stall design directs manure and urine into a collection system to 
prevent mastitis and maintain low somatic cell counts in the milk. 
Mammalian livestock may be housed for part of the day in stalls as 
described in the OSP as long as they have complete freedom of movement 
during significant parts of the day for grazing, loafing, and 
exhibiting natural social behavior. This allowance does not permit the 
use of gestation crates, farrowing crates, or other confinement systems 
in which swine are housed individually in stalls that do not allow for 
sufficient space and freedom to lie down, turn around, stand up, fully 
stretch their limbs, and express normal patterns of behavior. If 
livestock are temporarily confined indoors as permitted in Sec.  
[thinsp]205.239(b), livestock must be able to move around (stand up and 
lie down) and stretch their limbs. Operations must fully describe in 
their OSP the use of any stalls, including their methods of stall 
management and how livestock will be able to express their normal 
patterns of behavior.
    AMS adds Sec.  [thinsp]205.239(a)(4)(iv) to set requirements for 
indoor bedding and resting areas. Bedding and resting areas must be 
sufficiently large and comfortable to keep livestock clean, dry, and 
free of lesions. This requirement does not apply to animals raised on 
pasture or range. AMS recognizes that while livestock must be provided 
with shelter (defined in Sec.  [thinsp]205.2), sometimes livestock on 
pasture or range do not have access to traditional barns or bedded 
areas and therefore do not have access to indoor space. These types of 
operations may provide animals with natural forms of shelter (e.g., 
trees) to serve the same purpose as indoor shelter. Operations must 
describe in their OSP how they provide shelter to their livestock in a 
manner suitable for the species, stage of production, and environment.
    AMS adds new requirements in Sec.  [thinsp]205.239(a)(7) concerning 
the individual housing of dairy young stock. Section 205.239(a)(7) 
allows for the individual housing of animals until the weaning process 
is complete, as long as the animals have sufficient room to turn 
around, lie down, stretch out while lying down, get up, rest, and groom 
themselves. In addition, individual pens for young stock must be 
designed so that animals can see, smell, and hear other animals.
    Once weaning is complete, an operation may no longer confine dairy 
young stock for this reason. An operation may confine dairy young stock 
for other reasons permitted under Sec.  205.239(c), if applicable. For 
example, Sec.  205.239(c)(2) permits temporary confinement of young 
dairy cattle from pasture for up to six months (prior to development of 
the rumen). Certifying agents must review any confinement practices 
following completion of the weaning process to determine if the 
temporary confinement is justified and allowed, especially when animals 
continue to be housed individually.
    AMS adds three new provisions in Sec.  [thinsp]205.239(a)(8) to 
require the group housing of swine, with three listed exceptions: (1) 
Sec.  [thinsp]205.239(a)(8)(i) allows for sows to be individually 
housed at farrowing and during the suckling period, except gestation 
and farrowing creates are prohibited; (2) Sec.  
[thinsp]205.239(a)(8)(ii) allows for boars to be individually housed to 
reduce the likelihood of fights and injuries; and (3) Sec.  
[thinsp]205.239(a)(8)(iii) allows for swine to be individually housed 
after multiple documented instances of aggression or to allow an 
individual pig to recover from a documented illness. Certified 
operations should not use individual housing as the only remedy to 
aggressive behavior. Operations should also attempt to mitigate 
aggressive behavior by modifying practices or living conditions that 
could reduce this behavior. If these fail to correct the behavior, 
animals may be individually housed.
    AMS adds two new provisions in Sec.  [thinsp]205.239(a)(9) and (10) 
concerning swine housing. Section 205.239(a)(9) prohibits the use of 
flat decks or piglet cages. This provision prohibits the stacking of 
piglets in flat decks in multiple layers. AMS is not aware of any 
organic producers currently using these methods for organic production 
but prohibits the practices to affirm that these systems do not and 
cannot meet the living conditions requirements of the organic 
regulations. In addition, Sec.  205.239(a)(10) requires that rooting 
materials be provided at all times, except during the farrowing and 
suckling period. Rooting is a natural behavior that organic swine 
producers must accommodate. Rooting can be done in soil, deep packed 
straw, or other materials.
    AMS adds a new provision in Sec.  [thinsp]205.239(a)(11) to further 
clarify the use of barns or other structures with stalls. If indoor 
shelter is provided by a structure with stalls, this structure must 
have enough stalls to allow for the natural behaviors of the animals. A 
cage does not qualify as a stall. AMS is aware that some operations use 
systems that robotically feed animals that take turns entering an 
individual feeding stall. AMS does not intend to prohibit such systems 
since they could enhance the well-being of organic livestock. 
Therefore, Sec.  [thinsp]205.239(a)(11) provides an exception for this 
type of system: more animals than feeding stalls may be allowed for 
group-housed swine as long as all animals are fed routinely every day.

[[Page 75415]]

    AMS also adds specific allowances for a variety of cattle barns, 
including tie-stall barns and stanchion barns, as long as an operation 
uses them in a way that is compatible with organic production. That 
means that animals must be given space to lie down, turn around, stand 
up, fully stretch their limbs, and express normal patterns of behavior 
over a 24-hour period (see the requirement at Sec.  205.239(a)(4)(i)). 
Because tie-stall and stanchion barns do not allow an animal to turn 
around, an operation cannot leave an animal tied up in this type of 
indoor space for more than 24 hours. Operations must describe their 
practices in their OSP and demonstrate to an accredited certifying 
agent that their use of these structures complies with other applicable 
organic regulations.
    AMS adds a new requirement for outdoor access in Sec.  
[thinsp]205.239(a)(12). Organic livestock must have unencumbered access 
to the outdoors year-round, unless temporary confinement is justified 
under a specific reason described at Sec.  205.239(b)-(d) (e.g., 
nighttime confinement for protection from predators). When the outdoor 
space includes soil, then vegetative cover must be maintained as 
appropriate for the season, climate, geography, species of livestock, 
and stage of production. Ruminants must have access to pasture during 
the grazing season. Swine are not required to have access to soil or 
vegetation; however, if a swine producer chooses to allow swine to have 
access to the soil as a rooting material, then the producer must 
maintain vegetative cover that is appropriate to the season, the local 
environmental conditions, and the natural rooting behavior of swine.
    AMS revises Sec.  [thinsp]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 required for natural 
breeding or to perform artificial insemination. A group of livestock 
may be confined before the procedures and while individual animals are 
bred; afterward, the group must be returned to living spaces that allow 
outdoor access. Livestock must not be confined to observe estrus, or 
after breeding to confirm pregnancy.
    AMS revises Sec.  [thinsp]205.239(b)(8) to clarify the temporary 
confinement exception for youth livestock projects. Because 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. Thus, the revision includes an exemption to the Sec.  
[thinsp]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 that is not certified 
organic, the livestock may be temporarily confined indoors during the 
event. In this case, the youth may still 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 fairgrounds, may not sell or 
represent livestock as organic. AMS includes this exception to 
encourage the next generation of organic farmers.
    AMS revises Sec.  [thinsp]205.239(d) to mirror a revision at Sec.  
[thinsp]205.239(a)(1). Specifically, the revisions remove a requirement 
that ruminant slaughter stock be able to feed simultaneously during the 
finishing period. The update does not require space for simultaneous 
feeding but simply requires that all animals be able to feed without 
crowding and without competition for feed.
Changes From Proposed to Final Rule
    AMS has made several changes to the regulatory text of the OLPS 
proposed rule when writing this final rule. Changes to the final rule 
are discussed below and are followed by specific topics and themes from 
public comment. For discussion of comments about the economic impacts 
of the rule, please see the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) included 
in the docket.
     AMS revised the title of Sec.  205.239 from ``Mammalian 
livestock living conditions'' to ``Mammalian and non-avian livestock 
living conditions'' to ensure that operations producing organic 
invertebrates (e.g., honeybees) can continue to do so under the 
applicable standards of this rule.
     In Sec.  205.239(a)(4)(iv), AMS added language to clarify 
that the indoor housing standards for ``clean and dry'' bedding and 
resting areas should be applied as appropriate to the species of 
livestock. This acknowledges that different species have different 
bedding and resting area requirements and gives operations greater 
flexibility when applying the requirement to different species.
     In response to public comment, AMS removed from Sec.  
205.239(a)(7) the six-month time limit for temporary confinement of 
dairy young stock during the weaning process, authorizing temporary 
confinement only until the weaning process is complete. This change was 
made because the weaning process is typically much shorter than six 
months.
     AMS added language in Sec.  205.239(a)(8)(i) to explicitly 
prohibit the use of gestation and farrowing crates for sows at 
farrowing and during the suckling period. This change was made in 
response to public comments requesting the explicit prohibition of 
these methods of individual confinement.
     AMS revised language in Sec.  205.239(a)(8)(iii) to limit 
individual confinement of swine to only animals who have shown multiple 
instances of aggression or for recovery from an illness.
     AMS removed the word ``maximal'' relating to vegetative 
cover in Sec.  205.239(a)(12). AMS removed this term because comments 
stated that the proposed rule's use of ``maximal vegetative cover'' was 
unclear and would be difficult to implement consistently. AMS refers to 
``vegetation'' because that is a defined term.
     In response to requests in public comment, AMS added 
language to Sec.  205.239(b)(7) to clarify that animals cannot be 
confined after breeding to confirm pregnancy.
Responses to Public Comment
Naming of Section
    (Comment) Several comments requested changes to the title of this 
section to include non-mammalian species of livestock (e.g., 
invertebrates). Commenters indicated that many operations are currently 
certified to produce organic invertebrates, such as honeybees. Those 
operations have used the existing requirements at Sec.  205.239, and 
comments noted that AMS's proposed revision to split Sec.  205.239 into 
only mammalian and avian sections would leave out standards for non-
avian and non-mammalian operations.
    (Response) AMS revises the title of this section from ``Mammalian 
livestock living conditions'' to ``Mammalian and non-avian livestock 
living conditions'' to avoid unintentionally excluding non-mammalian 
and non-avian species of livestock (e.g., invertebrates) from this 
rule. Adding ``non-avian'' clarifies that operations may use the 
applicable livestock standards at Sec.  205.239 to produce organic 
livestock that is not avian or mammalian (e.g., invertebrates). Adding 
this term ensures that operations producing organic invertebrates can 
continue to do so without interruption and allows future operations to 
enter the market and produce non-mammalian and non-avian livestock 
under the organic label.
Ammonia Monitoring
    (Comment) Some comments requested that AMS set ammonia testing

[[Page 75416]]

requirements for mammals in addition to poultry.
    (Response) AMS acknowledges that ammonia is an air contaminant that 
can impact all livestock. This rule sets limits on ammonia in poultry 
houses and requires regular monitoring. Compared to other livestock, 
poultry are more susceptible to ammonia accumulation due to the 
physical layout of poultry housing and the decomposition of uric acid 
from poultry droppings. Additionally, the NOSB has not recommended 
monitoring or limiting ammonia levels in mammalian livestock 
production, and AMS did not propose to do so in the proposed rule. 
Therefore, AMS has elected not to set ammonia requirements for mammals 
in the final rule.
Bedding
    (Comment) Some comments requested clarification on the use of 
``clean and dry'' in relation to the requirement for bedding and 
resting areas in indoor housing. Commenters explained that the 
interpretation of ``clean'' is both subjective and species dependent.
    (Response) AMS acknowledges that what is considered ``clean and 
dry'' depends on the species of livestock. AMS revises the language in 
the final rule to clarify that operations must use clean and dry 
bedding ``as appropriate for the species.'' This change gives 
operations the flexibility to manage bedding in a way that fits the 
specific type of livestock they are raising.
Swine Standards
    (Comment) Several commenters requested more specific standards for 
swine, including minimum stocking density requirements and a 
requirement for access to soil and vegetative cover.
    (Response) This final rule includes swine-specific standards at 
Sec.  205.239(a)(8)--(11). The rule requires that swine must be housed 
in a group, limits when swine can be housed individually, requires 
rooting materials, prohibits the use of flat decks and piglet cages, 
and describes allowable types of feeding techniques. This rule also 
includes many other requirements that apply to all livestock, including 
swine. At this time, AMS believes these requirements are adequate to 
ensure the welfare of organically raised swine, and AMS has not 
included the additional swine-specific criteria in the final rule.
    (Comment) Several commenters asked that the final rule's regulatory 
text allow swine to be housed individually only after multiple 
instances of aggression, as stated in the preamble.
    (Response) AMS revises the final rule's regulatory text to specify 
that swine may be individually housed only after multiple documented 
instances of aggression to clarify AMS's intent. Certified operations 
should not use individual housing as the only remedy to aggressive 
behavior. Operations should also attempt to mitigate aggressive 
behavior by modifying practices or living conditions that could reduce 
this behavior. If these fail to correct the behavior, animals may be 
individually housed.
    (Comment) Several commenters requested that AMS specifically 
prohibit gestation and farrowing crates, citing that these crates can 
cause pain, reduce the weaning rate of piglets, and increase the rate 
of stillbirths.
    (Response) AMS revises the final rule to clarify that gestation and 
farrowing crates are prohibited in organic production. AMS did not use 
these terms in the proposed rule, but AMS recognizes that gestation and 
farrowing crates are commonly used terms so is including them in the 
final rule. Sows may be housed individually for farrowing and during 
the suckling period, as proposed, and the final rule clarifies that 
sows may not be confined to gestation or farrowing crates during these 
time periods.
    (Comment) Many commenters noted that rooting materials are not 
explained, nor specific materials defined in the proposed rule. The 
commenters requested additional clarification on the standard for 
rooting materials. Advocacy organizations and some certifiers also 
asked for clarification on whether rooting materials must be provided 
both indoors and outdoors, including during temporary confinement.
    (Response) AMS discusses the use of rooting materials and Sec.  
205.239(a)(10) in the ``Description of final policy'' section above. 
Operations must provide rooting materials to allow swine to express 
their natural behavior, which includes rooting (see Sec.  205.239(a)(1) 
and (4)). The final rule does not specify the allowed types of rooting 
materials or where, exactly, rooting materials must be available. For a 
producer to comply with general requirements to accommodate natural 
behaviors at Sec.  205.239, AMS expects producers will provide rooting 
opportunities in all locations, as well as during periods of temporary 
confinement, when feasible. However, the rule provides operations 
flexibility to choose materials and management techniques that best 
accommodate natural swine rooting behavior and that best fit site-
specific conditions.
Temporary Confinement of Cattle
    (Comment) Several comments asked if tie-stall and stanchion barns 
are allowed in organic production. These comments noted that tie-stall 
and stanchion barns do not allow animals to turn around, and that this 
may conflict with the rule's requirement that animals must be able to 
turn around within a 24-hour period.
    (Response) Tie-stall barns and stanchion barns are permitted in 
organic certification systems if an operation uses them in a way that 
is compatible with organic production. That means that animals must be 
given space to lie down, turn around, stand up, fully stretch their 
limbs, and express normal patterns of behavior over a 24-hour period 
(see the requirement in Sec.  205.239(a)(4)(i)). Because tie-stall and 
stanchion barns do not allow an animal to turn around, an operation 
cannot leave an animal tied up in this type of indoor space for more 
than 24 hours. However, during periods of temporary confinement, 
animals may remain in stalls. In this case, AMS recognizes that animals 
may not be able to turn around.
    (Comment) Commenters requested that some specific references to 
cattle in the proposed rule be broadened so the requirements would 
apply to any species. Specifically, comments requested that AMS revise 
requirements related to individual housing for young dairy animals at 
Sec.  205.239(a)(7) and Sec.  205.239(c)(2).
    (Response) AMS agrees that animals of all species should have 
sufficient space and freedom of movement. However, Sec.  205.239(a)(7) 
and Sec.  205.239(c)(2) address production practices specific to dairy 
animals and to dairy cattle, respectively. The more general requirement 
that all organically managed animals should have ``sufficient space and 
freedom to lie down, turn around, stand up, fully stretch their limbs, 
and express normal patterns of behavior'' is set in Sec.  
205.239(a)(4)(i).
Temporary Confinement To Confirm Breeding
    (Comment) Several comments requested that AMS clarify animals may 
not be confined after breeding to confirm pregnancy, as this could 
allow producers to confine animals for long periods of time without any 
corresponding benefit to animal health or welfare.
    (Response) AMS agrees that this change would benefit the welfare of 
the livestock and has added language to Sec.  205.239(b)(7) to clarify 
that animals may not be confined after breeding to confirm pregnancy.

[[Page 75417]]

Individual Housing of Calves
    (Comment) Several commenters disliked that the proposed rule 
allowed an operation to individually house dairy young stock for up to 
six months, citing that this practice does not align with consumer 
expectations or third-party welfare standards. One commenter requested 
a shorter time limit for individual housing of calves, referencing an 
eight-week limit in both European Union organic standards and Certified 
Humane standards. Other comments requested that AMS clarify how long an 
operation can confine for weaning (Sec.  205.239(a)).
    (Response) AMS removed the phrase ``but no later than six months of 
age'' in the requirements related to housing for weaning at Sec.  
205.239(a)(7). This section of the rule now specifies that dairy young 
stock (of any species) may be housed individually only until completion 
of the weaning process. Once weaning is complete, an operation may no 
longer confine dairy young stock for this reason. An operation may 
confine dairy young stock for other reasons permitted under Sec.  
205.239(c), if applicable. For example, Sec.  205.239(c)(2) permits 
temporary confinement of young dairy cattle from pasture for up to six 
months (prior to development of the rumen). AMS is not revising the 
maximum time requirement for confinement from pasture at Sec.  
205.239(c)(2) in the final rule. Certifying agents must review any 
confinement practices following completion of the weaning process to 
determine if the temporary confinement is justified and allowed, 
especially when animals continue to be housed individually.
    (Comment) One commenter requested the removal of the requirement 
for calves to see other calves, as this may not be feasible in some 
cases where an operation has very few calves.
    (Response) AMS has elected to revise this language. During 
temporary confinement in individual pens, it is important for young 
dairy animals to be able to see, smell, and hear other calves, or other 
animals in cases where this is not feasible, such as an operation with 
a single offspring.
Outdoor Space
    (Comment) One commenter requested AMS set a minimum amount of 
outdoor space for mammalian livestock. The commenter also asked AMS to 
specify what this outdoor space should be composed of (i.e., specify 
what percentage of outdoor space be soil and vegetation).
    (Response) AMS had not proposed minimum outdoor space requirements 
for mammalian livestock, and the NOSB has never provided minimum space 
recommendations for mammals. Similarly, the final rule does not include 
minimum space requirements for mammals. However, the USDA organic 
regulations have included and will continue to include many provisions 
related to outdoor space requirements for mammalian livestock. Section 
Sec.  205.239(a) specifies that operations must provide living 
conditions that accommodate the well-being and natural behavior of 
mammalian livestock. This includes year-round access for all animals to 
the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, and direct 
sunlight, suitable to the species, stage of life, climate, and 
environment. Additionally, ruminant livestock must be provided with 
daily grazing throughout the grazing season to meet feed intake 
requirements (Sec. Sec.  205.237 and 205.239), and yards, feeding pads, 
and feedlots must be large enough to allow all ruminant livestock to 
feed without competition for food (Sec.  205.239). Finally, this rule 
adds a requirement that operations maintain vegetation on outdoor space 
that includes soil, and that vegetation must be appropriate for the 
season, climate, geography, species of livestock, and stage of 
production (Sec.  205.239(a)(12)). Together these requirements for 
outdoor conditions support the welfare of organic mammalian species.

D. Avian Living Conditions (Sec.  [thinsp]205.241)

Description of Final Policy
    The final rule adds new Sec.  205.241, ``Avian living conditions,'' 
to the organic regulations. This section includes requirements for all 
organic avian species, including but not limited to chickens, turkeys, 
geese, quail, pheasants, and any other bird species that are raised for 
organic eggs, organic meat, or other organic agricultural products.
    Section 205.241(a) establishes general requirements for organic 
poultry production and more detailed requirements in paragraphs (b), 
(c), and (d). Section 205.241(a) requires organic poultry operations to 
establish and maintain living conditions that accommodate the well-
being and natural behaviors of birds. These living conditions include 
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 aggressive behaviors. 
Continuous total confinement of animals is prohibited. The living 
conditions provided should be appropriate to the species, its stage of 
life, the climate, and the environment. These requirements, based upon 
a 2009 NOSB recommendation,\69\ are largely identical to previously 
established livestock requirements at Sec.  205.239(a)(1), although 
they now require materials for dust bathing and adequate outdoor space 
to escape aggressive behaviors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%20Final%20Sunset%20Rec%20Animal%20Welfare.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 205.241(b) requires that indoor space be sufficiently 
spacious to allow all birds to move freely, stretch both wings 
simultaneously, stand normally, and engage in natural behaviors. Cages 
or environments that limit free movement within the indoor space are 
prohibited. In addition, the indoor space must allow birds to engage in 
natural behaviors such as dust bathing, scratching, and perching. The 
requirements are adopted from a 2009 NOSB recommendation and modify 
previously established requirements for organic livestock at Sec.  
205.239(a)(4) that required ``shelter designed to allow for . . . 
natural maintenance, comfort behaviors, and opportunity to exercise.''
    Section 205.241(b)(2) requires producers to monitor ammonia levels 
in poultry houses and implement practices to maintain ammonia levels 
below 20 ppm. When ammonia levels exceed 20 ppm, producers must 
implement additional practices and additional monitoring to reduce 
ammonia levels below 20 ppm. Ammonia levels must not exceed 25 ppm. 
Ammonia is a natural breakdown product of manure from livestock and is 
harmful to birds when inhaled, especially at concentrations above 25 
ppm.\70\ Inhalation of high levels of ammonia has a negative impact on 
poultry welfare, causing irritation and inflammation, as well as 
contributing to negative production outcomes like reduced growth. In 
most cases, high levels of ammonia indicate that litter is damp, or 
litter management practices require modification. For producers with 
more than one poultry house, the producer should monitor ammonia levels 
in each house.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ ``Ammonia production in the poultry houses and its harmful 
effects'' IU Sheikh, SS Nissa, Bushra Zaffer, KH Bulbul, AH Akand, 
HA Ahmed, Dilruba Hasin, Isfaqul Hussain and SA Hussain, 
International Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, 
3(4): 30-33, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 205.241(b)(3) clarifies the indoor lighting requirements 
for organic layers and fully feathered birds. Organic producers may 
provide artificial light for up to 16 continuous hours per day (24-hour 
period). Operations must provide at least eight hours of

[[Page 75418]]

continuous darkness per day, unless an operation's geographic location 
does not allow for eight hours of darkness (for example, an operation 
in Alaska during summer months). In that case, an operation should 
provide as many dark hours as feasible for the season. The 16-hour 
period must be calculated as a single continuous time period rather 
than as intermittent periods. Artificial light should be lowered 
gradually to encourage hens to move to perches or otherwise settle for 
the night. Operations must not manipulate the light spectrum to 
increase feed intake or growth rates.
    Section 205.241(b)(4) describes requirements for exit areas, or 
doors, on shelters so all birds can easily access both indoor and 
outdoor areas. Access and utilization of outdoor areas is a core 
principle of organic production systems. The organic regulations have 
required ``Year-round access for all animals to the outdoors'' since 
the organic regulations were established in 2001 (see 7 CFR 
205.239(a)(1)). Organic avian systems must be designed so birds have 
ready access to outdoor areas and are able to return indoors to roost 
in the evening. Producers must provide exit doors of sufficient number 
and size to enable all birds to access outdoor and indoor areas. The 
standard for exit doors is set at one (1) linear foot of exit area 
space for every 360 birds.
    If an operation does not provide at least one linear foot of exit 
area per 360 birds ratio, the operation may comply with the requirement 
if it: (1) describes (in their OSP) their exit areas and how they 
enable all birds to access outdoor areas; and (2) demonstrates how 
ready access to the outdoors is provided for all birds. In that case, 
the certifier must review the description in the OSP and verify that 
exit areas meet the standard for outdoor access to determine an 
operation complies with the exit area requirement. A certifier could, 
for example, review time lapse videos, pictures (with time stamp data), 
and/or conduct on-site inspections to verify that exit areas ensure all 
birds have ready access to the outdoors.
    In any case, a certifier will determine if doors are appropriately 
distributed and sized, as required, by assessing if all birds have 
ready access to the outdoors. This section also notes that shell egg 
producers may be subject to FDA requirements in 21 CFR part 118 
intended to prevent Salmonella Enteritidis (SE). Specifically, these 
FDA regulations require producers to maintain biosecurity measures that 
prevent stray poultry, wild birds, cats, rodents, and other animals 
from entering poultry houses. AMS directs producers to consult with the 
FDA's August 2022 final guidance on this subject for more information 
on how to comply with the requirements while providing access to areas 
outside the poultry house.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Available at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-questions-and-answers-regarding-final-rule-prevention-salmonella-enteritidis-shell-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 205.241(b)(5) requires perches for chicken layers at a rate 
of six inches per bird for all housing. Perch space may include the 
alighting rail in front of nest boxes, but it may not include floors in 
houses with slatted floors. Perches are not required for broilers, meat 
birds, or layers of species other than Gallus gallus. All layers must 
be able to perch at the same time, except in aviary housing (see the 
definition of indoor space in Sec.  205.2). Aviary housing is permitted 
to have less perch space because birds in aviary housing are also able 
to escape aggressive behavior by moving between tiers in the house. 
Aviary housing must provide six inches of perch space for 55 percent of 
the flock (i.e., 3.3 inches of perch for each bird in the flock). These 
requirements are adopted from 2009 and 2011 NOSB recommendations.
    Section 205.241(b)(6) specifies indoor requirements to allow for 
certain natural behaviors. Except for mobile housing (defined at Sec.  
205.2), indoor space must include areas that allow for scratching and 
dust bathing. For mobile housing, producers may meet this requirement 
by providing scratch areas and dust bathing areas outside of the mobile 
housing. In that case, a mobile house may include 100% slatted or mesh 
flooring (which do not allow for scratching and dust bathing). For 
other types of indoor housing, litter or bedding such as wood shavings 
or straw must be provided indoors. If litter or bedding will be 
consumed by animals, it must be organic. Manure excreted by birds in a 
poultry house alone, without additional litter material, would not be 
sufficient to meet this requirement. This section also requires that 
litter be maintained in a dry condition, because wet litter can lead to 
a variety of problems for birds, including excess ammonia, lameness, 
and pest problems.\72\ High moisture content in poultry litter can 
cause negative health and welfare outcomes, including foot pad 
dermatitis\73\ and increased populations of house fly leading to 
disease in the birds.\74\ Wet litter also promotes bacterial growth, 
which can further lead to disease and negative health outcomes in 
birds.\75\ Litter may be topped off when needed to maintain sufficient 
dryness. These requirements are adopted from 2009 and 2011 NOSB 
recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ ``Broiler Litter: Odor and Moisture Concerns'', Tom Tabler, 
Yi Liang, Jonathan Moon, and Jessica Wells. Mississippi State 
University Extension, Publication: P3515, 2020.
    \73\ ``Wet litter not only induces footpad dermatitis but also 
reduces overall welfare, technical performance, and carcass yield in 
broiler chickens'', Ingrid C. de Jong, H. Gunnink and J.van Harn, 
Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 23(1): 51-58, 2014.
    \74\ ``Pests in Poultry, Poultry Product-Borne Infection and 
Future Precautions'', Hongshun Yang, Shuvra K. Dey, Robert Buchanan, 
and Debabrata, Biswas Practical Food Safety: Contemporary Issues and 
Future Directions, 1, 2014.
    \75\ ``Broiler Litter: Odor and Moisture Concerns'', Tom Tabler, 
Yi Liang, Jonathan Moon, and Jessica Wells, Mississippi State 
University Extension, Publication: P352020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 205.241(b)(7) includes specific flooring requirements for 
non-mobile indoor avian housing with slatted/mesh floors. These houses 
must provide at least 15 percent solid flooring to allow birds indoors 
to engage in natural behaviors, including scratching and dust bathing, 
without crowding. This requirement does not apply to mobile houses 
which, by definition (see Sec.  205.2), allow continuous access to 
areas outside the structure where birds may scratch and dust bathe. The 
requirement is adopted from a 2009 NOSB recommendation.
    Sections 205.241(b)(8), (9), and (10) list the required minimum 
indoor space for chickens (Gallus gallus) in different types of 
housing. These are minimum standards, and organic producers may choose 
to provide more indoor space than required. Sections 205.241(b)(8), 
(9), and (10) list requirements for layers, pullets, and broilers, 
respectively. Indoor space requirements for layers vary by the type of 
housing provided. Section 205.2 further defines the types of housing, 
including mobile housing, aviary housing, slatted/mesh floor housing, 
and floor litter housing. For housing that does not fit into any of 
these defined types, producers must comply with standards for ``other 
housing'' at Sec.  205.241(b)(8)(v). Pasture pens that are moved 
regularly and provide direct access to soil and vegetation are not 
considered indoors (see definition of ``outdoors'' in Sec.  205.2). AMS 
has adapted these requirements from 2009 and 2011 NOSB recommendations 
and in consideration of third-party animal welfare standards.
    The rule requires less indoor space per bird in houses that provide 
more access to vertical space (e.g., aviary and slatted/mesh floor 
housing), as birds have more room to move around in those types of 
housing. Housing where birds have more limited access to vertical space 
(e.g., floor litter housing)

[[Page 75419]]

must include more indoor space per bird. AMS allows for higher stocking 
densities in mobile housing, as birds managed in these systems spend 
more time outdoors, and mobile housing must be relatively small and 
light, as it is moved frequently.
    The final rule expresses the space requirements for birds in two 
different ways, and producers may use either metric to demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements. In the first metric, producers may 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements by using the known weight 
of birds in a flock. This metric is expressed as the maximum pounds of 
bird allowed per square foot of indoor space. The minimum space 
required under this alternative metric depends on the average weight of 
birds at that time. All weight references in Sec. Sec.  205.241(b) 
refer to the weight of live birds and not the weight of processed 
birds. This metric accommodates for differences between different 
breeds and also adapts for birds as they age and become heavier. Under 
this metric, larger breeds (i.e., heavier individual birds) must be 
provided with more indoor space than smaller breeds, on a per bird 
basis. For example, Rhode Island Red birds are heavier than White 
Leghorns or ISA Browns, and thus cannot be stocked as densely, in terms 
of number of birds per unit area.
    The second metric is an alternative that establishes the minimum 
space that must be provided per animal in square feet per bird. In some 
cases, AMS expects this will be a simpler method to calculate the 
required space, particularly when individual bird weights differ within 
a flock (e.g., because of a mixture of breeds or ages within a flock). 
For this method, producers simply multiply the number of birds in a 
flock by the space required per bird to obtain the minimum total space 
required for the flock. Equivalently, producers can divide the 
available area by the required space per bird to arrive at the maximum 
number of birds allowed in that area.
    To provide additional context, consider the following example of 
layers in a floor litter housing system. At 32 weeks of age, these 
layers weigh 4.3 pounds each and must be provided with 1.4 square feet 
per bird (or 3.0 pounds of bird for each one square foot, as required 
at Sec.  205.241(b)(8)(iv)). At 80 weeks of age, each layer weighs 4.5 
pounds and the flock would require 1.5 square feet per bird (or 3.0 
pounds of bird per square foot). If a producer has 10,000 square feet 
available to raise these birds, this producer could stock 6,993 birds 
at 32 weeks of age (bird weight of 4.3 pounds) but only 6,667 birds at 
80 weeks of age (bird weight of 4.5 pounds). In comparison, a producer 
that uses the alternative metric of 2.2 square feet per bird could 
stock no more than 4,545 birds in the same 10,000 square foot floor 
litter house. A producer with a small number of birds may prefer to use 
the alternative metric (square feet per bird), especially when the 
space provided easily exceeds the requirements. This eliminates the 
need to weigh birds and estimate the average weight per square foot.
    When calculating the weight of birds to assess pounds per square 
foot, an average weight may be established for the flock by taking 
weights of a representative sample of the flock. The space requirement 
is not specific to each individual bird in a flock. AMS understands 
that many producers already monitor and track bird weight closely 
during the production cycle to monitor bird development and health and 
calculate feed requirements. However, if weight is not monitored by a 
producer, the producer will either need to establish the weight of 
birds or comply with the alternative metric (expressed as square feet 
per bird).
    The weight metric (pounds per square foot) requires the producer to 
know the total weight of birds. The simpler alternative method (square 
feet per bird) requires the producer to know only the number of birds 
in a flock. This simpler alternative method will, in almost all cases, 
require more space per bird than the weight metric of pounds per square 
foot. Producers may demonstrate compliance by using either metric. A 
certifying agent does not need to compare a producer's compliance with 
both metrics if compliance with either one can be demonstrated.
    Section 205.241(b)(11) specifies how to calculate the area of the 
indoor space. Producers must calculate indoor space accurately to 
ensure that their housing systems meet the requirements in Sec. Sec.  
205.241(b)(8) through (10). The total area of the indoor space is 
calculated by including the square footage of all flat areas in a 
house, excluding nest boxes (areas provided to layers for laying eggs). 
Elevated round perches, for example, are not flat areas and could not 
be included as indoor space. Nesting areas are excluded from the 
calculation, as they are distinct from useable floor areas of the house 
where birds can move around freely. This method of calculation aligns 
with the 2009 and 2011 NOSB recommendations.
    Section 205.241(b)(12) clarifies that indoor space may include 
enclosed porches and lean-to type structures (e.g., screened in, 
roofed) provided that the birds always have access to the space, 
including during temporary confinement events. If the birds do not have 
continuous access to a porch or enclosed structure, including during 
temporary confinement events, that space may not be considered indoor 
space and may not be included in an operation's indoor space 
calculation.
    Section 205.241(c) establishes the outdoor space requirements for 
organic avian species, including the amount of outdoor space that 
operations must provide for the birds. The requirements of Sec.  
205.241(c) are adopted or adapted from 2009 and 2011 NOSB 
recommendations, third-party animal welfare standards, and existing 
organic regulations previously in Sec.  205.239. Section 205.241(c)(1) 
requires that operations use outdoor space designed to promote and 
encourage daily outdoor access for all birds. Producers must provide 
access to the outdoors at an early age. Exit areas are described 
previously in Sec.  205.241(b)(4), but this section requires that door 
spacing promote and encourage outdoor access and requires that 
operations provide outdoor access daily. Outdoor access may only be 
temporarily restricted in accordance with Sec.  205.241(d).
    Section 205.241(c)(2) requires that outdoor areas for poultry have 
a minimum of 75 percent soil and that the soil portion of the outdoor 
area must include vegetative cover. Vegetative cover must be maintained 
in a manner that does not provide harborage for rodents and other 
pests. For example, a producer may mow vegetation to ensure that tall 
vegetation does not provide harborage for pests. A maximum of 25 
percent of the outdoor area may be gravel, concrete, or surfaces other 
than soil. Vegetation is required, as vegetation protects soil and 
water quality and allows birds to engage in natural behaviors, 
including foraging, pecking, and scratching. The amount of vegetation 
present will depend on the season, climate, geography, species, and the 
stage of production.
    Section 205.241(c)(3) clarifies how producers may provide shade to 
meet the general requirements of Sec.  205.241(a). Shade may be 
provided in outdoor areas by trees, shade structures, or other 
appropriate objects. This section is specific to shade in outdoor 
areas; it does not permit structures that do not meet the definition of 
``outdoors'' (Sec.  205.2) to be included in calculations of outdoor 
space.
    Sections 205.241(c)(4) through (6) specify minimum outdoor space 
requirements for chickens (Gallus gallus). As described above for the 
indoor space requirements (Sec.  205.241(b)), the final rule includes

[[Page 75420]]

two methods for determining compliance with space requirements. One 
method relies on bird weights to establish the maximum stocking density 
(expressed as maximum pounds of bird per square foot). The other method 
requires only knowing the number of birds and the area of the space to 
establish the maximum stocking density (expressed as minimum square 
feet per bird). Either method is acceptable to demonstrate and evaluate 
compliance with the outdoor spacing requirements.
    Organic layer producers must provide at least one square foot of 
outdoor space for every 2.25 pounds of bird in the flock. For example, 
if birds average 4.5 pounds, a producer must provide 2.0 square feet of 
outdoor space for each bird in the flock. Alternatively, if bird 
weights are not known, a producer may provide at least 3.0 square feet 
of outdoor space per layer. Organic pullet producers must provide at 
least one square foot of outdoor space for every 3.0 pounds of bird in 
the flock. Alternatively, a producer may provide at least 1.7 square 
feet of outdoor space per pullet. Organic broiler producers must 
provide at least one square foot of outdoor space for every 5.0 pounds 
of bird in the flock. Alternatively, a producer may provide at least 
2.0 square feet of outdoor space per broiler.
    All weight references in Sec. Sec.  205.241(c) refer to the weight 
of live birds and not the weight of processed birds. The total outdoor 
space that an operation must provide must be calculated based on the 
total number of birds in a flock, not the number of birds in outdoor 
space at a given moment. Related discussion on this topic can be found 
above in the discussion on the indoor space requirements at Sec. Sec.  
205.241(b)(8)-(10), such as the calculation of bird weight and the 
usefulness of this method to accommodate for differences over the flock 
lifespan as birds become heavier.
    Section 205.241(c)(7) clarifies that unenclosed roofed areas (i.e., 
having a roof but no walls to contain birds) can be counted as outdoor 
space when these areas allow birds to freely move between the roofed 
area(s) and other outdoor space. This ensures that enclosed porches are 
not counted as outdoor space. If a producer were to modify an enclosed 
porch to permanently remove the walls and provide birds with free 
access to other outdoor spaces, the area would be considered outdoor 
space.
    One of the key considerations for distinguishing indoor space from 
outdoor space is how the livestock are managed in that space, which may 
determine whether the space should be defined as indoors, outdoors, or 
neither indoors nor outdoors. As an example, a screened-in and roofed 
porch to which the (enclosed) birds always have access, including 
during temporary confinement events, would be considered indoor space. 
That same porch would be considered neither indoors nor outdoors if the 
birds do not have continuous access to the space during temporary 
confinement events.
    Section 205.241(d) describes the conditions under which organic 
avian livestock producers may temporarily confine birds indoors 
(``temporary'' and ``temporarily'' are defined at Sec.  205.2). 
Producers must document confinement in a manner that demonstrates 
compliance with the recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  205.103. 
Records should include the reason for the confinement, the duration of 
the confinement, and the flocks that were confined. Records should be 
sufficient for a certifier to determine if birds were confined in 
compliance with this section. The requirements of Sec.  205.241(d) are 
adopted or adapted from previously established requirements for organic 
livestock at Sec.  205.239(b), and from 2009 and 2011 NOSB 
recommendations and third-party animal welfare organization standards.
    Section 205.241(d)(1) provides an allowance for temporary 
confinement in response to inclement weather, which is defined at Sec.  
205.2 as weather that is violent or characterized by temperatures (high 
or low) or excessive precipitation that can cause physical harm to 
livestock. Inclement weather does not include weather that is sub-
optimal for production, such as weather that may reduce growth rates or 
reduce production yields. In addition to specifying ``inclement 
weather,'' as defined at Sec.  205.2, the final rule also establishes a 
lower (32 degrees Fahrenheit) and upper temperature threshold (90 
degrees Fahrenheit) for temporary confinement. Producers may 
temporarily confine animals and maintain their organic certification 
when animals are temporarily confined for inclement weather. The term 
``inclement weather'' is defined at Sec.  205.2 as, ``Weather that is 
violent, or characterized by temperatures (high or low), or 
characterized by excessive precipitation that can cause physical harm 
to a given species of livestock. Production yields or growth rates of 
livestock lower than the maximum achievable do not qualify as physical 
harm.'' AMS recognizes that a narrower range of temperatures may define 
the optimal temperature conditions for birds (of different ages and 
species), but Sec.  205.241(d)(1) may not be used as justification for 
confinement of birds to the narrow range to maximize growth or 
production.
    AMS recognizes that some weather may qualify as inclement weather 
when temperatures are within the 32- to 90-degree range. For example, 
many types of violent weather that may cause physical harm to animals 
will occur within this range (e.g., extreme wind, violent 
precipitation, etc.). Temporary confinement of animals for these events 
is appropriate under this section of the rule. Finally, the rule does 
not require that birds be confined when temperatures are below 32 
degrees or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit to be in compliance with the 
requirement. For example, a sunny 30-degree Fahrenheit day may allow 
birds to go outdoors without any harmful effects, and outdoor access 
would be acceptable and encouraged. Certifiers will need to evaluate an 
operation's practices and temporary confinement records to determine if 
an operation complies with the allowance to temporarily confine animals 
for inclement weather.
    Section 205.241(d)(2) provides an allowance for temporary 
confinement indoors due to a bird's stage of life. In this section, AMS 
has established specific requirements for confining chicken broilers 
and pullets due to their stage of life (``stage of life'' defined at 
Sec.  205.2). Additionally, the section includes a general provision 
for confining other avian species until fully feathered. Chicken 
broilers may be confined through 4 weeks of age and chicken pullets may 
be temporarily confined indoors through 16 weeks of age. The NOSB 
recommended 16 weeks of age as the age after which outdoor access is 
required to provide adequate time for pullets to complete their 
vaccination program before exposure to pathogens outdoors. Any 
confinement beyond the time when birds are fully feathered must be in 
accordance with Sec.  205.241(d).
    Section 205.241(d)(3) provides an allowance for temporary indoor 
confinement for conditions under which the health, safety, or well-
being of the birds could be jeopardized. Temporary confinement under 
this provision must be recorded; records must clearly state the 
reason(s) for confinement (per Sec.  205.241(d)(3)), with a detailed 
and robust justification demonstrating how the birds' health, safety, 
or well-being could be jeopardized. To confine birds under this 
provision, a producer must have sufficient justification to demonstrate 
that an animal's health, safety, or well-being could be jeopardized by 
access to the outdoors. A producer's practices and justification must 
be included in their OSP

[[Page 75421]]

(Sec.  205.201), and records must be sufficient to demonstrate 
compliance (Sec.  205.103). Certifiers will verify compliance with this 
requirement. Producers and certifiers should consult with animal health 
officials, as appropriate, to determine when confinement of birds is 
warranted to protect the health, safety, or well-being of the birds. 
Animal health officials are also encouraged to reach out to certifiers 
and to AMS to discuss specific health concerns. AMS will continue to 
engage animal health officials, including the USDA's Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), State Departments of Agriculture and 
State Veterinarians, about risks to bird health and provide appropriate 
directions to certifiers or producers, as necessary.
    AMS recognizes that this section allows operations to temporarily 
confine animals for a variety of reasons, but operations may not 
justify ongoing or long-term confinement for reasons that do not pose 
significant and specific risks to animal health, safety, or well-being. 
This section provides an allowance for organic operations to 
temporarily confine animals. AMS directs producers and certifiers to 
reference Sec.  205.2 (Terms defined) when evaluating confinement under 
Sec.  205.241(d)(3), which defines ``temporary and temporarily'' as, 
``Occurring for a limited time only (e.g., overnight, throughout a 
storm, during a period of illness, the period of time specified by the 
Administrator when granting a temporary variance), not permanent or 
lasting.'' For example, an operation may not confine birds in an 
attempt to avoid any and all predation and bird mortality that may 
result from time outdoors. Additionally, an operation may not confine 
animals indoors to simply maximize growth and/or production. Access to 
the outdoors is a key principle of the organic livestock standards (see 
Sec.  205.241(a)). Therefore, AMS expects producers to maximize access 
to outdoors to the greatest degree possible to support the health and 
natural behavior of poultry and the requirement at Sec.  205.241(a).
    Section 205.241(d)(4) provides an allowance for temporary indoor 
confinement in the case of risk to soil or water quality. This 
provision mirrors an existing allowance at Sec.  205.239 and allows 
producers to avoid damage to soil or water quality. This means that an 
operation may temporarily confine poultry to prevent damage to soil or 
water quality. For example, an operation may choose to temporarily 
confine animals after a very heavy rainfall to help minimize soil 
erosion and runoff. However, confinement for this reason must be 
temporary (see the definition of temporary in Sec.  205.2) and must be 
documented so that the certifying agent can assess if the operation's 
use of confinement complies with the organic regulations. Frequent or 
prolonged confinement to prevent damage to soil or water quality is not 
permitted because it is not temporary. The need to frequently confine 
animals for long periods to avoid damage to soil and water quality may 
also indicate that an operation's outdoor access practices fail to meet 
the general requirements to maintain or improve the natural resources 
of the operation, including soil and water quality (Sec.  205.200). 
This provision is not intended to allow producers to avoid those 
requirements and is only allowed to justify temporary (i.e., not 
permanent or lasting) confinement.
    Section 205.241(d)(5) provides an allowance for indoor confinement 
for preventive health care procedures and for the treatment of illness 
or injury. Neither life stages nor egg laying are considered an illness 
for confinement purposes. For example, this provision allows producers 
to briefly confine a flock to administer a vaccine or to confine an 
individual animal that requires medical treatment.
    Section 205.241(d)(6) provides an allowance for indoor confinement 
for sorting, shipping, and poultry sales. Birds must be managed 
organically during the entire time of confinement. For example, any 
feed provided during confinement must be organic. Confinement must be 
no longer than necessary to sort or catch the birds, place them in 
shipping containers, and conduct the sale.
    Section 205.241(d)(7) provides an allowance for indoor confinement 
to train pullets to lay eggs in nest boxes, with a maximum period of 
five weeks over the life of the bird allowed for such confinement. The 
training period must not be any longer than required to establish the 
proper behavior. As soon as the behavior is established, birds must be 
provided with access to the outdoors, except when confined in 
accordance with other provisions under Sec.  205.241(d).
    Section 205.241(d)(8) provides an allowance for indoor confinement 
with specified time frames for youth exhibitions, such as with 4-H or 
the National FFA Organization. This provision also includes an 
exemption to the 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 that is not certified 
organic, a youth may sell birds there as organic, provided all other 
requirements for organic management are met. During the youth event, 
the livestock may be temporarily confined indoors. Otherwise, non-
certified sales facilities, such as auction barns, may not sell or 
represent livestock as organic. AMS is adding these provisions at Sec.  
205.241(d)(8) to encourage the next generation of organic producers.
    Section 205.241(e) requires 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 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. The requirements of this 
section are adapted from previously established requirements for 
organic livestock at section 205.239(e).
Changes From Proposed Rule to Final Rule
    AMS has made several revisions to the proposed requirements at 
Sec.  205.241 in response to comments and to clarify the requirements. 
A brief description of the changes follows; additional discussion can 
be found in AMS's responses to comments.
     AMS included a prohibition on continuous total 
confinement. This requirement has existed in the regulations at Sec.  
205.239 but was not included in the proposed rule. It is carried into 
the final rule at Sec.  205.241(a).
     AMS added a clarification to the final rule that a bird 
should be able to stretch both wings simultaneously when indoors (Sec.  
205.241(b)(1)). This change elaborates on the proposed requirement that 
birds be able to ``stretch wings'' indoors.
     AMS revised requirements related to monitoring of ammonia 
to increase the frequency of monitoring and raise the action limit from 
10 ppm to 20 ppm ammonia, with the maximum level remaining at 25 ppm, 
as proposed (Sec.  205.241(b)(2)). The final rule also specifies that 
monitoring is to be done at bird head height.
     AMS revised the proposed lighting requirements to clarify 
that manipulation of artificial light to increase growth is not 
permitted and to clarify the length of time that artificial light may 
be provided over a 24-hour period (Sec.  205.241(b)(3)).

[[Page 75422]]

     In response to public comment, AMS offered greater 
specificity on the requirements related to exit doors. The final rule 
requires that producers provide one linear foot of exit door space per 
360 birds with some flexibility for compliance if an alternative 
configuration provides ready access to the outdoors for all birds 
(Sec.  205.241(b)(4)).
     AMS included additional detail on what may be counted as 
perch space. The final rule specifically prohibits counting floor space 
as perch space (Sec.  205.241(b)(5)).
     AMS reduced the amount of solid flooring required in the 
final rule from 30 percent to 15 percent and clarifies that mobile 
housing is exempt from this requirement (Sec.  205.241(b)(7)).
     AMS added a second method for calculating space 
requirements that does not rely on the weight of birds (Sec. Sec.  
205.241(b)(7)--(10) and (c)(4)--(c)(6)).
     AMS reduced the amount of non-soil ground that may be in 
outdoor areas from 50 percent to 25 percent (i.e., 75 percent must be 
soil in the final rule), at Sec.  205.241(c)(2).
     AMS revised the temperature range included in the proposed 
rule related to inclement weather (Sec.  205.241(d)(1)). AMS clarified 
that inclement weather for avian species may include temperatures below 
32 degrees (rather than 40 degrees as proposed) and above 90 degrees 
(unchanged from the proposed rule).
     Finally, AMS removed the proposed allowance to temporarily 
confine birds to reseed outdoor areas. The final rule allows for 
confinement due to risk to soil or water quality (Sec.  205.241(d)(4)).
Responses to Public Comment
General Conditions (Avian)
    (Comment) Some comments noted that the proposed rule's section on 
avian living conditions did not include the specific phrase, 
``Continuous total confinement of any animal indoors is prohibited.'' 
The commenters noted that the prohibition was included in the section 
on mammalian living conditions at Sec.  205.239(a) and requested that 
it also be included in the final rule's section on avian living 
conditions at Sec.  205.241(a).
    (Response) AMS agrees with these comments and has added the phrase, 
``Continuous total confinement of any animal indoors is prohibited'' to 
the avian living condition requirements at Sec.  205.241(a). Prior to 
this final rule, the USDA organic regulations prohibited continuous 
total confinement for all organic livestock, and AMS agrees it should 
continue to apply to all organic livestock in the final rule.
    (Comment) A comment requested that AMS modify the proposed 
requirement that birds be able to ``stretch their wings'' indoors to 
instead require space that allows birds to ``fully stretch both wings 
simultaneously.''
    (Response) AMS agrees that this modification better describes the 
intent and meaning of the requirement. The final rule, at Sec.  
205.241(a)(1), requires that poultry housing be sufficiently spacious 
to allow all birds to, ``stretch both wings simultaneously.''
Ammonia
    (Comment) AMS received numerous comments on the proposed 
requirements related to monitoring ammonia in poultry houses and 
ammonia compliance thresholds included in the proposed rule. Comments 
argued that monthly ammonia monitoring, as proposed, would not be 
sufficient to identify problems and could result in longer-term 
exposure to elevated ammonia levels and have harmful effects. Many of 
these comments requested weekly (rather than monthly) testing, and that 
ammonia monitoring must be done at the height of the birds' heads, to 
ensure that testing reflects the birds' actual exposure to ammonia. In 
terms of the ammonia thresholds proposed by AMS, many comments 
requested that AMS increase the action limit from 10 ppm to 20 ppm or 
25 ppm. Comments noted that these higher levels would align with third-
party standards and still support bird health.
    (Response) In response to comments, the final rule increases the 
frequency of required testing from monthly to weekly and requires that 
testing be done at bird head height. AMS expects these revisions to 
Sec.  205.241(b)(2) will result in better outcomes for bird health. AMS 
has also increased the action limit in the proposed rule of 10 ppm to 
20 ppm in the final rule. If ammonia levels exceed 20 ppm, producers 
must implement additional practices to reduce ammonia levels below 20 
ppm and perform more frequent monitoring. Ammonia levels must not 
exceed 25 ppm.
Lighting
    (Comment) Several commenters requested that poultry have access to 
sufficient natural light indoors, citing animal health and welfare. 
Commenters requested natural light be provided during daylight hours 
for mature avian species; in cases where this would be difficult to 
achieve, commenters requested that lighting must be full spectrum to 
mimic a natural system.
    (Response) As a general requirement at Sec.  205.241(a), the final 
rule requires that birds have year-round access to outdoors and direct 
sunlight. AMS finds that these provisions address commenters' concern 
for sufficient access to natural light and the expression of natural 
behaviors.
    (Comment) Commenters asked AMS to require a minimum of eight hours 
of continuous light (daylight or artificial) over a 24-hour period.
    (Response) AMS finds that artificial light sources can be permitted 
to help meet the minimum light intensity during cloudy weather or 
darker seasonal conditions but should not prolong daylight more than 16 
continuous hours. AMS finds that continuous low level or no light does 
not mimic a natural system, nor does it allow birds to express their 
natural instincts and thus is not appropriate for organic management. 
AMS has decided not to specify a particular amount of required light to 
provide operations flexibility for their site-specific conditions. 
Further, AMS recognizes that not all organic operations have lighting 
systems that allow for gradual lowering of light intensity. Therefore, 
AMS clarified that artificial light intensity should (rather than must) 
be lowered gradually to encourage hens to move to perches or settle for 
the night.
    (Comment) Several comments noted that artificial light should be 
used only to mimic daylight and encourage natural behaviors, and not to 
manipulate weight gain or laying habits.
    (Response) AMS agrees that artificial light should be used only to 
mimic daylight and encourage natural behaviors. AMS added the statement 
at Sec.  205.241(b)(3) that ``Artificial light spectrum may not be 
manipulated to increase feed intake and growth rate.''
    (Comment) Commenters asked AMS to require a minimum of eight hours 
of continuous darkness over a 24-hour period.
    (Response) The final rule adds the statement at Sec.  205.241(b)(3) 
that operations must provide a minimum of eight hours of continuous 
darkness per 24-hour period.
    (Comment) Several comments noted that the proposed rule did not 
establish a minimum requirement for indoor light intensity. Some 
commenters requested a requirement that an inspector be able to read 
and write with lights turned off on a sunny day to create a standard of 
measurement. Some commenters stated that third-party certifications 
require at least one foot candle of light throughout the building.
    (Response) AMS determined that it would not be feasible for 
inspectors to

[[Page 75423]]

verify a producer's compliance with this requested requirement and has 
not included such a requirement in the final rule.
    (Comment) Commenters asked AMS to confirm that the proposed 
artificial lighting standards at Sec.  205.241(b)(3) covered all types 
of fully feathered birds, not just layer chickens.
    (Response) The artificial lighting standards at Sec.  205.241(b)(3) 
are applicable to the production of all types of fully feathered birds. 
AMS updated the regulatory text to clarify this standard applies to all 
fully feathered birds.
Exit Areas
    (Comment) Stakeholders requested more specificity for exit areas, 
arguing the proposed rule does not provide clarity for implementation 
to ensure sufficient outdoor access. Comments focused on minimum size, 
spacing, and quantity of exit doors. Many comments requested a 
requirement that exit areas must be designed so that more than one bird 
at a time can pass through each opening. Many comments also suggested 
specific sizing and dimensions for exit areas, with most suggesting a 
combined exit area length be at least 12 feet per 1,000 square feet of 
the house available to the birds. This standard would align with 
European Union organic standards (4 m per 100 m\2\). Others suggested a 
requirement for at least one exit for every 50 feet (15 meters) along 
the two longest sides of the house, while others recommended that exit 
doors be placed so any bird could be no farther than 50 feet from an 
exit door. This standard would align with Canadian organic standards 
and some third-party welfare standards. Other comments also requested 
more specificity for how to encourage birds to go outside and to 
include a requirement that operations demonstrate that birds access the 
outdoors (e.g., demonstrate all birds exit the house within an hour of 
opening doors).
    (Response) AMS recognizes that exit areas have been unregulated and 
that ready access to the outdoors--a primary intent of this rule--has 
not always been provided to all certified flocks. AMS also recognizes 
the need for a consistent understanding throughout the industry to 
support a competitive playing field. The final rule confirms and 
clarifies that poultry houses must have sufficient exit areas to allow 
birds to access the outdoors. AMS is also making two modifications to 
the proposed requirements based on comments. First, AMS is requiring 
that exit areas be ``appropriately distributed and sized'' rather than 
``appropriately distributed'' in response to comments that the size of 
doors (in addition to the distribution of doors) is important for 
providing access to the outdoors. For example, a very narrow door might 
restrict passage of birds and restrict access to the outdoors.
    Second, AMS is referencing a quantitative standard for exit areas 
in the final rule, as requested by numerous comments. The final rule 
requires producers to provide at least 1 linear foot of exit area per 
360 birds, and no less than 1 linear foot for flocks that have fewer 
than 360 birds. Theoretically, this quantity of exit area allows all 
birds in a house to exit (or enter) a house within one hour (60 
minutes), assuming one bird passes through a door every 10 seconds (360 
birds x 10 seconds/bird = 3,600 seconds or 60 minutes). This 
requirement is comparable to a third-party animal welfare standard that 
requires five inches of doorway per 100 hens.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Global Animal Partnership standards for laying hens require 
8 inches for every 100 hens when doors are only open on one side of 
the house. When doors are open on both sides of the house, the 
standards require 5 inches for every 100 hens. Available at: https://globalanimalpartnership.org/standards/laying-hen/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While AMS is providing a quantitative requirement in the final 
rule, the rule also provides flexibility for operations to provide less 
exit space, so long as they and their certifier ensure that exit areas 
allow all birds to have ready access to outdoor space. AMS is providing 
this flexibility because we understand there might be houses that do 
not meet the ratio but can demonstrate all birds have ready access to 
the outdoors. Because of the wide variety of housing provided by 
poultry producers and possible differences in bird behavior between 
farms, AMS believes that compliance is best determined by organic 
certifying agents during their annual on-site inspections and reviews 
of operations. A specific standard will, however, provide a common 
reference point for certifying agents to assess compliance with the 
outdoor access requirement.
    AMS evaluated the standard proposed by commenters for 12 linear 
feet of door per 1,000 square feet of poultry house, but AMS determined 
this would not be an appropriate metric. Specifically, this requirement 
did not scale appropriately for houses of all sizes (due to a non-
linear relationship between the perimeter of an object and the area of 
the object). In other words, a large house would have been required to 
have more doors than is practical or feasible. Instead, AMS is adopting 
a standard for the final rule that relies only on the number of birds 
to calculate the necessary door number.
    AMS also considered comments that recommended birds not be farther 
than 50 feet from an exit door. AMS chose not to adopt this 
recommendation because some poultry houses may only provide doors along 
one side of the house, and houses can be 50 feet wide or more.\77\ 
Ultimately, AMS determined that a standard based on the number of birds 
in the house would be the most scale-neutral option across the various 
housing types using for organic production. The final rule establishes 
a standard of one linear foot of exit area per 360 birds. Together with 
the requirement in this section (Sec.  205.241(b)(4)) that exit areas 
be appropriately distributed and sized, AMS believes this standard is 
an appropriate baseline. In the case a producer can demonstrate an 
alternative ratio meets the requirement for ready access to the 
outdoors, a producer would be in compliance if the certifier accepts 
the deviation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Available at: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Ag_Resource_Management/ARMS_Broiler_Factsheet/Poultry%20Results%20-%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flooring and Dust Bathing
    (Comment) Many comments requested that AMS revise the amount of 
solid floor area required in indoor housing with slatted or mesh 
floors. Comments asked AMS to lower the minimum required solid floor 
area to 15 percent of total floor space (the proposed rule would have 
required 30 percent). Comments acknowledged that the proposed 30 
percent minimum was an NOSB recommendation but noted that a 15 percent 
minimum would be more consistent with current practice in the organic 
industry and more consistent with third-party animal welfare standards.
    (Response) Solid floor areas provide birds with a space to dust 
bathe and scratch. AMS has reduced the minimum amount of solid floor 
space from 30 percent to 15 percent in Sec.  205.241(b)(7). AMS agrees 
with comments that 15 percent solid floor area will support animal 
welfare and the natural behaviors of scratching and dust bathing. The 
final rule not only requires that birds will have access to areas 
indoors for these activities but also requires that birds have access 
to outdoor areas. These outdoor areas will also be available for birds 
to express these natural behaviors and to maintain animal health (by 
allowing for dust bathing).
    (Comment) One commenter requested a higher indoor stocking density 
limit

[[Page 75424]]

for mobile housing that provides year-round access to large amounts of 
pasture. This commenter also stated that these types of mobile housing 
should not be required to provide indoor areas for dust bathing and 
scratching, as the outdoor space provides these areas.
    (Response) AMS agrees that outdoor areas can provide sufficient 
space for birds to engage in natural behaviors such as dust bathing and 
scratching. The final rule in Sec.  205.241(b)(6) exempts mobile 
housing from the scratching and dust bathing requirements inside of the 
house if there is sufficient outdoor space that can provide area for 
these behaviors. AMS elects not to change the stocking density 
requirements for mobile housing. The final rule permits a higher indoor 
stocking density for mobile housing than it does for other housing 
systems, except for aviary housing (which provides access to the 
vertical space in a house). The maximum stocking density for mobile 
housing already considers that birds have greater access to outdoor 
space in these systems, so further reduction of space per bird is not 
warranted.
Space Requirements
    (Comment) Some comments requested that AMS express space 
requirements in terms of square feet per bird rather than maximum 
pounds of bird per square foot, as AMS proposed. Comments argued this 
method for space calculations aligns better with third-party standards 
and that calculations would be simpler under this method. Comments 
noted that the proposed method (which relies on bird weight) is more 
burdensome, as bird weights constantly change, especially when birds 
are young, and some producers do not track the weight of their birds. 
Comments also stated that requirements based on the weight of birds 
could result in an excessive recordkeeping burden and require 
additional time to verify at inspections.
    (Response) AMS recognizes that verification of compliance could be 
simpler in some cases by expressing the space requirements in terms of 
square feet required per bird. This may be especially true in cases 
where bird weights are not known, or a producer has variously sized 
breeds within the flock. Therefore, the final rule offers an 
alternative method for calculating space requirements in terms of 
minimum required square feet per bird. These calculations will require 
producers and certifying agents to know only the number of birds and 
the area of the space (indoor or outdoor).
    AMS has established the alternative to be equivalent to the space 
required for a heavy bird for the type (layer, broiler, or pullet). For 
layer standards, AMS assumed a 6.7 lb. bird; for broilers, a 10.0 lb. 
bird; and for pullets, a 5.0 lb. bird.\78\ For example, the alternative 
of 1.5 square feet per bird (aviary housing) is equivalent to the 
requirements for a 6.7 lb. layer at 4.5 lbs. per square foot. Many 
producers will comply with the space requirements expressed in these 
terms, even though a higher stocking density would likely be allowed by 
calculating the weight of birds per square foot. However, the 
alternative will simplify the calculations for some producers, 
especially smaller producers, and the addition responds to the many 
comments that requested a standard expressed as square feet required 
per bird.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ AMS established the alternative space requirements 
(expressed as square feet per bird) by considering the average 
weight of breeds, weight of birds at time of sale, relative use of 
breeds in the industry, and the standard deviation of weights by 
breed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule also retains the proposed rule's space requirements 
that are expressed in terms of maximum pounds of bird per square foot. 
Producers and certifiers may use either method to demonstrate 
compliance; they need not demonstrate compliance with both methods. AMS 
provides more extensive discussion of this topic in the above 
subsection titled ``Description of Final Policy.''
    (Comment) Some commenters believed that AMS should require more 
indoor space per bird to reduce crowding. On the other hand, other 
commenters believed that less space should be required indoors, 
especially for broilers. Many comments on broiler indoor space 
requested that AMS raise the stocking density to a maximum of six 
pounds per square foot for broilers, rather than the five pounds per 
square foot limit set by the proposed rule. Some of these comments also 
requested that if the final rule did adopt a standard of five pounds 
per square foot, AMS provide a five-year implementation period instead 
of the three-year period discussed in the proposed rule. These comments 
stated that five years would be necessary to construct new houses and 
avoid supply disruption.
    (Response) AMS is maintaining the indoor space requirements for the 
various housing types, as proposed. For pullets and layers, the indoor 
space requirements largely reflect the current industry standard for 
organic producers and various third-party humane and animal care 
standards. For broilers, AMS anticipated in the proposed rule that 
broilers would need to be provided with more space, and the costs 
associated with those changes are described in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis for this rule. In acknowledgement of comments that 
construction of new poultry houses will require time, AMS is allowing 
five years for compliance with the broiler indoor and outdoor space 
requirements in the final rule. AMS believes that the stocking 
densities established by this rule balance NOSB recommendations, public 
input, and industry best practices to establish a reasonable national 
standard for organic production and to assure consumers that 
organically produced eggs and broilers meet a consistent standard, as 
required by OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6501).
    (Comment) Some commenters believed that AMS should require more 
outdoor space per bird than proposed, while other commenters believed 
that less outdoor space could be required. Comments supporting more 
outdoor space noted that international organic standards and third-
party certifications require more space per bird, and they asserted 
that more space would be necessary to provide animals with vegetation 
in outdoor areas. Comments in favor of less outdoor space noted that 
all birds do not go outdoors at once, even if large outdoor areas are 
provided.
    (Response) The final rule maintains the outdoor stocking densities, 
as proposed, and added an alternative method for measuring compliance 
based on square feet per bird, which avoids the need to weigh birds. 
The stocking densities established by this rule balance NOSB 
recommendations, public input, and industry best practices to establish 
a reasonable baseline for organic production and, in turn, support the 
purposes set forth in OFPA, i.e., to assure consumers that organic 
products are produced according to a consistent standard (7 U.S.C. 
6501). The new standard represents an upward harmonization of outdoor 
space requirements under the organic rule while still providing for a 
robust organic poultry market.
    (Comment) Some comments requested a revision to AMS's discussion on 
how to calculate and verify compliance with indoor and outdoor space 
requirements. In the proposed rule, AMS described that a producer could 
stock a poultry house to exceed minimum space requirements in 
anticipation of mortalities that would reduce the number of birds and 
eventually increase the space available per bird. Commenters were 
concerned that adopting this approach would lead to houses with higher 
stocking densities

[[Page 75425]]

and reduce a certifier's ability to enforce the requirements.
    (Response) AMS has reconsidered its position and is adopting the 
position that a producer must always comply with the minimum standards 
established by the final rule. The final rule establishes minimum space 
requirements for chickens based on bird type, age, and housing system, 
and producers must meet these standards to comply with the rule.
    (Comment) Some comments requested that AMS expand the rule to 
include minimum requirements for species other than chickens (Gallus 
gallus), including turkeys, ducks, and other animals.
    (Response) AMS has not added specific minimum space requirements 
for species other than chickens in this final rule. The NOSB did not 
finalize recommendations for other avian species and AMS did not 
propose any such requirements, so AMS is not including minimum space 
requirements for other species in the final rule. However, the final 
rule includes many requirements that do apply to all avian species in 
Sec. Sec.  205.238, 205.241, and 205.242. Similarly, the final rule 
includes many requirements that apply to all mammalian and non-avian 
species at Sec. Sec.  205.238, 205.239, and 205.242.
Indoor Conditions (Other)
    (Comment) Comments asked AMS to clarify that flooring in slatted/
mesh floor poultry houses cannot be included as perch space for layers.
    (Response) The slatted floors of some houses are physically similar 
to perches, but floor space may not be counted as perch space. In 
response to comments, AMS specifies in the final rule at Sec.  
205.241(b)(5) that floors in slatted/mesh floor housing cannot be 
counted as perch space. Additionally, the definition of perch at Sec.  
205.2 describes that a perch is above the floor or ground to clarify 
that flooring is not a perch for the purposes of this rule.
    (Comment) Some comments objected to AMS's proposed requirements at 
Sec.  205.241(b)(12) and Sec.  205.241(c)(7) that describe what may be 
considered indoor space and outdoor space. The proposed rule described 
that a porch could be included in the calculation of space available. 
Some comments argued that AMS should not allow porches to ever count as 
outdoor space and that a prohibition of porches as outdoor space would 
better fit with the objective of the rule. Another suggested that these 
sections brought more confusion than clarity about what should count as 
indoor or outdoor space. Others expressed concern that the proposed 
rule might allow a producer to reduce both the indoor and outdoor space 
provided to birds by claiming porches as both indoor and outdoor space. 
Finally, some comments noted the description could cause interpretation 
issues for the organic mammalian standards, as some common mammalian 
housing structures are roofed with open sides (such as a freestall 
barns for dairy cattle) but are considered indoors.
    (Response) AMS has revised Sec.  205.241(c)(7) to further clarify 
acceptable types of outdoor space. AMS removed the words ``porches and 
lean to type [structures]'' from the paragraph to avoid confusion. The 
term ``porch'' is not defined by these regulations, and AMS wants to 
avoid inconsistent interpretation of the term. The revised language 
focuses on what qualifies a structure as outdoor space: (1) the 
structure must be unenclosed; and (2) birds must be able to move freely 
from the structure to other outdoor areas. A certifier must assess if 
an unenclosed roofed structure may be considered outdoor space. AMS 
believes this decision is best left to certifiers working in 
conjunction with producers and in evaluation of an operation's 
practices related to use of these areas. AMS chose to leave the words 
``enclosed porches'' at Sec.  205.241(a)(12) because we believe this is 
helpful guidance for the industry: in some cases, an area previously 
used as a porch might qualify as indoor space. Finally, AMS has updated 
the definition of ``outdoors'' in Sec.  205.2 to clarify that enclosed 
structures with open sides, such as the freestall barns and hoop barns 
commonly used in non-avian production, do not qualify as outdoors.
Outdoor Conditions (Other)
    (Comment) Several comments requested an increase in the percentage 
of soil required in outdoor space from 50 to 75 percent, stating that a 
higher amount of soil is needed to encourage birds to utilize outdoor 
space. Commenters also noted that birds may not use the outdoor space 
if much of it is concrete, as it may burn their feet in higher 
temperature climates. Other commenters suggested that soil be required 
within a certain distance from housing exit areas to encourage the use 
of outdoor space by birds. Comments ranged from general guidelines to 
more specific requests, such as requiring that vegetated and soil areas 
should be no farther than 30 feet away from exit doors.
    (Response) AMS has revised the outdoor space soil requirement in 
Sec.  205.241(c)(2) to better align with commenter and consumer 
expectations. The final rule requires that 75 percent of outdoor space 
must be soil. AMS elects not to establish specific regulations for how 
far away soil and vegetation should be from exit doors. The increase in 
percentage of soil cover will encourage the use of outdoor space by 
birds without the need for prescriptive distance requirement. The final 
rule continues to allow some outdoor areas to not be soil. AMS believes 
this allowance is necessary, as some houses may have adjacent non-soil 
areas for drainage or to prevent rodents from entering houses. The 
allowance for 25 percent non-soil outdoor area also supports producer 
efforts and FDA recommendations for preventing rodents in outdoor 
areas, such as a 6-foot strip along the periphery of an outdoor area 
that is filled with gravel or another non-soil substance.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ ``Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During 
Production, Storage, and Transportation (Layers with Access to Areas 
Outside the Poultry House): Questions and Answers Regarding the 
Final Rule: Guidance for Industry,'' FDA, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition, August 2022, https://www.fda.gov/media/86276/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Comment) Many commenters requested that AMS add a requirement in 
Sec.  205.241 that producers include ``suitable enrichments'' in 
outdoor areas to encourage birds to utilize outdoor space.
    (Response) AMS has not added language requiring ``suitable 
enrichments'' to encourage the use of outdoor space. Instead, AMS 
increased the required amount of soil in outdoor areas to 75 percent. 
This change is meant to encourage greater use of outdoor space. AMS 
encourages producers to adopt practices that encourage birds to go 
outdoors--see Sec.  205.241(c)(1), which require producers to provide 
outdoor access at a young age. AMS determined that a requirement for 
``suitable enrichment'' in this rule would be difficult to measure or 
enforce and could vary greatly from one operation to another.
    (Comment) Several comments requested that the definition of outdoor 
space be clarified. Specifically, commenters requested a clear 
definition of ``maximal vegetative cover,'' arguing that the term 
``maximal'' is subjective and that operations located in drought-prone 
or water restricted areas have limited ability to ensure maximal 
vegetative cover.
    (Response) AMS clarifies the requirements for outdoor space by 
removing the term ``maximal vegetative cover'' from the vegetation 
requirement at 205.241(c)(2). AMS recognizes that ``maximal'' 
vegetative cover is not

[[Page 75426]]

defined by the rule and varies based on season, climate, geography, 
stage of production, etc. The change allows operations flexibility to 
meet the vegetation requirement across various conditions and provides 
additional clarity of composition of outdoor space.
    (Comment) Many commenters requested that the definition of 
``pasture pens'' be revised to clarify that floored (e.g., wire mesh) 
structures are prohibited, and that animals should be able to move 
around and express natural behaviors when inside of pasture pens.
    (Response) The definition of ``pasture pens (avian)'' describes 
that pasture pens are floorless pens. In response to public comment, 
AMS revises the definition of ``pasture pens'' to note that they allow 
birds to express natural behaviors. Birds in pasture pens must have 
direct access to the ground without intervening floor, including wire 
or mesh, so they can scratch, dust bathe, roost (for pullets and 
layers), etc. AMS also clarifies that the definition of pasture pens 
applies to avian species, as ruminant producers may also use the term 
but with a different meaning.
Confinement
    (Comment) AMS received many comments related to temporary 
confinement of birds due to outdoor temperatures. The proposed rule 
would have allowed producers to confine birds for inclement weather, 
including when outdoor temperatures are below 40 degrees Fahrenheit or 
above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Many comments requested that AMS reduce 
the lower threshold for confinement from 40 degrees to 32 degrees, 
arguing that birds would not be harmed by outdoor temperatures in that 
range. Other comments requested AMS narrow the temperature for outdoor 
access, so outdoor access would only be required for outdoor 
temperatures between 60 degrees and 80 degrees, for example. Comments 
in favor of a narrower range for outdoor access noted that opening exit 
doors on poultry houses would strain ventilation systems, waste fuel 
and electricity, increase the litter moisture content (and thereby 
increase ammonia levels), and increase deaths due to severe stress.
    (Response) AMS has revised the final rule to reduce the low 
temperature threshold from 40 degrees to 32 degrees (F) in Sec.  
205.241(d)(1). The lower threshold better describes the conditions that 
may qualify as ``inclement weather,'' a term that was added to the 
organic regulations by a February 2010 final rule (``Access to Pasture 
(Livestock),'' 75 FR 7153). The existing term is defined as weather 
``characterized by temperatures (high or low) . . . that can cause 
physical harm to livestock,'' but it does not specify thresholds for 
high or low temperatures that might cause harm. This final rule 
provides temperature ranges for avian (not mammalian or non-avian) 
livestock to clarify when temporary confinement of birds for heat or 
cold is appropriate. For additional discussion on this requirement 
please see the Overview of Policy (Sec.  205.241) section above.
    AMS is not adopting recommendations from comments to allow 
producers to confine animals if temperatures are outside of a narrower 
range (e.g., 60-80 degrees). While AMS recognizes that growth or 
production may increase when birds are maintained within a narrower 
temperature range, existing regulations (see Sec.  205.239(b)(1) and 
the definition of ``inclement weather'' at Sec.  205.2) do not permit 
confinement for this reason. The final rule seeks to clarify the bounds 
of the term to allow producers to confine animals for dangerous 
weather, but not misuse that allowance to confine animals for weather 
that is less than ideal for production or growth. Neither existing 
requirements nor this final rule permit temporary confinement within a 
narrow range of temperatures to maximize production yields or growth 
rates. The final rule aligns with AMS's intent when AMS added the term 
``inclement weather'' to the organic regulations (75 FR 7159). AMS does 
not believe that an allowance to confine animals outside a narrow range 
would satisfy consumer expectations.
    (Comment) Many comments requested that AMS remove language in Sec.  
205.241(d)(4) that would have allowed operations to temporarily confine 
birds during reseeding of outdoor areas. Comments expressed concern 
that this language may enable prolonged confinement, potentially for 
the entire life of the animal. One comment stated that the certifying 
agent should have the authority to determine if reseeding is the 
appropriate course of action for mitigating soil or water quality 
issues.
    (Response) AMS has removed the phrase ``including to establish 
vegetation by reseeding outdoor space'' from Sec.  205.241(d)(4). This 
means that operations may not confine birds solely to reseed and 
reestablish vegetation in outdoor access areas. Additionally, this rule 
prohibits continuous total confinement of poultry indoors (see the 
general requirements for avian living conditions at Sec.  205.241(a)). 
The rule does permit operations to temporarily confine birds when there 
is a risk to soil and water quality. However, this confinement must be 
temporary, must be done only to correct a risk to soil and water 
quality, cannot be continuous throughout the life of the birds, and is 
subject to the certifying agent's review of the operation's management 
of outdoor space.
Additional Animal Welfare Requirements
    (Comment) Some comments requested that AMS impose additional animal 
welfare requirements for broiler production, such as maximum growth 
rates and breed requirements (for use of slower growing breeds).
    (Response) AMS has not received recommendations from the NOSB 
related to this topic and did not include such restrictions in the 
proposed rule; therefore, the final rule adopts no additional 
requirements on this subject. However, AMS notes that Sec.  
205.238(a)(1) requires selection of species and types of livestock that 
are suitable for site-specific conditions and resistant to prevalent 
diseases and parasites.
Biosecurity and Food Safety
    (Comment) Most commenters who discussed poultry biosecurity stated 
that increased outdoor access will have negative health outcomes for 
birds. Some commenters argued the rule would contradict the U.S. Food 
and Drug Administration's protocols requiring producers to prevent 
contact with Salmonella enteritidis. In support of the use of porches, 
commenters stated that producers use outdoor porches to both provide 
outdoor access under the existing standard and help safeguard flocks 
from vermin and indigenous birds that can be vectors for diseases. 
Comments cited research suggesting outdoor access can subject poultry 
to disease. Additionally, some comments suggested that outdoor access 
would jeopardize the organic industry's ability to provide safe food. A 
few comments asserted that under-utilized or barren outdoor areas could 
have a negative impact on pathogen and disease control. They noted that 
bare soil can result in dust containing dried fecal matter, which could 
be blown into nearby crops and present food safety concerns.
    On the other hand, some commenters found that the proposed rule 
would support biosecurity and food safety measures, including organic 
producers' ability to mitigate biosecurity risks and prevent disease 
outbreaks in their organic flocks. These comments argued the rule 
aligns with FDA guidance on the Egg Safety Rule,\80\ and referenced

[[Page 75427]]

research indicating that outdoor access can improve bird and flock 
health. They argued that outdoor access is not the determining factor 
in disease outbreaks and deaths and found the research and scientific 
data on the topic to be inconclusive. One commenter noted that 
operations are already successfully managing compliance with 
biosecurity, food safety, and egg safety requirements. Another noted 
that physical alterations provide one way for organic producers to 
maintain proper biosecurity for their flocks.\80\ These comments 
concluded that outdoor access is still consistent with the Egg Safety 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ ``FDA Issues Final Guidance for Shell Egg Producers who 
Provide Laying Hens with Access to Areas Outside the Poultry 
House,'' U.S. Food & Drug Administration, August 2022, https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-issues-final-guidance-shell-egg-producers-who-provide-laying-hens-access-areas-outside-poultry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Response) AMS recognizes the importance of protective measures to 
avoid disease outbreaks and contact with Salmonella enteritidis. The 
rule includes provisions for strengthening biosecurity and food safety 
measures to ensure that organic poultry operations do not put their 
flocks at greater risk for exposure or infection. These include 
allowing temporary confinement for conditions under which the ``health, 
safety, or well-being of the animal could be jeopardized,'' including 
for specific disease outbreaks. The rule also requires producers to 
manage vegetative areas to mitigate harborage for rodents and other 
pests as well as prevent stray poultry, wild birds, cats, and other 
animals from entering poultry houses. It allows fencing, netting, or 
other materials over all or part of the outdoor areas (provided the 
areas are not ``inside of an enclosed building or housing structure,'' 
which is the definition in Sec.  205.2 of ``indoor space'') to prevent 
predators and other wild birds from entering. AMS understands that 
biosecurity response is a comprehensive action.
    At this time, AMS finds the research is inconclusive regarding the 
correlation between outdoor access and decreased food and animal 
safety. AMS receives regular updates from APHIS regarding Highly 
Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) and other potential outbreaks. The 
USDA website remains a resource for certifying agents seeking 
information on HPAI detection. Additionally, AMS may provide future 
guidance to clarify the Agency's expectations in the event of diseases 
or threats. Ultimately, AMS recognizes that meaningful outdoor access 
is fundamental to the organic regulations and is expected by the 
market. This rule allows organically raised birds room to express 
natural behaviors and advances OFPA's purpose of creating consistent 
organic standards.

E. Transport and Slaughter (Sec.  205.242)

Description of Final Policy
    AMS has added a new section to the organic regulations at Sec.  
205.242 titled ``Transport and slaughter'' to address the care of 
organic animals during transport and throughout the slaughter process, 
including care prior to slaughter and methods of slaughter. Section 
205.242 is divided into three subsections: transportation, mammalian 
slaughter, and avian slaughter.
    The changes are made in response to a December 2011 NOSB 
recommendation \81\ and public comments received in response to the 
August 2022 OLPS proposed rule, under AMS's authority to promulgate 
standards ``for the care of livestock'' (7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(2)). AMS 
understands that ``care of livestock'' is relevant up to the time of 
slaughter and that some practices during transport and/or slaughter 
should affect an animal's organic certification. Once an animal is 
killed, existing organic regulations for handling organic products 
become relevant for the processing, packaging, and sale of organic 
animal products. The requirements of this rule apply to the care of 
live animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%20Livestock%20Final%20Rec%20Animal%20Handling%20and%20Transport%20to%20Slaughter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transport Requirements (Sec.  205.242(a))
    The December 2011 NOSB recommendation noted that additional 
regulations for the transport and slaughter of organic animals were 
appropriate to assure consumers that animal products sold as organic 
are produced with ``a high level of animal welfare'' and organic 
operations ``avoid animal mistreatment on the farm, during transport 
to, or at the slaughter plant.'' \82\ The NOSB noted that their 
recommended regulatory language reflects third-party animal welfare 
certification standards and common practices within the industry. The 
NOSB also specifically recommended that AMS adopt the ``necessary'' 
requirements from their recommendation to avoid increasing paperwork 
burden or certification costs and to encourage small slaughter plants 
to seek or maintain organic certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Formal Recommendation by the National Organic Standards 
Board (NOSB) to the National Organic Program. December 2, 2011. 
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%20Livestock%20Final%20Rec%20Animal%20Handling%20and%20Transport%20to%20Slaughter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMS agrees that additional requirements are appropriate to cover 
the time period(s) during which organic livestock are transported and 
slaughtered. As noted above, products sold as organic must be managed 
and processed in accordance with detailed organic regulations. AMS 
believes that it is appropriate to clarify the requirements for 
transport and slaughter in the organic regulations. This final rule 
seeks to minimize paperwork burden and increases in certification 
costs, when possible, by referring to existing regulations and laws 
that apply to transport and slaughter. However, some specific 
requirements that were recommended by the NOSB and not already detailed 
in existing regulations and laws are also included.
    Section 205.242(a)(1) requires that organic animals are clearly 
identified during transport but provides flexibility on how the 
identity is maintained during transport. Section 205.242(a)(2) sets 
minimum fitness requirements for livestock to be transported to buyers, 
auction facilities, or slaughter facilities. Limiting the scope of the 
requirements to these destinations means the regulation does not limit 
transport on the farm where the animal is managed. Section 
205.242(a)(2)(i) requires that calves have a dry navel cord and the 
ability to stand and walk without assistance before they are 
transported to buyers, auction facilities, or slaughter facilities.
    Section 205.242(a)(2)(ii) prohibits transport of seriously crippled 
and non-ambulatory animals to buyers, auction facilities, or slaughter 
facilities. These animals must be treated until their health condition 
improves and they can walk (i.e., they are ambulatory), or if an 
animal's recovery is not possible, it may be euthanized (see also Sec.  
205.238(c)(7) and (8), and Sec.  205.238(e)).
    Sections 205.242(a)(3) and (4) set minimum standards for the 
trailer, truck, shipping container, or other mode used for transporting 
organic livestock. The mode of transportation must provide seasonally 
appropriate ventilation to protect livestock against cold or heat 
stress. This provision requires that air flow be adjusted depending on 
the season and temperature. In addition, bedding is required to be 
provided on trailer floors and in holding pens as needed to keep 
livestock clean, dry, and comfortable. AMS recognizes that in some 
cases keeping clean and dry bedding is impossible or even unsafe; 
therefore, use of bedding must be appropriate to the species and type 
of transport. If

[[Page 75428]]

roughage is used as bedding, the bedding needs to be organically 
produced and handled. Bedding is not required for poultry crates.
    Section 205.242(a)(5) requires an operation to describe how organic 
management and animal welfare will be maintained for transport that 
exceeds eight hours, measured from the time all animals are loaded onto 
a vehicle until the vehicle arrives at its final destination. This may 
include arrangement for water and organic feed. AMS also finds that an 
eight-hour transportation threshold better aligns with transportation 
time limits established by third-party animal welfare standards.
    Section 205.242(a)(6) requires that operations transporting 
livestock to sale or slaughter have emergency plans in place that 
adequately address problems reasonably possible during transport. Such 
emergency plans could include how animal welfare would be maintained, 
what to do if livestock escape during transport, or how to euthanize an 
animal injured during transport. Shipping and/or receiving operations 
are also required to include these plans in their OSPs.
Slaughter and the Handling of Livestock in Connection With Slaughter 
(Sec.  205.242(b))
    The requirements regarding slaughter and the handling of livestock 
in connection with slaughter are governed by separate authority 
applicable to both certified organic and non-organic livestock 
products. This final rule reiterates that compliance with these 
regulations, as determined by FSIS, is required for certified organic 
livestock operations. The requirements defer, in large part, to 
existing regulations and law while also aiming to ensure that USDA-
accredited certifying agents have access to relevant records. The rule 
seeks to avoid undue burden on certified organic slaughter facilities, 
as undue burden could have the effect of reducing the availability of 
certified organic slaughter facilities. Section 205.242(b) regarding 
mammalian slaughter clarifies the authority of AMS, certifying agents, 
and State organic programs to review records related to humane handling 
and slaughter issued by the controlling national, federal, or state 
authority, and records of any required corrective actions if certified 
operations are found to have violated FSIS regulations governing the 
humane handling of mammalian livestock in connection with slaughter. 
(Note that AMS has separated mammalian from avian slaughter 
requirements due to the differences in how they are handled and 
slaughtered). This new subsection (Sec.  205.242(b)), titled 
``Mammalian slaughter,'' governs 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 equines. ``Exotic animals'' include antelope, bison, buffalo, 
cattalo, deer, elk, reindeer, and water buffalo. These regulations 
govern the handling and slaughter of most mammalian animals used for 
food in the United States and apply to all operations that slaughter 
these animals.
    Section 205.242(b)(1) requires certified organic slaughter 
facilities to be in full compliance, as determined by FSIS, with the 
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) 
and FSIS's implementing 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'' (7 U.S.C. 1901). The HMSA is 
referenced in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) at 21 U.S.C. 603 
and 21 U.S.C. 610(b), and is implemented by FSIS humane handling and 
slaughter regulations found at 9 CFR parts 309 and 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, 
including prod use, slips and falls, stunning effectiveness, and 
incidents of egregious inhumane handling.\83\ The regulations at 9 CFR 
part 309 govern ante-mortem inspection and ensure that only healthy 
ambulatory animals are slaughtered, and that non-ambulatory animals are 
euthanized and disposed of promptly. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 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.\84\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Humane Handling and Slaughter Requirements and the Merits 
of a Systematic Approach to Meet Such Requirements, FSIS, 69 FR 
54625, September 9, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMS added a new section (Sec.  205.242(b)(2)) for those certified 
organic facilities that 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 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 309 and 9 CFR part 313. 
Violation of these regulations can result in a denial of service by 
FSIS.
    Section 205.242(b)(3) requires that all certified organic slaughter 
facilities provide any FSIS noncompliance

[[Page 75429]]

records or corrective action records relating to humane handling and 
slaughter to certifying agents during inspections or upon request. 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. Operations must 
provide these records to certifying agents during inspection or upon 
request so that the certifying agent may verify that the slaughter 
facility is in compliance and has taken all corrective actions. If 
records reveal that an organic operation had not taken corrective 
actions required by FSIS within the time period allowed by FSIS, the 
certifying agent may initiate actions to suspend the facility's organic 
certification. While this action would be separate from any FSIS 
actions, it would impact the facility's capacity to handle organic 
animals.
    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, 
operations must provide the relevant humane slaughter noncompliance 
records and corrective action records to certifying agents during the 
inspections or upon request.
Slaughter and the Handling of Poultry in Connection With Slaughter 
(Sec.  205.242(c))
    The final rule addresses avian slaughter facilities at Sec.  
205.242(c). Section 205.242(c)(1) clarifies the authority of AMS, 
certifying agents, and State organic programs to review noncompliance 
records related to the use of good commercial practices in connection 
with slaughter issued by the controlling national, federal, or state 
authority, and records of subsequent corrective action if certified 
operations are found to have violated the Poultry Products Inspection 
Act (PPIA) requirements regarding poultry slaughter, violated the FSIS 
regulations regarding the slaughter of poultry, or failed to use good 
commercial practices in the slaughter of poultry, as determined by 
FSIS. Under the PPIA and the FSIS regulations, poultry are defined as 
chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, guineas, ratites, and squabs. These 
species constitute most avian species slaughtered for human food in the 
United States. However, the organic standards for avian slaughter apply 
to all species biologically considered avian or birds. The NOSB did not 
directly address avian slaughter requirements. However, AMS added avian 
slaughter requirements for consistency with the new mammalian slaughter 
requirements and to provide consistent slaughter requirements for 
certified organic 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 that has died by means 
other than 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)). 
Compliance with applicable FSIS Directives, as determined by FSIS, are 
required under the rule.
    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.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Treatment of Live Poultry before Slaughter, FSIS, 70 FR 
56624, September 28, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FSIS also suggested in this Notice 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, 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.\86\ 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.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ FSIS Directive 6100.3, Revision 1, Ante-Mortem and Post-
Mortem Poultry Inspection, April 30, 2009.
    \87\ FSIS Notice 07-15, Instructions for Writing Poultry Good 
Commercial Practices Noncompliance Records and Memorandum of 
Interview Letters for Poultry Mistreatment, January 21, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 205.242(c)(2) requires 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 commercial practices in the handling and slaughter of poultry 
in order to determine that slaughter facilities have addressed any 
outstanding FSIS noncompliances and are in good standing with FSIS. 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. The operation must provide 
these records to the certifying agent at inspection or upon request so 
that the certifying agent may verify that the slaughter facility is 
operating in compliance with FSIS regulations and is addressing/has 
addressed all corrective actions. If records revealed that an organic 
operation had not taken corrective actions required by FSIS within the 
time period allowed by FSIS, the certifying agent could initiate 
actions to suspend the facility's organic certification. While this 
action would be separate from any FSIS actions, it would impact the 
facility's capacity to handle organic animals. In addition, AMS 
recognizes that some poultry slaughter facilities in the United States 
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, operations 
must provide the relevant noncompliance records and corrective action 
records to the certifying agent during inspections or upon request.
    Exemptions from poultry slaughter inspection exist for some poultry 
that is going to be sold to the public. The PPIA exempts from 
continuous inspection some establishments that slaughter poultry based 
on various factors, such as

[[Page 75430]]

volume of slaughter and the nature of operations and sales. This 
includes persons custom slaughtering and distributing from their own 
premises directly to household consumers, restaurants, hotels, and 
boarding houses, for use in their own dining rooms, or in compliance 
with religious dietary laws (21 U.S.C. chapter 10).
    AMS added handling and slaughter standards for such poultry that is 
either exempt from or not covered by the inspection requirement of the 
PPIA. These requirements serve to establish a consistent and basic 
standard for the humane handling of organic poultry, regardless of an 
operation's size or method of sales. Specifically, Sec.  
205.242(c)(3)(i) prohibits 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 are required to 
either be euthanized or made insensible before being shackled. AMS also 
added Sec.  205.242(c)(3)(ii) to require that all birds hung or 
shackled on a chain or automated slaughter system must be stunned prior 
to exsanguination (bleeding). This requirement for stunning prior to 
exsanguination only applies to producers who shackle birds on a chain 
or automated system; therefore, it does not prohibit the practice more 
common among small-scale producers of placing the birds in killing 
cones before bleeding them without stunning. Additionally, this 
requirement does not apply to religious slaughter establishments (e.g., 
Kosher or Halal slaughter facilities), who are required to meet all the 
humane handling regulatory requirements except stunning prior to 
shackling, hoisting, throwing, cutting, or casting. Finally, Sec.  
205.242(c)(3)(iii) requires that all birds be irreversibly insensible 
prior to being placed in the scalding tank.
Changes From Proposed to Final Rule
    AMS has made several changes to the regulatory text of the OLPS 
proposed rule when writing this final rule. Changes to the final rule 
are discussed below and are followed by specific topics and themes from 
public comment.
     In the transport fitness requirements in Sec.  
205.242(a)(2)(ii), AMS added that ``seriously crippled'' animals, in 
addition to ``non-ambulatory'' animals, must not be transported for 
sale or slaughter. This language is commonly used by the industry and 
prevents the inhumane and potentially unsafe slaughter of unwell 
animals that are still able to move.
     To provide greater flexibility in transport, AMS added to 
Sec.  205.242(a)(4) that ``Use of bedding must be appropriate to the 
species and type of transport.'' This change addresses public comment 
concerns about keeping clean, dry bedding and potential animal safety 
concerns.
     AMS removed the requirement to always provide feed and 
water after 12 hours of transport. The final rule includes a general 
requirement that operations must describe how they maintain organic 
management and animal welfare when transport time exceeds 8 hours. This 
time period better aligns with third-party animal welfare 
certifications. Additionally, AMS added the phrase ``measured from the 
time all animals are loaded onto a vehicle until the vehicle arrives as 
its final destination'' to clarify that transport time does not include 
onloading and offloading, which commenters noted could take three to 
four hours.
     AMS removed specific reference to FSIS Directives 6100.3 
and 6910.1 at Sec.  205.242(c)(1), as newer versions of these 
Directives could someday supersede these Directives. Instead, the final 
rule requires that slaughter operations comply with ``applicable FSIS 
Directives.''
     In response to public comment, AMS replaced in Sec.  
205.242(c)(3)(ii) the term ``ritual slaughter'' with ``religious (or 
ritual) slaughter'' and exempted this method of slaughter from some 
requirements.
Responses to Public Comment
    AMS received many public comments from stakeholders across the 
organic industry discussing this section of the proposed rule. The 
majority of comments generally supported AMS's proposed revisions. Many 
commenters requested further clarification of the proposed changes, 
particularly regarding the requirement for feed and water after 12 
hours of transport and verification of compliance with slaughter 
requirements.
Transport Time and Water and Organic Feed Requirements
    (Comment) AMS received many comments stating that it would be very 
difficult to meet the proposed requirement to provide water and organic 
feed if transport time exceeded 12 hours. Commenters noted that 
transport times could exceed 12 hours due to unforeseen circumstances 
such as weather, natural disasters, traffic, and equipment breakdown. 
Comments discussed the practical challenges of stopping and offloading 
animals to provide them with water and feed en route to a destination. 
For example, these comments noted the challenge of locating and 
accessing a certified organic stopping point to unload and feed 
livestock. They also noted that offloading animals after crossing state 
lines would activate other federal requirements such as FSIS testing. 
Commenters also discussed the potential added stress that stopping and 
unloading (and reloading) could cause animals compared to continuous 
transportation to the destination. Other comments noted that loading 
and unloading could take up to four hours and that a 12-hour limit 
would only allow for 8 hours of transport. Some commenters recommended 
changing the time threshold to align with the standards of third-party 
certification labels while others requested a prohibition on all 
transport beyond a specific time cap.
    Another comment stated that the time restriction would result in 
sourcing lesser quality pullets for their operation, which could 
potentially reduce production and/or increase costs. Some commenters 
stated that this requirement could disproportionately impact small-
scale producers and would not be neutral in terms of scale or 
geographic location. Comments also noted that the 12-hour feed 
requirement would conflict with slaughter requirements to not feed 24 
hours prior to slaughter. Several comments from certifiers, organic 
livestock producers, and a trade association requested that the rule 
not prescribe feed and water during transport but require operations to 
demonstrate organic management and animal welfare, which may include 
feed and water.
    (Response) AMS agrees that the proposed water and organic feed 
requirement may be difficult for some operations to meet. To provide 
greater flexibility for certified operations, the final rule removes 
the specific requirement in Sec.  205.242(a)(5) for water and organic 
feed when transportation exceeds 12 hours. Instead, livestock 
operations must explain in their OSP how they will maintain organic 
management and animal welfare if transport time exceeds eight hours. 
AMS agrees with commenters that this eight-hour threshold better aligns 
with existing third-party animal welfare standards. To address 
commenters' concerns about loading time, AMS has also clarified that 
transport time is measured from the time all animals are loaded onto a 
vehicle until the vehicle arrives at its final destination. AMS 
understands that some certifying agents already require livestock 
operators to explain in their OSP how they will

[[Page 75431]]

provide feed and water if traveling over 12 hours. Under this rule, AMS 
expects operators to explain in their OSP how they will maintain 
organic management and animal welfare, which may include descriptions 
of access to feed and water. Certifying agents and inspectors may use 
this information to assess whether the management plans satisfy this 
rule's requirements to maintain animal welfare during transport. AMS 
agrees with commenters that providing feed and water are examples of 
how an operation may maintain animal welfare, but the rule does not 
explicitly require the provision of feed and water to alleviate the 
challenges described above.
    (Comment) Some commenters noted that day-old chicks, which do not 
require additional feed since they have an absorbed yolk sac, often 
travel more than 12 hours from the hatchery to the final destination. 
Furthermore, commenters stated that providing chicks feed and water 
would be especially burdensome as well as time-consuming and requested 
AMS exempt day-old chicks from the requirement.
    (Response) AMS acknowledges that day-old chicks are sustained by 
their yolk sac and do not require feed or water for extended time 
periods. While most day-old chicks are not organic (organic management 
of poultry is required no later than the second day-of-life at Sec.  
205.236), AMS recognizes that some chicks are certified organic and can 
travel for 12 hours or more without feed and water. The final rule does 
not require feed or water during transport. Instead, operations must 
``describe how organic management and animal welfare will be 
maintained'' during transport. As for all species and types of 
livestock, an operation should describe in its OSP how it ensures the 
welfare of day-old chicks during transport, which may include feed and 
water.
Fitness for Transport
    (Comment) Several comments requested clarification and additional 
criteria regarding an animal's fitness for transport. They asked AMS to 
add categories of animals that should not be transported, such as 
newborn, pregnant, and recently calved animals. Others asked AMS to 
align the rule with international transport fitness standards or third-
party animal welfare standards.
    (Response) AMS recognizes commenters' request for additional 
clarify on an animal's fitness for transport. The final rule states 
that ``all livestock must be fit for transport.'' The rule also 
addresses transport of young or newborn calves in at Sec.  
205.242(a)(2)(i): ``calves must have a dry navel cord and be able to 
stand and walk without human assistance.'' Additionally, AMS added the 
term ``seriously crippled'' to Sec.  205.242(a)(2)(ii) to clarify that 
seriously crippled and non-ambulatory animals must not be transported 
for sale or slaughter. Seriously crippled is a commonly used and 
understood industry term that will help operations and certifying 
agents understand the scope of fitness for transport. AMS acknowledges 
some commenters' desire for the rule to align with more prescriptive 
third-party animal welfare standards. However, AMS believes that the 
current regulatory text is sufficient to ensure the humane transport of 
organic livestock, while also providing operations with necessary 
flexibility to meet the standard.
Bedding in Transport
    (Comment) Several comments discussed the proposed rule's 
requirement to use bedding during transport. Some comments expressed 
concern that it may be difficult, impossible, or even dangerous (e.g., 
slip risk for livestock) to provide bedding in some situations. Others 
pointed out that operations need flexibility to use bedding in a way 
that is appropriate to the type of livestock and transport. Others 
mentioned that ``clean'' bedding is subjective and may not be necessary 
or feasible given the variability of transport time, transport type, 
and number and type of livestock.
    (Response) AMS recognizes that in certain circumstances, bedding is 
not ideal for trailer transport and that, in some cases, keeping clean, 
dry bedding is impossible or even unsafe (e.g., slip risk for certain 
animals). Therefore, the final rule allows for flexibility by requiring 
that bedding must be provided ``as needed'' and ``as appropriate to the 
species and type of transport.'' This will allow operations to provide 
bedding that is beneficial to animal welfare but also appropriate to 
the type of livestock and transport, reducing undue burden and possible 
risk to livestock.
Emergency Plans
    (Comment) A few comments requested clarification on the conditions 
under which an emergency plan is required and how certifying agents 
should evaluate such plans.
    (Response) The final rule requires emergency plans to address 
animal welfare problems that may occur during transport. Such emergency 
plans must describe how animal welfare will be maintained in 
emergencies, such as what to do if livestock escape during transport, 
or how to euthanize an animal injured during transport. Shipping and/or 
receiving operations must also have these emergency plans. Like all 
other applicable production and handling requirements in subpart C of 
the organic regulation, operations should describe their emergency 
plans in their OSP. To evaluate if an operation's emergency plans 
comply with the rule, certifying agents should review this part of the 
OSP and verify its use during on-site inspection.
Identification of Livestock in Transport
    (Comment) Several commenters noted that some operations may not 
currently meet the proposed requirement in Sec.  205.242(a)(1) that 
animals be clearly identified during transport and asked AMS to 
consider removing this requirement.
    (Response) AMS is retaining this requirement in the final rule 
because identification and traceability of all organic agricultural 
products, including livestock, is necessary to maintain traceability 
within supply chains and demonstrate organic integrity. The organic 
regulations require all certified operations to include audit trail 
documentation for the organic products they handle (Sec.  
205.103(b)(3)). Audit trail documentation includes records that are 
``sufficient to determine the source, transfer of ownership, and 
transportation of any agricultural product labeled as [organic]'' (see 
definition of audit trail at Sec.  205.2).
    Additionally, operations are already required to ``maintain records 
sufficient to preserve the identity of all organically managed animals, 
including . . . transitioned animals'' (Sec.  205.236(c)). This 
includes preserving the identity of organic livestock during transport. 
Therefore, this rule's requirement to clearly identify and trace 
organic livestock during transport reinforces existing recordkeeping 
and traceability requirements, which are vitally important to 
maintaining and demonstrating the integrity of organic livestock.
Recordkeeping and Compliance
    (Comment) One commenter argued that it is difficult to precisely 
track and record exact times that livestock spend in transit and that 
it is burdensome for livestock transporters to complete additional 
recordkeeping to verify that animals have been in transit for less than 
12 hours.
    (Response) AMS revised Sec.  205.242(a)(5) to no longer require 
feed and water when transport time exceeds 12 hours. Instead, this 
section requires that operations describe in their OSP how organic 
management and animal welfare will be maintained during

[[Page 75432]]

transport that is longer than eight hours. Because this change requires 
operations to plan and prepare for long transport times, rather than 
precisely track and record transport times, AMS does not believe this 
requirement will add repetitive recordkeeping burden for operations or 
transporters.
    (Comment) Several commenters were concerned that the rule's limit 
on transport times may conflict with U.S. Department of Transportation 
(DOT) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's ``hours of 
service'' regulations and/or the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, which requires 
that animals transported for 28 consecutive hours must be offloaded for 
at least five consecutive hours to get feed, water, and rest.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ 49 U.S.C. 80502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Response) After reviewing the appropriate DOT regulations and law, 
AMS does not believe that the rule's requirements conflict with other 
statutes or regulations pertaining to transport of organic livestock. 
The rule requires that operations describe in their OSP how organic 
management and animal welfare are maintained when transport time 
exceeds eight hours. Because the rule requires operations to plan and 
prepare for long transport times, rather than precisely track and 
adhere to transport times, this requirement does not pose a compliance 
conflict with the Twenty-Eight Hour Law and does not interfere with a 
driver's ability to comply with the DOT Hours of Service regulations. 
Operations transporting organic livestock must still comply with the 
Twenty-Eight Hour Law and any other applicable livestock transport 
statute or regulation.
Other Statutory and Regulatory Slaughter Requirements
    (Comment) Several comments expressed concern that the rule's 
reference to other statutes and regulations in Sec.  205.242(b) and (c) 
would require certifying agents to verify and enforce requirements 
beyond the scope of organic production and handling. Other commenters 
asked how certifying agents should initiate actions to suspend a 
facility's organic certification if slaughter records reveal that an 
operation has not taken corrective actions required by FSIS.
    (Response) The rule requires that operations comply with other 
statutory and regulatory requirements related to the humane slaughter 
of livestock. AMS chose to reference these existing requirements 
because operations are already following these requirements. This 
prevents undue burden for operations to understand and comply with 
additional slaughter requirements unique to organic production and 
handling.
    Certifying agents and organic inspectors are not expected to 
determine an organic slaughter facility's compliance with these laws 
and regulations, as that is the responsibility of government regulatory 
authorities such as FSIS. However, organic slaughter facilities must 
provide records of noncompliance and corrective actions that resulted 
from FSIS regulatory and enforcement action. These FSIS records are a 
valuable source of additional information that certifying agents can 
use to determine an operation's compliance with the organic regulation 
and this rule's animal welfare requirements.
Medical Treatment and Humane Euthanasia Linked To Transport and 
Slaughter
    (Comment) One comment noted that Sec.  205.242(a)(2)(ii) requires 
medical treatment or euthanasia prior to transport but does not 
explicitly require this upon arrival at a slaughter facility.
    (Response) Although the rule does not explicitly require medical 
treatment and euthanasia at this point, the rule more generally 
requires that certified operations provide humane medical treatment and 
appropriate use of euthanasia at all times (see Sec.  205.238(a), (b), 
and (e)). In this case, the certified slaughter facility, upon 
receiving a sick or injured animal, is responsible for that animal's 
welfare and must provide the appropriate medical treatment or humanely 
euthanize the animal.

F. Implementation and Compliance Dates for the Final Rule

    In the proposed rule, AMS requested public comments on the most 
appropriate and feasible implementation approach for the final rule. 
AMS also proposed timeframes for various aspects of the rule and 
specifically requested comments on two implementation options, namely 5 
years or 15 years, for the outdoor space requirements for layer 
operations. AMS also invited comments on implementation timelines other 
than those proposed by AMS.
    For the final rule, AMS selected an implementation approach that 
requires compliance with the final rule as described below. 
Implementation or compliance dates are calculated from the effective 
date of the final rule; the specific dates that correspond with the 
descriptions below are listed in the DATES section at the beginning of 
this document.
    Certified operations must comply with the requirements of the final 
rule within one (1) year from the effective date, except:
    (a) Organic broiler operations already certified or certified 
within one year following the effective date of the final rule have an 
additional four years (i.e., five years from the effective date) to 
comply with the indoor and outdoor stocking density requirements for 
broilers in Sec. Sec.  205.241(b)(10) and (c)(6), and the outdoor space 
requirements related to soil and vegetation in Sec.  205.241(c)(2).
    (b) Organic layer operations already certified or certified within 
one year following the effective date of the final rule have an 
additional four years (i.e., five years from the effective date) to 
comply with the outdoor space requirements for layers concerning 
outdoor stocking density, soil, and vegetation in Sec. Sec.  
205.241(c)(2) and (4)-(5).
    (c) Organic avian operations already certified or certified within 
one year following the effective date of the final rule have an 
additional four years (i.e., five years from the effective date) to 
comply with the applicable exit area requirements for avian operations 
in Sec.  205.241(b)(4).
    Operations applying for organic certification more than one year 
after the rule's effective date will need to comply with all the rule's 
requirements to become certified organic. AMS discusses and responds to 
public comments received on implementation of the final rule below.
Response to Public Comment: Implementation for Layer Operations
    (Comment) AMS received many public comments about the 
implementation timeline for the outdoor requirements for layer 
operations, including many that supported alternative implementation 
timeframes (not Option 1 or Option 2 proposed by AMS). The majority of 
those commenters requested the shortest timeline possible--either an 
immediate implementation or a one-year implementation period. Nearly 
all comments argued that 15 years would be an excessively long 
implementation period for the final rule. Commenters stated that 
producers are already familiar with the proposed requirements and that 
consumers should not need to wait for products to meet their 
expectations. Commenters pointed out that many organic producers 
already comply with OLPS's outdoor access standards, as they have 
understood those standards to be what was intended in the existing 
organic regulations. They

[[Page 75433]]

felt it would be unfair to allow non-compliant producers 15 more years 
to benefit from cheaper production systems. Other comments noted that 
producers should have expected the requirements because of the 
regulatory history of the rule. Comments also emphasized the widespread 
support of the proposed rule and noted an immediate need to remedy the 
imbalance in the marketplace.
    Several comments wrote in support of the five-year implementation 
option (Option 1) for outdoor requirements for layer operations. These 
comments generally supported swift implementation, with many indicating 
that five years should be the maximum amount of time that AMS allows 
for producers to comply with the final rule. Many comments also stated 
that extending implementation of this rule past five years would erode 
trust in the organic label and contribute to further market failure.
    (Response) Despite the broad popularity of an implementation period 
shorter than Option 1 (e.g., immediate or one-year period), AMS has 
determined that the most appropriate implementation period for the 
outdoor space requirements for layer operations is five years. The 
Regulatory Impact Analysis that accompanies this final rule reflects 
this timeframe for the purposes of calculating the costs and benefits 
of this rule. AMS recognizes that a very brief implementation period 
would most quickly resolve the widely divergent outdoor layer practices 
that currently exist among organic layer operations. However, some 
currently certified organic operations will need to acquire land, build 
new facilities, and transition nonorganic land to organic production to 
meet the requirements of the final rule. Many of the comments favoring 
longer implementation periods highlighted these costs or the ability to 
recoup costs as a reason to allow for more time.\89\ AMS estimates that 
up to 70% of production will need to modify facilities or exit.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ For example see: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/AMS-NOP-21-0073-29374; https://www.regulations.gov/comment/AMS-NOP-21-0073-27673.
    \90\ Because larger operations, like aviaries, tend to use 
porches, the level of production using porches is higher than the 
number of producers. Originally AMS had estimated this to be 
approximately 90%, but industry feedback during the OLPP rulemaking 
process stated that it was closer to 70% with the three other 
practices being about equal in the marketplace. However, during the 
OLPS Proposed Rule comment period, the only information AMS 
identified related to the number of operations with porches would 
indicate less than 37.7% of production has porches. See: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/AMS-NOP-21-0073-39082.
    See the RIA for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of these costs, AMS has determined that allowing currently 
certified organic layer operations (and operations obtaining 
certification within one year of the effective date) five years from 
the effective date to comply with the final rule is warranted and 
appropriate and would not cause excess burden. AMS also recognizes that 
some businesses will require capital to meet the requirements of the 
final rule, and time is required to adjust business and operational 
practices. The final rule adopts a five-year implementation for layer 
operations because AMS believes it fulfills the OFPA's purpose to 
ensure consistency in standards in a timely manner, while also 
providing sufficient time for operations to complete activities to 
remain in compliance with outdoor space requirements. With five years 
to implement the outdoor requirements, layer operations will have 
sufficient time to acquire and transition land for outdoor areas (land 
requires a minimum of three years to transition to organic) and to 
build or modify facilities to meet the new requirements. If an 
operation chooses not to meet the requirements after five years, it may 
stop operating as organic or switch to another market.
    In response to comments that organic operations should have been 
aware of possible changes to the requirements (and should require less 
time to comply), AMS recognizes there is a lengthy regulatory history 
associated with this rule, as evidenced by the NOSB recommendations on 
these topics starting as early as 2009. However, AMS does not expect 
that producers should have anticipated the requirements in this final 
rule and modified their practices, nor could they have known the 
specific requirements of this final rule. Therefore, AMS believes that 
the five-year implementation period for the final rule is both 
appropriate and reasonable.
    (Comment) Many comments suggested that three years would be 
sufficient for existing organic layer operations to come into 
compliance with the rule without undue hardship. Comments noted that 
three years is the typical transition timeframe for operations to make 
capital and management investments to become certified organic. Some 
comments asked that AMS allow currently certified operations three 
years to comply, as this aligns with the three-year transition period 
for an operation transitioning to organic production. These commenters 
stated that existing organic layer operations should be treated the 
same as any new operation that seeks certification. A related comment 
suggested that AMS set a three-year compliance date, but allow an 
additional fourth year only for operations that could demonstrate they 
had made capital purchases and had been actively seeking certification 
prior to the final rule's effective date.
    (Response) AMS recognizes that transition of land (for outdoor 
access) only requires three years and that some operations may be able 
to comply with this final rule within three years. Additionally, AMS 
recognizes that many organic operations have made significant 
investments in facilities that are currently certified by USDA-
accredited certifying agents as meeting the current requirements. While 
three years may be sufficient for some operations to meet the 
requirements of the final rule, other operations could require more 
than three years to comply with the final rule. For example, operations 
may need to identify and acquire land, research, plan, build 
facilities, transition land for three years (for outdoor space), and 
secure certification. In consideration of the time required to complete 
these activities, AMS is providing for a five-year implementation 
period to allow layer operations to comply with the outdoor space 
requirements in this final rule.
    (Comment) Very few commenters wrote in support of a 15-year 
implementation for the outdoor requirements for layer operations. These 
commenters argued that this timeframe would better coincide with the 
15-year IRS depreciation schedule for single-purpose agricultural 
buildings (i.e., facilities that provide outdoor access via porches). 
They argued that operations built their facilities in ``good faith'' 
and should be able to realize the benefits of those investments. AMS 
also received comments suggesting a slightly shorter implementation 
timeline of 12.5 years. Similarly, these comments stated that some 
producers have made significant investments in systems that were 
permitted under previous policy interpretations and that the timeframe 
would allow producers to depreciate the value of existing facilities 
according to IRS depreciation schedules.
    On the other hand, most comments were strongly opposed to AMS 
adopting a 15-year implementation for the final rule. Comments noted 
that a 15-year implementation period would perpetuate the existing 
double standard, further erode consumer trust in the organic label, and 
make the work of organic certifiers difficult. AMS believes this length 
of implementation would

[[Page 75434]]

contradict OFPA's purpose to assure consumers that organic products 
meet a consistent standard. Another noted that a 15-year implementation 
period would be exceedingly long and be at odds with the purpose of the 
statute. Others noted that the long timeframe would extend the economic 
burden and costs incurred by producers that already comply with the 
requirements in the final rule. These costs include costs of obtaining 
extra labels (e.g., third-party animal welfare certifications), extra 
advertising and marketing expenses (to differentiate their eggs under 
the same label), and extra expenses on the production level (such as 
the cost of maintaining appropriate outdoor pasture). Others argued 
that organic certification is a voluntary program, and that AMS should 
not allow additional time to operations that cannot meet the 
requirements that consumers expect. As noted by a commenter, it is a 
privilege afforded by the organic label's robust standards and 
certification, not a right, to sell into the organic market.
    (Response) AMS has chosen not to adopt a 15-year or a 12.5-year 
implementation period for layer requirements in the final rule. 
Instead, AMS is providing five years for layer operations to comply 
with outdoor space requirements. AMS recognizes that a five-year 
implementation may not allow some operations to fully depreciate the 
value of their facilities. However, AMS is addressing several concerns 
by issuing this final rule, and mitigation of economic impacts to 
operations certified prior to the effective date of this final rule is 
only one of AMS's objectives. AMS is also seeking to balance any 
impacts with an implementation timeframe(s) that will remedy the 
inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of the organic regulations. 
AMS appreciates that a long implementation timeframe would be least 
impactful for some operations, but AMS is not selecting this approach 
because it would likely undermine AMS's other objectives in this final 
rule. Specifically, this option would pose a continued risk to consumer 
confidence in the organic label.
Response to Public Comments: Implementation for Broilers and New 
Entrants, Exit Areas
    (Comment) Several comments from broiler operations stated that if 
AMS adopted a space requirement for broilers of 5.0 lbs. per square 
foot that they would need more than three years to comply with the 
requirement, which is the timeframe in the proposed rule. These 
commenters noted that a 5.0 lbs. per square foot stocking density is 
less than the current industry standard, and currently certified 
operations would need to build new poultry houses to produce at the 
same level and meet the requirement. Commenters were not necessarily 
opposed to the proposed requirement but requested five years to comply 
with the requirement rather than the three years proposed.
    (Response) The final rule provides five years for broiler 
operations to comply. AMS considered this rule comprehensively and 
determined that a stocking density of 5 lbs. per square foot is 
preferred over alternatives. See additional discussion on this topic in 
the ``Responses to public comment'' section of Section D, ``Avian 
Living Conditions.'' AMS recognizes that broiler operations will likely 
require five years to comply with the final rule's stocking density 
requirements, as comments indicate that current practices exceed the 
maximum stocking rate required by this final rule. In response to 
comments, AMS is providing five years for broiler operations to comply 
with the indoor and outdoor stocking density requirements of the final 
rule. AMS expects this timeframe will give operations time to source, 
acquire, and potentially transition new land (a three-year process). 
Further, while not the primary reason for AMS selecting this timeframe, 
the timeframe aligns that for broilers with that of layer operations, 
and in turn, simplifies the certifying agents' implementation of the 
rule.
    Additionally, new entrants that become certified within one year of 
the final rule's effective date will have until five years after the 
effective date to comply with all requirements. AMS is providing this 
additional flexibility in recognition of operations that may have 
started the process to become certified organic before publication of 
this final rule. The implementation timelines for broiler operations 
will allow operations to adjust practices to meet the requirements 
without causing disruption to the market.
    (Comment) Some comments supported the general timeline for allowing 
five years for implementation but requested that AMS provide less 
flexibility for new entrants. These commenters generally suggested that 
operations certified any later than one year after the final rule's 
effective date should be required to comply with all the requirements 
to achieve certification. In the proposed rule, AMS described one 
implementation schedule that would have required new entrants in the 
first three years (after the effective date of the final rule) to 
comply with the final rule in five years from the effective date.
    (Response) As suggested by many comments, the final rule provides 
new entrants certified within the first year of the final rule's 
effective date with five years (from the effective date) to comply. 
Operations certified any time after one year following the rule's 
effective date will need to comply with the final rule to achieve 
certification. AMS believes that this timeline for new entrants is 
reasonable, as it should allow operations that have been planning to 
become certified (but are not yet certified) with an extended period to 
comply with the final rule. At the same time, a one-year period (rather 
than a three-year period) may reduce the amount of organic product on 
the market that does not comply with all requirements in the final 
rule, and better reflects AMS's objective to assure consumers that 
organic products meet a consistent standard.
    (Comment) Some comments on implementation timeframes indicated that 
the requirements for exit areas should also be on a delayed 
implementation schedule, along with outdoor space requirements.
    (Response) AMS is clarifying that avian producers will have five 
years to comply with the requirements related to indoor space 
requirements related to exit areas at Sec.  205.241(b)(4). See a 
discussion of this requirement in the AVIAN LIVING CONDITIONS section 
above. The requirements for exit areas at Sec.  205.241(b) are included 
within ``indoor space requirements'' in the organization of the rule, 
but AMS recognizes these requirements are inseparable from outdoor 
space requirements (Sec.  205.241(c)), which may be implemented over a 
five-year period for layer and broiler operations. AMS is providing 
operations with five years to implement the exit area requirements at 
Sec.  205.241(b). This time should allow the necessary time for 
certifying agents to assess operations for compliance with the 
requirement and allow the necessary time for operations to modify 
practices and facilities, as necessary, to meet the requirement. Within 
one year of the effective date of the final rule, all operations, 
except for layer operations (which have a five-year implementation 
period for outdoor space requirements), must still comply with 
requirements described at Sec.  205.241(c)(1) that require access to 
outdoor space and door spacing that promotes and encourages outside 
access for all birds on a daily basis.

[[Page 75435]]

G. Severability

    In this final rule, we adopt additional organic standards for 
livestock. The constituent elements each operate independently to 
ensure consistent organic livestock standards. Were any element of this 
scheme stayed or invalidated by a reviewing court, the elements that 
remained in effect would continue to provide consistent organic 
livestock standards. For instance, organic consumers have long 
benefitted from Organic Rules governing organic production and 
handling. The provisions we adopt today would continue to ensure that 
organic products meet a consistent standard even if they did not extend 
to all organic livestock sectors. Similarly, the different livestock 
care practices regulated under this rule each pose distinct concerns 
for different aspects of organic livestock production. Finally, the 
benefit of the provisions for customers of any organic livestock 
product does not hinge on the same standards applying to other organic 
livestock products. Accordingly, we consider each of the provisions 
adopted in this final rule to be severable, both internally and from 
other provisions at 7 CFR part 205. In the event of a stay or 
invalidation of any part of any provision, or of any provision as it 
applies to certain organic livestock handling or production practices, 
USDA's intent is to otherwise preserve the rule to the fullest possible 
extent.
    Accordingly, AMS has added a severability provision in Sec.  
[thinsp]205.391 of 7 CFR part 205.

V. Regulatory Analyses

A. Summary of Economic Analyses

    Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (the Congressional Review Act), the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this action 
meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    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. 
This rule has been designated as a significant regulatory action (Sec. 
3(f))(1) under Executive Order 12866, as updated by Executive Order 
14094, and therefore, has been reviewed by OMB.
    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.
    AMS has prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (RFA) to address these objectives. The following 
discussion summarizes the economic analysis AMS performed to estimate 
the impact of this rule. A complete economic analysis is available at 
https://www.regulations.gov/. You can access the economic analysis by 
searching for document number AMS-NOP-21-0073.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
    AMS's economic impact analysis describes the benefits and costs of 
the rule, with a focus on organic egg and broiler production, which AMS 
determined will drive the benefits and costs of this rule. We 
anticipate many of these producers will face additional production 
costs in acquiring outdoor space for layers and indoor space for 
broilers and will likewise generate benefits through increased consumer 
willingness to pay for these newly acquired organic poultry attributes. 
As stated above in the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, AMS anticipates the 
annualized 20-year net benefit of this rule will be $59.1-$78.1 
million. The following section will summarize some of the assumptions 
and methods of our analysis. For more detail, see the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis.
    To calculate benefits and costs in the organic egg market, AMS 
assessed producers' current conditions and considered how producers may 
respond to the requirements. For organic layers, the key factor 
affecting compliance is the availability of land to accommodate all the 
birds at the required stocking density. Producers that are not already 
in compliance with the rule's requirements are most likely to either 
acquire land or exit the organic market. (They could reduce flock size 
to accommodate the new spacing requirements or cease production, but 
AMS considers these outcomes unlikely as they are less profitable than 
either of the alternatives.)
    AMS used research that estimated consumers' willingness to pay for 
layers' outdoor access between $0.16 and $0.25 per dozen eggs.\91\ By 
multiplying the midpoint of the low ($0.16) and high ($0.25) 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, AMS estimates that the 20-year annualized benefits for 
layer operations will range between $76.6-89.6 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the annual costs for organic egg production are $28.1-
$32.9 million (discounted annualized value) if 50% of egg production in 
2023 transitions to the cage-free egg market by the 5-year compliance 
date, with an additional temporary economic welfare loss of $8.7-$16.0 
million.

    Table 3--Executive Summary: Unit Costs and Benefits for Eggs and
                                Broilers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Eggs dozen       Broilers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Unit Benefits and Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. Benefit Per Unit (Consumer                    0.205         0.14/lb
 Willingness to Pay) *..................
Cost Change in Average Total Cost of                0.06         0.02/lb
 Production Per Unit....................

[[Page 75436]]

 
Net Benefit per Unit Gaining Outdoor               0.145         0.16/lb
 Access.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Total Annualized Benefits and Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-Year Annualized Discounted Benefits           $89,564         $35,641
 (3%) ($1,000) *........................
20-Year Annualized Discounted Benefits            76,641          31,467
 (7%) (1,000) *.........................
20-Year Annualized Discounted Costs (3%)          32,893           5,491
 (1,000)................................
20-Year Annualized Discounted Costs (7%)          28,147           4,848
 (1,000)................................
20-Year Annualized Discounted Economic             8,709               0
 Welfare Loss (3%) (1,000)..............
20-Year Annualized Discounted Economic            16,046               0
 Welfare Loss (7%) (1,000)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Total Annualized Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-Year Annualized Discounted Net                $47,962         $30,149
 Benefits (3%) ($1,000).................
20-Year Annualized Discounted Net                 32,448          26,619
 Benefits (7%) (1,000)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  One-time Domestic Information Collection Cost (1,000)            4,930
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Layer benefit reports the mid-point benefits of the two estimates
  ($0.16/dz. and $0.25/dz.).

    In the organic broiler industry, AMS assumes that organic broiler 
producers will build enough new facilities to comply with the stocking 
density requirements and remain in the organic market at their current 
production level.
    To calculate the benefits for broilers, AMS reviewed relevant 
research and established a willingness to pay of $0.14 per pound of 
chicken from birds with more indoor space.\92\ Based on this, AMS 
estimates that the annual discounted benefits for broiler operations 
will range between $31.5-$35.6 million. We estimate the annual costs 
for organic broiler production at $4.8-$5.5 million. This reflects the 
costs of building additional housing to meet the indoor stocking 
density requirement. AMS considered several alternatives to this final 
rule, including different spacing and density requirements and 
alternatives to rulemaking altogether. These alternatives are discussed 
in more detail in the rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis, but briefly, 
they are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Mulder, M., & Zomer, S. (2017). Dutch consumers' 
willingness to pay for broiler welfare. Journal of Applied Animal 
Welfare Science, 20(2), 137-154. This estimate is adjusted for the 
context and reduced by the average observed premium difference 
between American and European consumers across all sustainable food 
products from Li, S., & Kallas, Z. (2021). Meta-analysis of 
consumers' willingness to pay for sustainable food products. 
Appetite, 163, 105239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Guidance to the industry as an alternative to 
regulations--Based on public comments to draft guidance that AMS 
published regarding outdoor access for poultry, AMS has determined the 
organic poultry market needs more prescriptive guidelines to clarify 
the intent of the outdoor access requirements in the organic 
regulations.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ On October 13, 2010, AMS published a Notice of Availability 
of Draft Guidance and Request for Comments in the Federal Register 
(75 FR 62693). See Section D, ``Organic Livestock Regulatory 
History,'' for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Consumer education in lieu of rulemaking--AMS has 
determined that a campaign to educate consumers would have limited 
effectiveness and would not fulfill NOP's mandate under OFPA to assure 
consumers that organic products meet a consistent standard.
     Alternative space and density requirements--AMS considered 
a range of indoor stocking densities and outdoor space requirements. We 
compared NOSB recommendations with the standards of third-party animal 
welfare certifications and major organic trade partners like Canada and 
the European Union. We also considered the current operating conditions 
of organic producers and the risk of market disruptions if too many 
producers were forced out of the organic market. AMS balanced these 
competing interests in setting the standards for this final rule.
     Implementation timeline--AMS compared the costs and 
benefits of the two implementation options (5 years and 15 years). We 
determined that the 5-year option, despite slightly higher costs, 
resulted in greater net benefit annualized over 20 years than the 15-
year option. Additionally, nearly all public comments found the 15-year 
option less preferable, with many stating that long implementation 
would erode their trust in the organic label. This public response 
indicates a financial risk that although we did not quantify, we did 
consider. AMS concluded that a 5-year implementation is the most 
beneficial option.
    AMS's Regulatory Impact Analysis concludes that this rule is 
reasonably expected to provide a net benefit to the organic market. In 
addition, its provisions will ensure consistent standards as directed 
by OFPA and benefit consumers by reducing consumer welfare loss (i.e., 
the difference in value between attributes--such as outdoor access--
consumers think they are paying for and those they are actually 
receiving). Furthermore, these provisions help minimize the risk to 
consumer confidence in the organic label, which affects all organic 
markets, not just eggs and chicken. For further information on AMS's 
economic analysis, see the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    AMS also performed additional analysis to determine the rule's 
impact to domestic small businesses including avian and mammalian 
livestock producers and slaughter facilities that currently hold or are 
pursuing USDA organic certification, as well as organic certifying 
agents. This analysis revealed that the cost of implementing this rule 
will fall on certified organic egg and broiler producers. AMS finds 
that these requirements will not add significant costs to other organic 
livestock sectors because these requirements seek to codify existing 
industry practices. AMS expects that most organic layer operations 
affected by this rule and about one third of all organic broiler 
operations are small businesses as defined by Small Business 
Administration criteria. AMS expects that the costs to comply with the 
outdoor space requirements will be

[[Page 75437]]

more burdensome for larger organic layer producers and they are more 
likely to transition to a cage-free label. These operations will 
require significantly more land and will be less likely to have that 
area available for expansion. For small egg producers, business 
revenues would need to be less than $137,195 to $154,922 per firm for 
the rule to cost more than 3% of revenue. For small broiler producers, 
business revenues would need to be less than $117,456 to $132,632 per 
firm for the rule to cost more than 3% of revenue. AMS also expects 
that organic producers may have some increased costs to meet the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements that will be associated with 
this rule. These are described in the Paperwork Reduction Act section. 
Additionally, while certifying agents are small entities that will be 
affected by this rule, AMS does not expect these certifying agents to 
incur substantial costs as a result of this action.
    A complete economic analysis of this rule is available at https://www.regulations.gov/. You can access this rule and the economic 
analysis by searching for document number AMS-NOP-21-0073.

B. 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. This rule cannot be applied 
retroactively. States and local jurisdictions are preempted under 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 sec. 
6514(b) of OFPA. States are also preempted under secs. 6503 through 
6507 of 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 OFPA.
    Pursuant to sec. 6507(b)(2) of OFPA, a state organic certification 
program that has been approved by the Secretary may contain additional 
requirements for the production and handling of agricultural products 
organically 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 OFPA, (b) not be inconsistent with OFPA, (c) not be 
discriminatory toward agricultural commodities organically produced in 
other States, and (d) not be effective until approved by the Secretary.
    In addition, pursuant to sec. 6519(c)(6) of OFPA, this rulemaking 
does not supersede or 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, 
respectively, 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 Environmental 
Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136-136(y)).
    OFPA at 7 U.S.C. 6520 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. 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. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 mandates that federal agencies 
consider how their policymaking and regulatory activities impact the 
policymaking discretion of States and local officials and how well such 
efforts conform to the principles of federalism defined in said order. 
This executive order only pertains to regulations with clear federalism 
implications.
    AMS has determined that this rulemaking conforms with the 
principles of federalism described in E.O. 13132. The rule does not 
impose substantial direct costs or effects on States, does not alter 
the relationship between States and the federal government, and does 
not alter the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. States had the opportunity to comment on 
the proposed rule. No States provided public comment on the federalism 
implications of this rule. Therefore, AMS has concluded that this 
rulemaking does not have federalism implications.

D. Executive Order 13175

    This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements of E.O. 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments.'' E.O. 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, 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 determined that the targeted scope of this final rule does 
not have substantial direct effects on one or more Tribes; however, AMS 
continues to seek opportunities engaging Tribal nations on new 
rulemaking. Accordingly, AMS hosted a virtual Tribal consultation 
meeting on September 9, 2021, where the draft proposed rule was 
discussed with Tribal leaders. No questions or concerns were brought to 
AMS's attention about the proposed rule by any Tribal leaders at the 
meeting. Additionally, no public comments or form letter campaigns were 
received from Tribes expressing concern over Tribal implications of 
this rule. If a Tribe requests consultation in the future, AMS will 
work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful 
consultation is provided.

E. Civil Rights Impact Analysis

    AMS has reviewed this rulemaking 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. This rule will affect organic livestock 
producers; AMS determined that this rule has no potential for affecting 
organic livestock producers in protected groups differently than the 
general population of organic livestock producers.
    Protected individuals have the same opportunity to participate in 
NOP as non-protected individuals. USDA organic regulations prohibit 
discrimination by certifying agents. Specifically, Sec.  
[thinsp]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 NOP to any person due to

[[Page 75438]]

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.  [thinsp]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.  [thinsp]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.  [thinsp]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 action in no way 
changes any of these protections against discrimination.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501-3520) (PRA), AMS is requesting Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) review and approval for a new information collection totaling 
101,110 hours for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
contained in this final rule. OMB previously approved information 
collection requests associated with the NOP as OMB control number 0581-
0191. With OMB approval, AMS intends to merge this new information 
collection (OMB control number 0591-0293) request into the previously 
approved NOP information collection request (OMB control number 0581-
0191). Presented in the proposed rule (87 FR 48562, August 09, 2022) 
and reiterated below, AMS describes and estimates the annual burden 
(i.e., the amount of time and cost of labor) for entities to prepare 
and maintain information to participate in this voluntary labeling 
program (USDA organic certification). OFPA provides authority for this 
action.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ USDA OFPA: The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), 
7 U.S.C. 6501-6524, is the statute from which the Agricultural 
Marketing Service (AMS) derives authority to administer the National 
Organic Program (NOP), and authority to amend the regulations as 
described in this rulemaking. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title7/chapter94&edition=prelim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: National Organic Program: Organic Livestock and Poultry 
Standards.
    OMB Control Number: 0581-0293.
    Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from OMB date of approval.
    Type of Request: New collection.
Abstract
    Information collection and recordkeeping are necessary to implement 
reporting and recordkeeping necessitated by amendments to standards for 
organic livestock and poultry production under the USDA organic 
regulations (Sec. Sec.  205.238, 205.239, 205.241, and 205.242). This 
final rule clarifies and expands on existing USDA organic requirements 
to support consistent interpretation and enforcement of organic 
livestock standards. By doing so, it supports the purposes of OFPA, 
``to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a 
consistent standard'' and to ``establish national standards'' for 
products marketed as organic, and to further facilitate interstate 
commerce of organic products (7 U.S.C. 6501). Additional information on 
the purpose and need for this rule is included in the BACKGROUND 
section of this rule.
Overview
    All certified organic operations must develop and maintain an 
organic system plan (OSP) to comply with the USDA organic regulations 
(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 this final rule, organic livestock 
and poultry operations are subject to additional reporting 
requirements. The amendments to Sec. Sec.  205.238, 205.239, 205.241, 
and 205.242 require livestock and poultry operations to provide 
specific documentation as a part of the OSP related to their production 
practices--including minimum space requirements, outdoor access, 
preventive health care practices (e.g., physical alterations, 
euthanasia, parasite prevention plans), and humane transportation and 
slaughter practices. This documentation will enable certifying agents 
to make consistent certification decisions and facilitate fairness and 
transparency for the organic producers and consumers that participate 
in this market.
    The PRA requires AMS to estimate the reporting and recordkeeping 
burden of rulemaking. Per Sec.  205.103 of the USDA organic 
regulations, operations must maintain and make available upon request 
such records as are necessary to demonstrate compliance. Sections 
205.501(a)(9) and 205.510(b) also require that accredited certifying 
agents must maintain and make available upon request records that are 
necessary to verify compliance and maintain accreditation.
    In response to overall public comments, and discussed in the 
overview of the rule above, AMS modified some reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements in this final rule. The final rule:
    1. Removes the requirement for certified operations to record 
lameness in livestock.
    2. Changes the ammonia monitoring requirements for poultry 
operations. Instead of recording ammonia levels monthly, operations 
must record ammonia levels weekly.
    AMS expects that most of the reporting and recordkeeping burden for 
this rule will occur in the first year after the rule's effective date. 
During this time, new operations, existing operations, exempt 
operations, inspectors, certifying agents, and State Organic Programs 
will implement the new reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The 
estimated reporting and recordkeeping burden is described in sections 
Summary of Reporting Burden and Summary of Recordkeeping Burden.
    AMS expects ammonia monitoring to be the only increase in reporting 
and recordkeeping burden related to this rule for operations beyond the 
first year. Other reporting and recordkeeping requirements of this 
rulemaking would become routine to maintain after the first year and 
fall under existing reporting and recordkeeping burdens described in 
the NOP's previously approved information collection request (OMB 
control number 0581-0191). Going forward, weekly ammonia monitoring 
will become a new routine activity that is not currently identified in 
the NOP's approved information collection request. The new information 
that certified operations will be required to record and report for 
certification will assist certifying agents and inspectors with 
evaluating operations' compliance with the USDA organic regulations.
    Beyond the first year, AMS expects no increase in reporting and 
recordkeeping burden for inspectors and certifying agents currently 
involved in livestock certification, as certifying agents are required 
to observe the same reporting and recordkeeping requirements to 
maintain accreditation. These current reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements are routine activities that

[[Page 75439]]

are currently identified in the NOP's approved information collection 
request.
    AMS expects this rule will impose only minor reporting and 
recordkeeping burden on exempt operations or State Organic Programs in 
the first year (see Table 4). Under the USDA organic regulations, some 
types of organic operations are exempt from the requirement for 
certification. This may include operations that sell less than $5,000 
in organic products annually. However, these exempt operations must 
maintain records of organic management to support their organic claims 
(Sec.  205.101(i)). State Organic Programs enforce OFPA in their state 
under the authority of AMS and must observe the same reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to maintain this authority. The current 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for exempt operations and 
State Organic Programs are routine activities that are currently 
identified in the NOP's approved information collection request.
    Recording and reporting information is essential to the integrity 
of the USDA organic industry. A record trail is a critical tool that 
inspectors, certifying agents, State Organic Programs, and AMS use to 
verify that organic management practices meet the requirements of OFPA 
and its regulations. The collected information also supports AMS' 
mission, program objectives, and management needs by enabling AMS to 
assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the NOP. This information 
informs AMS decisions when evaluating compliance with OFPA and the USDA 
organic regulations, administering the NOP, and establishing the cost 
of the USDA organic program. Finally, this information supports AMS's 
direct enforcement and response to noncompliances with the USDA organic 
regulations.
Responses to Public Comment
    In the proposed rule (87 FR 48562, August 09, 2022), AMS invited 
comments from the public on the estimated reporting and recordkeeping 
burden required because of this rulemaking. Public comments relating to 
the paperwork burden generally indicated that the reporting and 
recordkeeping burdens were low and that the proposed changes should be 
implemented.
    AMS's responses to comments on five specific questions posed by AMS 
follow. First, AMS sought comments on:

    Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information would have practical utility.

    (Comment) Two commenters indicated that the paperwork requirement 
associated with verifying transport times would be excessively 
burdensome for operations and also questioned if AMS had considered 
Department of Transportation (DOT) Hours of Service (HOS) regulations 
(49 CFR 385.1(k)(1)). AMS's complete response to this comment is 
discussed in more detail in TRANSPORT AND SLAUGHTER.
    (Response) In the final rule, AMS removed a proposed requirement 
for organic food and water after more than 12 hours of transport. 
Instead, the final rule requires that operations describe how animal 
welfare is maintained if transport time exceeds eight hours. The final 
rule continues to require that operations keep records of transport 
times. AMS disagrees with comments that claimed transport records would 
be excessively burdensome. Long transport times for animals can 
negatively impact animal health and welfare if proper measures are not 
taken, and records are essential for certifiers to assess transport 
times. Furthermore, the rule does not specify or require an exact form 
or format for these records, to provide flexibility and reduce burden 
for producers to meet the requirement.
    AMS also requested comments on:

    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.

    (Comment) A commenter indicated that implementation of the new 
requirements of this rulemaking will take longer than one year. AMS's 
response to this comment and other comments regarding the 
implementation timeline for this rulemaking is discussed in section 
IV.F, IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE DATES. This commenter also 
indicated that the cost of this new burden will be higher than what was 
estimated in the proposed rule. They stated that this is because 
livestock inspectors collect more than the $30.70 per hour rate 
reported in the proposed rule. Finally, the commenter indicated that 
additional reporting and recording at annual organic inspections was 
not fully accounted for, implying that inspections will take longer 
than AMS estimated.
    (Response) In the proposed rule, AMS estimated inspector wages and 
benefits by referencing data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
on Agricultural Inspectors (Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 
code 45-2011), and average civilian employer compensation 
costs.95 96 The commenter did not propose a different wage 
rate for inspectors that AMS could verify, nor did they suggest a 
different estimate of how long inspections will take to account for the 
new requirements. Therefore, AMS has not changed the methods used to 
estimate wages and benefits. However, in this final rule, AMS has 
updated the wages, benefits, and data on the number of operations (new, 
existing, and exempt), certifying agents, and inspectors to update the 
reporting and recordkeeping burden. The estimates of reporting and 
recordkeeping burden are discussed in sections Summary of Reporting 
Burden and Summary of Recordkeeping Burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ U.S. BLS Inspectors: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mean 
hourly wage for Agricultural Inspectors (Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 45-2011) was $22.80. Occupational 
Employment and Wage Statistics. ``May 2021 National Occupational 
Employment and Wage Estimates United States.'' Published May 2021. 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#top.
    \96\ U.S. BLS Benefits: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Domestic 
benefits were reported at 31 percent of total average civilian 
employer compensation costs. Economic News Release. Employer Costs 
for Employee Compensation Summary. ``Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation December 2022.'' USDL-23-0488. Published March 17, 
2023. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, AMS asked for comments on, ``Ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.''
    (Comment) A commenter stated that AMS should reduce the paperwork 
burden on organic operations in areas where the reduction would not 
negatively impact animal welfare or overall compliance with the USDA 
organic regulations. The commenter did not state what portion(s) of the 
proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements were unnecessary.
    (Response) Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and in response to 
the comment, AMS has sought regulatory options that minimize paperwork 
burden. For example, AMS removed a specific requirement that would have 
required producers to keep detailed records related to lameness in a 
herd.
    AMS also sought comments on:

    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.

    (Comment) A commenter stated that poultry stocking density 
definitions and standards should refer to the number of animals in 
addition to the weight. Other commenters also stated that requiring 
slaughter facilities to provide AMS with

[[Page 75440]]

any noncompliance records or corrective actions issued by the USDA Food 
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) would be duplicative and 
unnecessary. They stated that FSIS inspectors are specifically trained 
to understand the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and the 
Verification of Good Commercial Practices for Poultry, and therefore, 
FSIS should continue to oversee poultry slaughter, not AMS. Finally, 
they stated that requiring operations to report this information would 
possibly create jurisdictional issues between FSIS and AMS.
    (Response) Organic slaughter requirements and AMS's justification 
for these regulatory changes are described in Section IV.E, TRANSPORT 
AND SLAUGHTER. As described in that section, organic certifying agents 
and inspectors are not expected to determine an organic slaughter 
facility's compliance with these laws and regulations, as that is the 
responsibility of other government regulatory authorities (such as 
FSIS). However, organic slaughter facilities must provide records of 
noncompliance and corrective actions that resulted from FSIS regulatory 
and enforcement action. These FSIS records are a valuable source of 
information that certifying agents can use to determine an operation's 
compliance with the organic regulation and this rule's animal welfare 
requirements. AMS has not changed the estimation of reporting and 
recordkeeping burden for the new information collection requirements of 
this rulemaking based on these comments.
    Finally, AMS requested comments on its estimates and assumptions:

    AMS estimates that the total number of certified organic 
operations will grow by 5.6% annually, based on the increase in 
operations recorded in INTEGRITY during the last 12 months. Is this 
a reasonable and accurate projection of future growth, given the 
additional burdens imposed by this proposed rulemaking?

    (Comment) A few commenters expressed concern with the estimated 
future growth presented in the proposed rule. One stated that the 
proposed changes will impose additional financial burdens with little 
benefits to organic poultry operations. Commenters expressed concern 
that the number of organic operations would decrease rather than 
increase.
    (Response) AMS disagrees with the comment that this rulemaking will 
have little benefit on organic poultry operations. This rule clarifies 
and expands on regulations to support consistent interpretation and 
enforcement of organic livestock and poultry standards. The final rule 
specifies requirements for outdoor space (per bird), access to outdoor 
space from poultry houses (exit areas), and indoor thresholds for 
ammonia gas. The rule also elaborates on the current standards (7 CFR 
205.239) related to situations that warrant temporary confinement of 
animals, among other requirements.
    AMS investigated the concern that organic operations will decrease 
and reevaluated the data used to estimate the growth of the organic 
livestock industry. In the proposed rule, data on overall organic 
operations was used to calculate an estimated growth rate. In response 
to comments, AMS refines the data in this final rule to focus on 
organic livestock operations. AMS searched organic livestock operations 
listed in the Organic Integrity Database on January 01, 2022, and 
January 01, 2023.\97\ Based on this data--5,445 certified livestock 
operations in 2022 and 5,883 certified livestock operations in 2023--
AMS changes the estimated future growth of organic livestock operations 
to eight percent (8%). AMS has updated the estimated reporting and 
recordkeeping burden accordingly. The estimated reporting and 
recordkeeping burden is discussed in Sections Summary of Reporting 
Burden and Summary of Recordkeeping Burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ USDA NOP OID: Organic Integrity Database, https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comments Conclusion
    The estimated reporting and recordkeeping burden for the new 
information collection requirements of this rulemaking are summarized 
in the Sections Summary of Reporting Burden and Summary of 
Recordkeeping Burden below. In general, public comment received did not 
dispute AMS's estimate of the information collection reporting and 
recordkeeping burden presented in the proposed rule.
    In the proposed rule, AMS estimated that new and current organic 
operations would need four hours to incorporate the new reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements of this rulemaking into their OSPs 
(including one-time preparation of all practices, procedures, and 
information necessary to comply with these new requirements). AMS made 
changes in this final rule that decrease required reporting and/or 
recordkeeping related to lameness and increased the frequency of 
ammonia monitoring (see sections on Livestock Care and Production 
Practices Standard and Avian Living Conditions). However, AMS does not 
believe these changes will substantially affect the time operations 
will require to incorporate the new requirements into their OSPs. Table 
4 describes the reporting and recordkeeping burden in more detail.
    AMS has updated the following data used to estimate reporting and 
recordkeeping burden:
    1. Wage and benefit data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), and the 
World Bank.98 99 100
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov.
    \99\ Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development 
(OECD), https://www.oecd.org/.
    \100\ The World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Number of new, existing, and exempt organic 
operations.101 102
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ USDA NOP OID: Organic Integrity Database, https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/.
    \102\ USDA NASS: Surveys of organic operations report that 
operations exempt from certification make up 11.5% of certified 
organic operations. Census of Agriculture, 2014 Organic Survey. 
Updated April 2016. https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012-Organic-Survey-ORGANICS.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Number of domestic and foreign livestock inspectors and 
certifying agents.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ USDA NOP OID: Organic Integrity Database, https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated reporting and recordkeeping burden is discussed in 
Sections Summary of Reporting Burden and Summary of Recordkeeping 
Burden.
Calculating Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
    AMS identifies four types of entities (respondents) that will need 
to submit and maintain information to participate in organic livestock 
and poultry certification:
    1. Organic livestock and poultry operations.
    2. Accredited certifying agents.
    3. Inspectors.
    4. State Organic Programs.
    To understand the reporting and recordkeeping costs of this 
rulemaking more precisely, AMS calculated the potential impacts 
utilizing domestic and foreign labor rates (per hour) plus benefits.
    AMS calculates the time burden of the new reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements of this rulemaking by estimating the 
following:
    1. The number of respondents.
    2. Frequency of response.
    3. Total number of burden hours per year.
    The number of respondents is based on operation, certifier, 
inspector, and State Organic Program data from the Organic Integrity 
Database.\104\ The frequency of responses is estimated to

[[Page 75441]]

be the total annual responses and the number of responses per 
respondent in twelve months. The total number of burden hours per year 
is estimated to be the total annual responses multiplied by the number 
of hours per response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ USDA NOP OID: Organic Integrity Database, https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMS estimates the cost (financial) burden of the new reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements of this rulemaking by estimating the 
following:
    1. Total hours per respondent.
    2. Total hours for all respondents.
    3. Capital and other non-labor costs per respondent.
    4. Total capital and other non-labor costs for all respondents.
    The total hours per respondent and for all respondents were 
estimated based on the number of respondents and the amount of time AMS 
estimates will be needed to report and record new information based on 
this rulemaking. Unchanged from the proposed rule, AMS describes in 
Table 4a and 4b the hours necessary for respondents to report and 
record new information required by this rulemaking.

                  Table 4--Estimated Hours for Respondents To Report and Record New Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Number of                      Annual
                                                                       reporting     Reporting    recordkeeping
        Reporting or recordkeeping requirement description           responses per   hours per      hours per
                                                                      respondent      response     recordkeeper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart B--Applicability exempt producers and handlers (11.5% of                 0            0                1
 current total certified that are exempt from organic
 certification) document compliance and maintain records for not
 less than 3 yrs..................................................
Certified operators maintain records for not less than 5 years....               0            0                2
New operations submit their initial organic system plan (OSP):                   1            6                0
 including one-time reading of the rule's applicable regulatory
 requirements and preparation of all practices, procedures, and
 information necessary to comply with new livestock and poultry
 requirements.....................................................
Current certified operations submit updated OSP: including one-                  1            6                0
 time reading of the rule's applicable regulatory requirements and
 preparation of all practices, procedures, and information
 necessary to comply with new livestock and poultry requirements..
Livestock and poultry operations' first on-site inspection that                  1            2                0
 includes new livestock and poultry practices and procedures......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Certifying Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Application/Updates: agents review and process OSP                   108            2                1
 applications/updates from livestock and poultry operations in
 compliance with new requirements for the first time and maintain
 records..........................................................
Provide information and training to operations regarding livestock               1            3              n/a
 and poultry requirements.........................................
Accreditation of Certifying Agents--Form TM-10CG--Provide                        1            2                1
 Policies, Procedures, Evidence of Expertise and Ability, describe
 organizational units, primary location, areas of certification
 (crops, livestock, and handling), States & foreign countries
 where they operate, lists of currently certified operations,
 conduct & provide results of performance evaluations of personnel
 & inspectors, conduct program evaluations of their certification
 activities, provide procedures for residue testing, and other
 information that will assist in evaluating their application, and
 comply with any other requirements. Includes one-time preparation
 of practices and procedures necessary to comply with new
 livestock and poultry practice requirements......................
Provide training to Certification Review Personnel and Inspectors                2            5              n/a
 regarding new livestock and poultry practices....................
Certification Review Personnel receive training regarding new                    1            5              n/a
 livestock and poultry practices..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Inspectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspectors provide on-site inspection reports addressing new                    33            2              n/a
 requirements for livestock and poultry operations to the
 certifying agent.................................................
Inspectors receive 5 hours of training per new livestock and                     1            5              n/a
 poultry practices................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             State Organic Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Organic Programs: States submit proposed State Organic                   n/a          n/a              n/a
 Program to Secretary.............................................
States update State Organic Program to the Secretary..............               1            2                1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the capital and other non-labor costs of the reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements per respondent and on all respondents, 
AMS uses data on prevailing domestic and foreign wages and 
benefits.105 106 107
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ U.S. BLS Benefits: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Domestic 
benefits were reported at 31 percent of total average civilian 
employer compensation costs. Economic News Release. Employer Costs 
for Employee Compensation Summary. ``EMPLOYER COSTS FOR EMPLOYEE 
COMPENSATION--December 2022.'' USDL-23-0488. Published March 17, 
2023. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
    \106\ World Bank--Foreign wages: The data reports that GDP per 
capita for OECD member countries is 70.1% of U.S. GDP in 2021. 
Accessed March 22, 2023. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD.
    \107\ OECD--Foreign benefits: The source of foreign benefit 
rates is based on the average Organization for Economic Co-Operation 
and Development (OECD) member countries tax wedge rate of 34.58% in 
2021. Accessed March 22, 2023. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AWCOMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated reporting and recordkeeping burden is discussed in 
Sections Summary of Reporting Burden and Summary of Recordkeeping 
Burden.
    Total (Domestic and Foreign) Information Collection Cost (Reporting 
and Recordkeeping) of Rulemaking: $4,929,563.
    AMS estimated a total of 7,346 reporting and recordkeeping 
respondents, with 40,348 total responses (in the first year of 
implementing the new reporting and recordkeeping requirements, after 
which there are no additional responses), and an overall total burden 
of 113,934 hours. This total hourly burden averages 16 hours per 
respondent, $671 per respondent, and $4,929,563 for all respondents. 
The data used to estimate reporting and recordkeeping burden is 
displayed in more detail in Table 5 and Table 6.
1. Organic Livestock and Poultry Operations
    AMS estimated a total of 7,095 reporting and recordkeeping 
respondents, with 12,824 total responses (in the first year of 
implementing the new reporting and recordkeeping requirements, after 
which

[[Page 75442]]

there are no additional responses), and an overall burden of 64,802 
hours.
    Based on eight percent (8%) projected growth in livestock 
operations, AMS expects to add 475 operations to the 5,937 operations 
currently certified for the livestock scope.\108\ In addition, AMS 
estimates that 683 exempt livestock operations will be impacted by the 
new recordkeeping requirements.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ USDA NOP OID: Organic Integrity Database, https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/.
    \109\ USDA NASS: Surveys of organic operations report that 
operations exempt from certification make up 11.5% of certified 
organic operations. Census of Agriculture, 2014 Organic Survey. 
Updated April 2016. https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012-Organic-Survey-ORGANICS.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMS estimated nine burden hours per respondent, costing $430 per 
respondent, and $3,052,383 for all respondents. The data used to 
estimate reporting and recordkeeping burden is displayed in more detail 
in Table 5 and Table 6.
2. Accredited Certifying Agents
    AMS estimated a total of 58 reporting and recordkeeping 
respondents, with 13,766 total responses (in the first year of 
implementing the new reporting and recordkeeping requirements, after 
which there are no additional responses), and an overall burden of 
35,345 hours. AMS estimated 609 burden hours per respondent, costing 
$26,013 per respondent, and $1,508,729 for all respondents. The data 
used to estimate reporting and recordkeeping burden is displayed in 
more detail in Table 5 and Table 6.
3. Inspectors
    AMS estimated a total of 192 reporting and recordkeeping 
respondents, with 6,604 responses (in the first year of implementing 
the new reporting and recordkeeping requirements, after which there are 
no additional responses), and an overall burden of 13,784 hours. AMS 
estimated 72 burden hours per respondent, costing $1,919 per 
respondent, and $368,308 for all respondents. The data used to estimate 
reporting and recordkeeping burden is displayed in more detail in Table 
5 and Table 6. Inspectors do not have recordkeeping obligations, as 
certifying agents maintain the records of inspection reports, so 
inspectors are not included in Table 5.
4. State Organic Programs
    AMS estimated a total of one reporting and recordkeeping 
respondent, with one response (in the first year of implementing the 
new reporting and recordkeeping requirements, after which there are no 
additional responses), an overall burden of three hours, costing the 
respondent $143. The data used to estimate reporting and recordkeeping 
burden is displayed in more detail in Table 5 and Table 6.
Summary of Reporting Burden
    Total All Reporting Burden Cost: $4,827,105.
    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of 
information is estimated to average 15 hours per respondent.
    Respondents: New and existing certified organic and applicant 
livestock and poultry operations, certifying agents, inspectors, and 
State Organic Programs.
    Estimated Number of Reporting Respondents: 6,663.
    Estimated Number of Reporting Responses: 33,194.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden on Respondents: 100,310 hours.
    Estimated Total Reporting Responses per Reporting Respondents: Five 
reporting responses per reporting respondent.
    AMS estimated a total of 6,663 reporting respondents, with 33,194 
total responses (in the first year of implementing the new reporting 
requirements, after which there are no additional responses), and an 
overall burden of 100,310 reporting hours. AMS estimated 15 burden 
hours per respondent, costing $643 per respondent and $4,287,105 for 
all respondents. The data used to estimate reporting burden is 
displayed in more detail in Table 5.
1. Organic Livestock and Poultry Operations
    AMS estimated a total of 6,412 reporting respondents, with 12,824 
total responses (in the first year of implementing the new reporting 
requirements, after which there are no additional responses), and an 
overall burden of 38,472 reporting hours. AMS estimated six burden 
hours per respondent, costing $282 per respondent, and $1,811,193 for 
all respondents. The data used to estimate reporting burden is 
displayed in more detail in Table 5.
2. Accredited Certifying Agents
    AMS estimated a total of 58 reporting respondents, with 13,766 
total responses (in the first year of implementing the new reporting 
requirements, after which there are no additional responses), and an 
overall burden of 35,229 hours. AMS estimated 607 burden hours per 
respondent, costing $25,927 per respondent and $1,503,778 for all 
respondents. The data used to estimate reporting burden is displayed in 
more detail in Table 5.
3. Inspectors
    AMS estimated a total of 192 reporting respondents, with 6,604 
total responses (in the first year of implementing the new reporting 
requirements, after which there are no additional responses), and an 
overall burden of 13,784 hours. AMS estimated 72 burden hours per 
respondent, costing $1,919 per respondent, and $368,308 for all 
respondents. The data used to estimate reporting burden is displayed in 
more detail in Table 5.
4. State Organic Programs
    AMS estimated a total of one reporting respondent, with one 
response (in the first year of implementing the new reporting 
requirements, after which there are no additional responses), an 
overall burden of two hours, resulting in a total cost of $95 to the 
respondent. The data used to estimate reporting burden is displayed in 
more detail in Table 5.

                                                          Table 5--Summary of Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Total      Average                               Average       Total
         Organic operations reporting burden           Number of respondents   reporting   respondent   Wage +  benefits \112\   respondent   reporting
                                                            \110\ \111\          hours       hours         \96\ \113\ \114\        costs        costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certified livestock operations--new and existing--                     5,334      42,673            6                   $49.40         $395   $1,581,036
 Domestic............................................
Certified livestock operations--new and existing--                     1,078       8,623            6                    35.59          285      230,156
 Foreign.............................................
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 75443]]

 
    Operations total.................................                  6,412      51,296            6  .......................          377    2,414,924
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       USDA accredited certifiers reporting burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certifiers--Domestic.................................                     36      21,866          607                    47.75       29,003    1,044,101
Certifiers--Foreign..................................                     22      13,363          607                    34.40       20,894      459,677
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Certifiers total.................................                     58      35,229          607  .......................       25,927    1,503,778
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Inspectors reporting burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspectors--Domestic.................................                    113       8,555           76                    29.87        2,257      255,529
Inspectors--Foreign..................................                     79       5,228           66                    21.57        1,433      112,778
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Inspectors total.................................                    192      13,784           72  .......................        1,919      368,308
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State Organic Programs reporting burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Organic Programs...............................                      1           2            2                    47.75           95           95
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State Organic Programs total.....................                      1           2            2  .......................           95           95
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total reporting burden--all respondents......                  6,663     100,310           15  .......................          643    4,287,105
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Recordkeeping Burden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ USDA NOP OID: Organic Integrity Database, https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/.
    \111\ USDA NASS: Surveys of organic operations report that 
operations exempt from certification make up 11.5% of certified 
organic operations. Census of Agriculture, 2014 Organic Survey. 
Updated April 2016. https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012-Organic-Survey-ORGANICS.pdf.
    \112\ U.S. BLS Inspectors: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mean 
hourly wage for Agricultural Inspectors (Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 45-2011) was $22.80. Occupational 
Employment and Wage Statistics. ``May 2021 National Occupational 
Employment and Wage Estimates United States.'' Published May 2021. 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#top.
    \113\ U.S. BLS Operations: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mean 
hourly wage for Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Agricultural Managers 
(Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 11-9013) was 
$37.71. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics. ``May 2021 
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States.'' 
Published May 2021. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#top.
    \114\ U.S. BLS Certifiers and State Organic Programs (SOP): 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mean hourly wage for Compliance Officers 
(Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1041) was 
$36.45. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics. ``May 2021 
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States.'' 
Published May 2021. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total All Recordkeeping Burden Cost: $642,458.
    Estimate of Burden: Public recordkeeping burden for this collection 
of information is estimated to average two hours per respondent.
    Respondents: New and existing certified operations, exempt 
operations, certifying agents, and State Organic Programs.
    Estimated Number of Recordkeeping Respondents: 7,154 respondents.
    Estimated Total Recordkeeping Burden on Respondents: 13,624 hours.
    AMS estimated a total of 7,154 recordkeeping respondents (in the 
first year of implementing the new recordkeeping requirements, after 
which there are no additional responses). AMS estimated two burden 
hours per respondent and 13,624 total burden hours for all respondents, 
costing $90 per respondent and $642,458 for all respondents. The data 
used to estimate the recordkeeping burden is displayed in more detail 
in Table 6.
1. Organic Livestock and Poultry Operations
    AMS estimated a total of 7,095 recordkeeping respondents (in the 
first year of implementing the new recordkeeping requirements, after 
which there is no additional recordkeeping). AMS estimated two burden 
hours per respondent and 13,507 total burden hours for all respondents, 
costing $90 per respondent and $637,459 for all respondents. The data 
used to estimate the recordkeeping burden is displayed in more detail 
in Table 6.
2. Accredited Certifying Agents
    AMS estimated a total of 58 recordkeeping respondents (in the first 
year of implementing the new recordkeeping requirements, after which 
there are no additional responses) AMS estimated two burden hours per 
respondent and 116 total burden hours for all respondents, costing $85 
per respondent and $4,952 for all respondents. The data used to 
estimate the recordkeeping burden is displayed in more detail in Table 
6.
3. State Organic Programs
    AMS estimated a total of one recordkeeping respondent (in the first 
year of implementing the new recordkeeping requirements, after which 
there are no additional responses), an overall burden of one hour, 
resulting in a total cost of $48 to the respondent. The data used to 
estimate the recordkeeping burden is displayed in more detail in Table 
6.

                                                        Table 6--Summary of Recordkeeping Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Total         Average                               Average         Total
   Organic operations recordkeeping burden    Number of respondents   recordkeeping    respondent   Wage + benefits \117\    respondent   recordkeeping
                                                   \115\ \116\            hours          hours         \96\ \118\ \119\        costs          costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certified livestock operations--new and                       5,334           10,668            2                   $49.40          $99         $527,012
 existing--Domestic.........................
Certified livestock operations--new and                       1,078            2,156            2                    35.59           71           76,719
 existing--Foreign..........................

[[Page 75444]]

 
Exempt livestock operations (11.5% of                           683              683            1                    49.40           49           33,728
 certified).................................
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operations total........................                   7095           13,507            2  .......................           90          637,459
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     USDA-accredited certifiers recordkeeping burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certifiers--Domestic........................                     36               72            2                    47.75           95            3,438
Certifiers--Foreign.........................                     22               44            2                    34.40           69            1,514
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Certifiers total........................                     58              116            2  .......................           85            4,952
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State Organic Programs recordkeeping burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Organic Programs......................                      1                1            1                    47.75           48               48
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State Organic Programs total............                      1                1            1  .......................           48               48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total recordkeeping burden--all                       7,154           13,624            2  .......................           90          642,458
         respondents........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Related Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ USDA NOP OID: Organic Integrity Database, https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/.
    \116\ USDA NASS: Surveys of organic operations report that 
operations exempt from certification make up 11.5% of certified 
organic operations. Census of Agriculture, 2014 Organic Survey. 
Updated April 2016. https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012-Organic-Survey-ORGANICS.pdf.
    \117\ U.S. BLS Inspectors: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mean 
hourly wage for Agricultural Inspectors (Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 45-2011) was $22.80. Occupational 
Employment and Wage Statistics. ``May 2021 National Occupational 
Employment and Wage Estimates United States.'' Published May 2021. 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#top.
    \118\ U.S. BLS Operations: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mean 
hourly wage for Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Agricultural Managers 
(Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 11-9013) was 
$37.71. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics. ``May 2021 
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States.'' 
Published May 2021. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#top.
    \119\ U.S. BLS Certifiers and State Organic Programs (SOP): 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mean hourly wage for Compliance Officers 
(Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1041) was 
$36.45. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics. ``May 2021 
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States.'' 
Published May 2021. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Documents related to this final rule include the Organic Foods 
Production Act of 1990, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 6501-6524) and its 
implementing regulations (7 CFR part 205). The NOSB deliberated and 
made the recommendations described in this final rule at public 
meetings announced in the following Federal Register notices: 67 FR 
19375 (April 19, 2002); 74 FR 46411 (September 9, 2009); 75 FR 57194 
(September 20, 2010); and 76 FR 62336 (October 7, 2011). 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); 71 FR 24820 (April 27, 2006); 73 
FR 63584 (October 24, 2008), and 81 FR 21956 (April 13, 2016). Past 
final rules relevant to this topic were published at: 65 FR 80548 
(December 21, 2000); 71 FR 32803 (June 7, 2006); 75 FR 7154 (February 
17, 2010); and 87 FR 19740 (April 5, 2022). AMS activities and 
documents that followed publication of the January 19, 2017 OLPP final 
rule (82 FR 7042) are detailed above in Section II.D., Organic 
Livestock Regulatory History.
    On August 9, 2022, AMS published the OLPS proposed rule (87 FR 
48562) to notify the public of the proposed changes to the organic 
livestock standards and to request comments on the proposed changes.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205

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

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing 
Service amends 7 CFR part 205 as follows:

PART 205--NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for part 205 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501-6524.


0
2. Amend Sec.  205.2 by adding definitions for ``Beak trimming'', 
``Caponization'', ``Cattle wattling'', ``De-beaking'', ``De-snooding'', 
``Dubbing'', ``Indoors or indoor space'', ``Induced molting'', 
``Mulesing'', ``Non-ambulatory'', ``Outdoors or outdoor space'', 
``Perch'', ``Pullets'', ``Religious (or ritual) slaughter'', ``Stocking 
density'', ``Toe clipping'', and ``Vegetation'' in alphabetical order 
to read as follows:


Sec.  205.2  Terms defined.

* * * * *
    Beak trimming. The removal of not more than one-quarter to one-
third of the upper beak or the removal of one-quarter to one-third of 
both the upper and lower beaks of a bird in order to control injurious 
pecking and cannibalism.
* * * * *
    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 one-third of the upper beak or 
removal of more than one-third of both the upper and lower beaks of a 
bird.
    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.
* * * * *

[[Page 75445]]

    Indoors or indoor space. The space inside of an enclosed building 
or housing structure available to livestock. Indoor space for avian 
species includes, but is not limited to:
    (1) Mobile housing. A mobile structure for avian species with solid 
or perforated flooring that is moved regularly and allows birds to 
continuously access areas outside the structure during daytime hours.
    (2) Aviary housing. A fixed structure for avian species that has 
multiple tiers or levels.
    (3) Slatted/mesh floor housing. A fixed structure for avian species 
that 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 that 
has absorbent litter covering the entire floor.
    Induced molting. Molting that is artificially initiated.
* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    Non-ambulatory. As defined in 9 CFR 309.2(b).
* * * * *
    Outdoors or outdoor space. Any area outside an enclosed building or 
enclosed housing structure. Enclosed housing structures with open sides 
(e.g., open-sided freestall barns) are not to be considered outdoors or 
outdoor space. Outdoor space for avian species includes, but is not 
limited to:
    (1) Pasture pens (avian). Floorless pens, with full or partial 
roofing, that are moved regularly, provide direct access to soil and 
vegetation, and allow birds to express natural behaviors.
    (2) Shade structures that are not enclosed.
* * * * *
    Perch. A rod- or branch-type structure above the floor or ground 
that accommodates roosting and allows birds to utilize vertical space.
* * * * *
    Pullets. Female chickens or other avian species being raised for 
egg production that have not yet started to lay eggs.
* * * * *
    Religious (or ritual) slaughter. Slaughtering in accordance with 
the ritual requirements of any religious faith that prescribes a method 
of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia 
of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of 
the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection 
with such slaughtering.
* * * * *
    Stocking density. The liveweight or number of animals on a given 
area or unit of land.
* * * * *
    Toe clipping. The removal of the nail and distal joint of the back 
two toes of a bird.
* * * * *
    Vegetation. Living plant matter that is anchored in the soil by 
roots and provides ground cover.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  205.238 to read as follows:


Sec.  205.238  Livestock care and production practices standard.

    (a) Preventive health care practices. 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 of the animal, including vitamins, minerals, proteins and/
or amino acids, fatty acids, energy sources, and fiber (ruminants).
    (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 for identification 
purposes or the safety of the animal. Physical alterations must be 
performed: at a young age for the species, in a manner that minimizes 
stress and pain, and by a person that is capable of performing the 
physical alteration in a manner that minimizes stress and pain.
    (i) The following practices may not be routinely used and must be 
used only with documentation that alternative methods to prevent harm 
failed: needle teeth clipping (no more than top one-third of the tooth) 
in pigs and tail docking in pigs.
    (ii) The following practices are prohibited: de-beaking, de-
snooding, caponization, dubbing, toe clipping of chickens, toe clipping 
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 or injury 
shall be undertaken in a manner that employs best management practices 
to promote the animal's wellbeing and to minimize pain, stress, and 
suffering, with the use of allowed anesthetics, analgesics, and 
sedatives, as appropriate.
    (8) Monitoring of lameness; timely and appropriate treatment of 
lameness for the species; and mitigation of the causes of lameness.
    (b) Preventive medicines and parasiticides. Producers may 
administer medications that are allowed under Sec.  205.603 of this 
part to alleviate pain or suffering, and when preventive practices and 
veterinary biologics are inadequate to prevent sickness. Parasiticides 
allowed under Sec.  205.603 of this part 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; and
    (2) Dairy animals, as allowed under Sec.  205.603 of this part.
    (3) Fiber bearing animals, as allowed under Sec.  205.603 of this 
part.
    (c) Prohibited practices. An organic livestock operation must not:
    (1) Sell, label, or represent as organic any animal or product 
derived from any animal treated with antibiotics, any substance that 
contains a synthetic substance not allowed under Sec.  205.603 of this 
part, or any substance that contains a non-synthetic substance 
prohibited in Sec.  205.604 of this part. Milk from animals undergoing 
treatment with synthetic substances that are allowed under Sec.  
205.603 of this part but have associated withdrawal periods cannot be 
sold, labeled, or represented as organic during the withdrawal period 
but may be fed to calves on the same operation. Milk from animals 
undergoing treatment with prohibited substances cannot be sold, 
labeled, or represented as organic or fed to organic livestock.
    (2) Administer synthetic medications unless:
    (i) In the presence of illness or to alleviate pain and suffering, 
and
    (ii) That such medications are allowed under Sec.  205.603 of this 
part.
    (3) Administer hormones for growth promotion, production, or 
reproduction, except as provided in Sec.  205.603 of this part.
    (4) Administer synthetic parasiticides on a routine basis.

[[Page 75446]]

    (5) Administer synthetic parasiticides to slaughter stock.
    (6) Administer animal drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act; or
    (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 induced molting.
    (d) Parasite control plans. (1) Organic livestock operations must 
have comprehensive plans to minimize internal parasite problems in 
livestock, including preventive measures such as pasture management, 
fecal monitoring, and emergency measures in the event of a parasite 
outbreak.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (e) Euthanasia. (1) Organic livestock operations must have written 
plans for prompt, humane euthanasia for sick or injured livestock 
suffering from irreversible disease or injury.
    (2) The following methods of euthanasia are not permitted: 
suffocation; manual blow to the head by blunt instrument or manual 
blunt force trauma; 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. Revise Sec.  205.239 to read as follows:


Sec.  205.239  Mammalian and non-avian livestock living conditions.

    (a) The producer of an organic livestock operation must establish 
and maintain year-round livestock living conditions, which accommodate 
the wellbeing and natural behavior of animals, including:
    (1) Year-round access for all animals to the outdoors, 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. 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 of this part, except as provided for in paragraphs (b), (c), 
and (d) of this section.
    (3) Appropriate clean, dry bedding. When roughages are used as 
bedding, they shall have been organically produced in accordance with 
this part by an operation certified under this part, except as provided 
in Sec.  205.236(a)(2)(iii) of this part, and, if applicable, 
organically handled by operations certified under this part.
    (4) Shelter designed to allow for:
    (i) Over a 24-hour period, sufficient space and freedom to lie 
down, turn around, stand up, fully stretch their limbs, 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) Indoor housing must have areas for bedding and resting that 
are sufficiently large, solidly built, and comfortable so that animals 
are kept clean and dry, as appropriate for the species, and free of 
lesions.
    (5) The use of yards, feeding 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.
    (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 until 
completion of the weaning process, provided 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 animals.
    (8) Swine must be housed in a group, except:
    (i) Sows may be housed individually at farrowing and during the 
suckling period; gestation and farrowing crates are prohibited;
    (ii) Boars; and
    (iii) Swine with multiple documented instances of aggression or for 
recovery from an illness.
    (9) Piglets shall not be kept on flat decks or in piglet cages.
    (10) For swine, rooting materials must be provided, except during 
the farrowing and suckling period.
    (11) In confined housing with stalls for mammalian livestock, 
enough stalls must be present to provide for the natural behaviors of 
the animals. 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. For group-housed cattle, bedded packs, compost packs, tie-
stalls, free-stalls, and stanchion barns are all acceptable housing as 
part of an overall organic system plan.
    (12) Outdoor space must be provided year-round. When the outdoor 
space includes soil, vegetative cover must be maintained as appropriate 
for the season, climate, geography, species of livestock, and stage of 
production.
    (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, however, 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: Except, that, animals shall not be confined any 
longer than necessary for natural breeding or to perform artificial 
insemination. Animals may not be confined to observe estrus, and 
animals may not be confined after breeding to confirm pregnancy; 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

[[Page 75447]]

up to 24 hours after the animals have arrived home at the conclusion of 
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, any 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. Add Sec.  205.241 to read as follows:


Sec.  205.241  Avian living conditions.

    (a) Avian year-round living conditions. The producer of an organic 
poultry operation must establish and maintain year-round poultry living 
conditions that 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 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. Continuous total 
confinement of poultry indoors is prohibited.
    (b) Indoor space requirements. (1) Poultry housing must be 
sufficiently spacious to allow all birds to move freely, stretch both 
wings simultaneously, stand normally, and engage in natural behaviors.
    (2) Producers must monitor ammonia levels at least weekly by taking 
measurements at the height of the birds' heads and implement practices 
to maintain ammonia levels below 20 ppm. When ammonia levels exceed 20 
ppm, producers must implement additional practices and additional 
monitoring to reduce ammonia levels below 20 ppm. Ammonia levels must 
not exceed 25 ppm.
    (3) For layers and all other fully feathered birds, artificial 
light may be used to prolong the day length, to provide up to 16 hours 
of continuous light per 24-hour period (i.e., minimum of 8 hours of 
continuous darkness per 24-hour period). Artificial light intensity 
should be lowered gradually to encourage hens to move to perches or 
settle for the night. Artificial light spectrum may not be manipulated 
to increase feed intake and growth rate.
    (4) Exit areas--poultry houses must have at least 1 linear foot of 
exit area for every 360 birds, measured across the base of the exit, 
but no less than one linear foot of exit area for flocks with fewer 
than 360 birds. Exit areas must be appropriately distributed and sized 
to ensure that all birds have ready access to the outdoors;
    (i) If exit areas are not provided at a ratio of at least 1 linear 
foot per 360 birds, a certifier may approve practices that provide less 
than 1 linear feet per 360 birds only if an operation describes its 
practices (in the organic system plan) and demonstrates that ready 
access to the outdoors is provided for all birds;
    (ii) Producers subject to requirements in 21 CFR part 118--
Production, Storage, and Transportation of Shell Eggs, must take steps 
to prevent stray poultry, wild birds, cats, and other animals from 
entering poultry houses.
    (5) Perches--for layers (Gallus gallus), six inches of perch space 
must be provided per bird. Perch space may include the alighting rail 
in front of the nest boxes. All layers must be able to perch at the 
same time except for aviary housing, in which 55 percent of layers must 
be able to perch at the same time. Floors in slatted/mesh floor housing 
cannot be counted as perch space.
    (6) All birds must have access to areas in the house that allow for 
scratching and dust bathing, except, that mobile housing may meet this 
requirement when paired with outdoor space that provides birds with 
areas for scratching and dust bathing. Litter must be provided and 
maintained in a dry condition in the house.
    (7) Non-mobile houses with slatted/mesh floors must have 15 percent 
minimum of solid floor area available with sufficient litter available 
for dust baths so that birds may freely dust bathe without crowding.
    (8) For layers (Gallus gallus), indoor stocking density must meet 
one or both of the following rates, expressed in different terms.
    (i) Mobile housing: not to exceed 4.5 pounds per square foot; or, 
alternatively, a rate of at least 1.5 square feet per bird will comply 
with the requirement.
    (ii) Aviary housing: not to exceed 4.5 pounds per square foot; or, 
alternatively, a rate of at least 1.5 square feet per bird will comply 
with the requirement.
    (iii) Slatted/mesh floor housing: not to exceed 3.75 pounds per 
square foot; or, alternatively, a rate of at least 1.8 square feet per 
bird will comply with the requirement.
    (iv) Floor litter housing: not to exceed 3.0 pounds per square 
foot; or, alternatively, a rate of at least 2.2 square feet per bird 
will comply with the requirement.
    (v) Other housing: not to exceed 2.25 pounds per square foot; or, 
alternatively, a rate of at least 3.0 square feet per bird will comply 
with the requirement.
    (9) For pullets (Gallus gallus), indoor stocking density must not 
exceed 3.0

[[Page 75448]]

pounds of bird per square foot; or, alternatively, a rate of at least 
1.7 square feet per bird will comply with the requirement.
    (10) For broilers (Gallus gallus), indoor stocking density must not 
exceed 5.0 pounds of bird per square foot; or, alternatively, a rate of 
at least 2.0 square feet per bird will comply with the requirement.
    (11) Indoor space includes flat areas available to birds, excluding 
nest boxes.
    (12) Indoor space may include enclosed porches and lean-to type 
structures (e.g., screened in, roofed) as long as the birds always have 
access to the space, including during temporary confinement events. If 
birds do not have continuous access to the porch during temporary 
confinement events, this space must not be considered indoors.
    (c) Outdoor space requirements. (1) Access to outdoor space 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 (i.e., train) birds to go 
outdoors. Birds may be temporarily denied access to the outdoors in 
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) At least 75 percent of outdoor space must be soil. Outdoor 
space with soil must include vegetative cover appropriate for the 
season, climate, geography, species of livestock, and stage of 
production. Vegetative cover must be maintained in a manner that does 
not provide harborage for rodents and other pests.
    (3) Shade may be provided by structures, trees, or other objects in 
the outdoor area.
    (4) For layers (Gallus gallus), outdoor space must be provided at a 
rate of no less than one square foot for every 2.25 pounds of bird in 
the flock; or, alternatively, a rate of at least 3.0 square feet per 
bird will comply with the requirement.
    (5) For pullets (Gallus gallus), outdoor space must be provided at 
a rate of no less than one square foot for every 3.0 pounds of bird in 
the flock; or, alternatively, a rate of at least 1.7 square feet per 
bird will comply with the requirement.
    (6) For broilers (Gallus gallus), outdoor space must be provided at 
a rate of no less than one square foot for every 5.0 pounds of bird in 
the flock; or, alternatively, a rate of at least 2.0 square feet per 
bird will comply with the requirement.
    (7) Outdoor space may include structures that are not enclosed 
(e.g., with roof but no walls) and allow birds to freely access other 
outdoor space.
    (d) Temporary confinement. The producer of an organic poultry 
operation may temporarily confine birds. Confinement must be recorded. 
Operations may temporarily confine birds when one of the following 
circumstances exists:
    (1) Inclement weather, including when air temperatures are under 32 
degrees F or above 90 degrees F.
    (2) The animal's stage of life, including:
    (i) The first 4 weeks of life for broilers (Gallus gallus);
    (ii) The first 16 weeks of life for pullets (Gallus gallus); and
    (iii) Until fully feathered for bird species other than Gallus 
gallus.
    (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 various life stages nor egg laying is an 
illness or injury).
    (6) Sorting or shipping birds and poultry sales, provided that the 
birds are maintained under continuous organic management, throughout 
the extent of their allowed confinement.
    (7) For nest box training, provided that birds shall not be 
confined any longer than required to establish the proper behavior. 
Confinement for nest box training must not exceed five weeks over the 
life of the bird.
    (8) For 4-H, National FFA Organization, and other youth projects, 
provided that temporary confinement 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. 
During temporary confinement, birds must be under continuous organic 
management, including organic feed, for the duration of confinement. 
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) Manure management. 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. The producer must also optimize 
recycling of nutrients and must manage outdoor access areas in a manner 
that does not put soil or water quality at risk.


0
6. Add Sec.  205.242 to read as follows:


Sec.  205.242  Transport and slaughter.

    (a) Transportation. (1) Certified organic livestock must be clearly 
identified as organic, and this identity must be traceable for the 
duration of transport.
    (2) All livestock must be fit for transport to buyers, auction or 
slaughter facilities.
    (i) Calves must have a dry navel cord and be able to stand and walk 
without human assistance.
    (ii) Seriously crippled and non-ambulatory 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) During any transport and prior to slaughter, bedding must be 
provided on trailer floors and in holding pens, as needed, to keep 
livestock clean, dry, and comfortable. Use of bedding must be 
appropriate to the species and type of transport. Bedding is not 
required in poultry crates. When roughages are used for bedding, they 
must be certified organic.
    (5) For transport that exceeds eight hours, measured from the time 
all animals are loaded onto a vehicle until the vehicle arrives at its 
final destination, the operation must describe how organic management 
and animal welfare will be maintained.
    (i) The producer or handler of an organic livestock operation, who 
is responsible for overseeing the transport of organic livestock, must 
provide records to certifying agents during inspections or upon request 
that demonstrate that transport times for organic livestock are not 
detrimental to the welfare of the animals and meet the requirements of 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (6) Organic producers and handlers, who are responsible for 
overseeing the transport of organic livestock, must have emergency 
plans in place that adequately address possible animal welfare problems 
that might occur during transport.
    (b) Mammalian slaughter. (1) Producers and handlers who slaughter 
organic livestock must be in compliance, as determined by FSIS, with 
the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(b) and 21 U.S.C. 
610(b)), the regulations at 9 CFR part 313 regarding humane handling 
and slaughter of livestock, and the

[[Page 75449]]

regulations of 9 CFR part 309 regarding ante-mortem inspection.
    (2) 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.), the regulations at 9 CFR parts 313 and 352 
regarding the humane handling and slaughter of exotic animals, and the 
regulations of 9 CFR part 309 regarding ante-mortem inspection.
    (3) Producers and handlers who slaughter organic livestock or 
exotic animals must provide all noncompliance records related to humane 
handling and slaughter issued by the controlling national, federal, or 
state authority and all records of subsequent corrective actions to 
certifying agents during inspections or upon request.
    (c) Avian slaughter. (1) Producers and handlers who slaughter 
organic poultry must be in compliance, as determined by FSIS, with the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act requirements (21 U.S.C. 453(g)(5)); the 
regulations at paragraph (v) of the definition of ``Adulterated'' in 9 
CFR 381.1(b), and 9 CFR 381.90, and 381.65(b)); and applicable FSIS 
Directives.
    (2) Producers and handlers who slaughter organic poultry must 
provide all noncompliance records related to the use of good commercial 
practices in connection with slaughter issued by the controlling 
national, federal, or state authority and all records of subsequent 
corrective actions to the certifying agent at inspection or upon 
request.
    (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:
    (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, with the exception of religious 
slaughter; and
    (iii) All birds must be irreversibly insensible prior to being 
placed in the scalding tank.


0
7. Add Sec.  205.691 to read as follows:


Sec.  205.691  Severability.

    If any provision of any subpart is declared invalid or the 
applicability thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, 
the validity of the remainder of any subpart or the applicability 
thereof to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected 
thereby.

Erin Morris,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-23726 Filed 11-1-23; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-02-P