[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10775-10783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05029]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2018 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 10775]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 205

[Document Number AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06]
RIN 0581-AD75


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

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule withdraws the Organic Livestock and Poultry 
Practices final rule published in the Federal Register on January 19, 
2017, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing 
Service. The existing organic livestock and poultry regulations remain 
effective.

DATES: Effective May 13, 2018, the final rule published January 19, 
2017, at 82 FR 7042, delayed February 9, 2017, at 82 FR 9967, further 
delayed May 10, 2017, at 82 FR 21677, and further delayed November 14, 
2017, at 82 FR 52643, is withdrawn.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as amended (7 
U.S.C. 6501-6522), authorizes the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA or Department) to establish national standards 
governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically 
produced to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a 
consistent standard and to facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and 
processed food that is organically produced. USDA's Agricultural 
Marketing Service (AMS) administers the National Organic Program (NOP) 
under 7 CFR part 205.

II. Overview of Agency Action

    USDA is withdrawing the OLPP rule based on its current 
interpretation of 7 U.S.C. 6905, under which the OLPP final rule would 
exceed USDA's statutory authority. Withdrawal of the OLPP rule also is 
independently justified based upon USDA's revised assessments of its 
benefits and burdens and USDA's view of sound regulatory policy. This 
is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771. The 
organic livestock and poultry regulations now published at 7 CFR part 
205 remain effective.

III. Related Documents

    Documents related to this final rule include: OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6501-
6524) and its implementing regulations (7 CFR part 205); the OLPP 
proposed rule published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016 (81 
FR 21956); the OLPP final rule published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7042); the final rule delaying the OLPP final 
rule's effective date until May 19, 2017, published in the Federal 
Register on February 9, 2017 (82 FR 9967); the final rule delaying the 
OLPP final rule's effective date until November 14, 2017, published in 
the Federal Register on May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21677); a second proposed 
rule presenting the four options for agency action listed in Section I, 
supra, published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21742); 
a final rule further delaying the OLPP final rule's effective date 
until May 14, 2018, published in the Federal Register on November 14, 
2017 (82 FR 52643); and a proposed rule explaining AMS' intent to 
withdraw the OLPP final rule, published in the Federal Register on 
December 18, 2017 (82 FR 59988).

IV. Public Comments

    AMS received approximately 72,000 comments on the proposal to 
withdraw the OLPP final rule. The majority of comments, over 63,000, 
opposed the withdrawal of that final rule. This included over 56,000 
comments submitted as form letters. Approximately fifty comments 
supported withdrawal of the OLPP final rule. This included five 
comments submitted as form letters. The remaining comments, about 
7,800, did not state a clear opinion about the proposed withdrawal of 
the rule.
    Commenters opposing withdrawal included consumers, organic farmers, 
organic handlers, organizations representing animal welfare, 
environmental, or farming interests, trade associations, certifying 
agents and inspectors, and retailers. These commenters expressed the 
view that the OFPA provides AMS the legal authority to implement the 
OLPP final rule and that withdrawal violates the Administrative 
Procedure Act and/or the OFPA, because AMS did not consult with the 
National Organic Standards Board. These commenters asserted that the 
organic sector requested the OLPP regulation and the rulemaking 
reflects consensus within the organic sector and a working public-
private partnership with years of input from stakeholders. A number of 
commenters also opposed withdrawal because of potential negative 
impacts for the welfare of farm animals.
    Some commenters opposing the withdrawal also challenged the 
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA, published December 18, 
2017 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=AMS-NOP-15-0012-6687) 
for the withdrawal of the OLPP final rule. These commenters claimed 
that (1) organic certification is voluntary and, therefore, there are 
no costs associated with the OLPP final rule, (2) economic 
considerations are not a legally permissible basis for withdrawing the 
OLPP final rule and are irrelevant because OFPA is not a cost-benefit 
statute, and (3) the PRIA failed to consider qualitative benefits.
    Some comments objected to AMS' conclusion that there is no 
significant market failure to justify this rulemaking and stated that 
consumer deception caused by inconsistent application of outdoor access 
requirements for poultry is the market failure that OFPA prevents by 
compelling AMS to develop consistent standards. These commenters argued 
that withdrawal of the OLPP final rule would erode consumer confidence 
and trust in the organic label. Commenters also requested an extension 
of the public comment period, from 30 to 90 days, specifically noting 
they needed more time to study the revisions discussed in the 
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) and develop meaningful 
comments.

[[Page 10776]]

    Commenters supporting withdrawal of the OLPP final rule included 
organic farmers, state departments of agriculture, and trade 
associations. These commenters agreed that the OLPP final rule exceeded 
the scope of authority granted to AMS through OFPA to regulate specific 
animal health care practices. These commenters stated that withdrawing 
the OLPP final rule would prevent increased costs to producers and 
consumers from costly structural changes and higher prices for organic 
eggs, respectively. Some commenters also supported the withdrawal 
because of concerns that the outdoor access requirements for organic 
poultry would heighten disease risk and interfere with biosecurity 
practices and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements.

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

A. Statutory Authority

    In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), AMS proposed to 
withdraw the OLPP Rule due to a lack of statutory authority and to 
maintain consistency with USDA regulatory policy principles. The 
proposal stated that ``the relevant language and context suggests 
OFPA's reference to additional regulatory standards `for the care' of 
organically produced livestock should be limited to health care 
practices similar to those specified by Congress in the statute, rather 
than expanded to encompass stand-alone animal welfare concerns. 7 
U.S.C. 6509(d)(2).'' The NPRM included a detailed analysis of the 
relevant legal authorities leading to the proposed action. (82 FR 
59989-90).
    AMS received approximately fifteen comments directly addressing 
AMS' proposed interpretation, of which three agreed with AMS' 
interpretation that OFPA does not provide statutory authority for the 
OLPP final rule. After reviewing these comments, AMS maintains its 
interpretation that OFPA does not provide authority for the OLPP final 
rule and has decided to withdraw it. Consequently, the existing organic 
livestock and poultry regulations now published at 7 CFR part 205 
remain effective.
1. Analysis of Its Authority Under the OFPA To Issue Stand-Alone Animal 
Welfare Regulations
    The OLPP final rule consisted, in large part, of rules clarifying 
how producers and handlers participating in the National Organic 
Program must treat livestock and poultry to ensure their wellbeing (82 
FR 7042). AMS is withdrawing the OLPP final rule because it now 
believes OFPA does not authorize the animal welfare provisions of the 
OLPP final rule. Rather, the agency's current reading of the statute, 
given the relevant language and context, is that OFPA's reference in 7 
U.S.C. 6509(d)(2) to additional regulatory standards ``for the care'' 
of organically produced livestock does not encompass stand-alone 
concerns about animal welfare, but rather is limited to practices that 
are similar to those specified by Congress in the statute and necessary 
to meet congressional objectives outlined in 7 U.S.C. 6501.
    USDA believes that the Department's power to act and how it may act 
are authoritatively prescribed by statutory language and context; USDA 
believes that it may not lawfully regulate outside the boundaries of 
legislative text.\1\ Therefore, in considering the scope of its lawful 
authority, USDA believes the threshold question should be whether 
Congress has authorized the proposed action. If a statute is silent or 
ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, then USDA believes that its 
interpretation is entitled to deference and the question becomes simply 
whether USDA's action is based on a permissible statutory 
construction.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1868 (2013).
    \2\ See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 
467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984); City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OLPP final rule is a broadly prescriptive animal welfare 
regulation (82 FR 7042, 7074, 7082). USDA's general OFPA implementing 
authority was used as justification for the OLPP final rule, which 
cited 7 U.S.C. 6509(g) as ``convey(ing) the intent for the USDA to 
develop more specific standards. . . .'' (82 FR 7043), and 7 U.S.C. 
6509(d)(2) as authorizing regulations for animal ``wellbeing'' and the 
``care of livestock.'' (82 FR 7042, 7074, 7082).
    But nothing in section 6509 authorizes the broadly prescriptive, 
stand-alone animal welfare regulations contained in the OLPP final 
rule. Rather, section 6509 outlines discrete aspects of animal 
production practices and materials relevant to organic certification: 
sources of breeder stock, livestock feed, use of hormones and growth 
promoters, animal health care, and record-keeping. While subsection 
6509(d)(2) authorizes promulgation of additional standards for the 
``care'' of livestock, that provision is not free-standing authority 
for AMS to adopt any regulation conceivably related to animal ``care''; 
rather, standards promulgated under that authority must be relevant to 
``ensur[ing] that [organic] livestock is organically produced.'' 7 
U.S.C. 6509(d)(2). Similarly, section 6509(g) is not open-ended 
authority to regulate any and all aspects of livestock production; 
rather, it authorizes AMS to promulgate regulations to ``guide the 
implementation of the standards for livestock products provided under 
this section'' (emphasis added); in other words, standards relevant to 
and necessitated by the expressed purposes of Congress in enacting the 
OFPA. Thus, standards promulgated pursuant to section 6509(d)(2) and 
section 6509(g) must be relevant to ensuring that livestock is 
``organically produced.''
    Although Congress did not define the term ``organically produced'' 
in the OFPA, the Cambridge Dictionary defines ``organic'' as ``not 
using artificial chemicals in the growing of plans and animals for food 
and other products.'' Merriam-Webster defines ``organic'' as ``of, 
relating to, yielding, or involving the use of food produced with the 
use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment 
of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, 
or pesticides'' (emphasis added). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic. The surrounding provisions in section 6509 
demonstrate that Congress had a similar understanding of the term 
``organic.'' For example, subsection 6509(d)(2)'s authority for 
promulgation of additional standards governing animal ``care'' is 
contained within a subsection entitled ``Health care'' and follows a 
list of three specifically prohibited health care practices that each 
relate to ingestion or administration of chemical, synthetic, or non-
naturally-occurring substances: Use of subtherapeutic doses of 
antibiotics; routine use of synthetic internal parasiticides; and 
administration of medication, other than vaccines, absent illness. AMS 
believes these prohibited practices--all of which relate to ingestion 
of chemical, artificial, or non-organic substances--are representative 
of the types of practices and standards that Congress intended to limit 
exposure of animals to non-organic substances and thus ``ensure that 
[organic] livestock is organically produced.'' Thus, the authority 
provided by section 6509(d)(2) does not extend to any and all aspects 
of animal ``care''; it is limited to those aspects of animal care that 
are similar to the examples provided in the statue and relate to 
ingestion or administration of non-organic substances, thus tracking 
the purposes of the OFPA.
    Reading this language in context, AMS now believes that the 
authority granted in section 6509(d)(2) and

[[Page 10777]]

section 6509(g) for the Secretary to issue additional regulations 
fairly extends only to those aspects of animal care that are similar to 
those described in section 6509(d)(1)--i.e., relate to the ingestion or 
administration of non-organic substances, thus tracking the purposes of 
the OFPA--and that are shown to be necessary to meet the congressional 
objectives specified in 7 U.S.C. 6501.
    AMS finds that its rulemaking authority in section 6509(d)(2) 
should not be construed in isolation, but rather should be interpreted 
in light of section 6509(d)(1) and section 6509(g). Furthermore, AMS 
believes that a decision to withdraw the OLPP final rule based on Sec.  
6509's language, titles, and position within Chapter 94 of Title 7 of 
the United States Code; \3\ controlling Supreme Court authorities; and 
general USDA regulatory policy, would be a permissible statutory 
construction.
2. Public Comments on AMS' Analysis
    a. One commenter said that ``Agency reconsideration of a rule . . . 
[previously] approved by the agency and the Office of Management and 
Budget under a previous administration is arbitrary, capricious, and an 
abuse of discretion.'' Others suggested that the agency's prior 
consideration of ``animal welfare'' was binding and dispositive. 
However, AMS has broad discretion to reconsider a regulation at any 
time. Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 8-9 (D.C. Cir. 2017). 
Furthermore, AMS' interpretation of OFPA ``is not instantly carved in 
stone,'' but may be evaluated ``on a continuing basis.'' Chevron U.S.A. 
Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 863-64 (1984). This is true when, as 
is the case here, the agency's review is undertaken in response to a 
change in administrations. National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. 
Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005).
    b. AMS sought comment on the proposed construction of its 
rulemaking authority, suggesting that the relevant OFPA text did not 
authorize the broadly prescriptive, stand-alone animal welfare 
regulations in the OLPP final rule, and noting that, even if OFPA were 
deemed to be silent or ambiguous with respect to the authority issue, a 
decision to withdraw the OLPP final rule based on section 6509's 
language, titles, and position within Chapter 94 of Title 7 of the 
United States Code; relevant legal authorities; and general USDA 
regulatory policy, would be a permissible statutory construction. AMS 
was led to this position by the Supreme Court's admonition that it may 
properly exercise discretion only in the interstices created by 
statutory silence or ambiguity and that it must always give effect to 
the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The U.S. Supreme Court established the legal standard for review 
for an agency's interpretation of a statute that it administers in 
Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43:

    First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly 
spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress 
is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as 
the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent 
of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not 
directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not 
simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be 
necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. 
Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the 
specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's 
answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

    Several commenters challenged the proposed action based on an 
expansive construction of the statutory term ``care'' largely divorced 
from the surrounding context of the OFPA. This interpretation would 
suggest that Congress delegated the Secretary virtually un-cabined 
regulatory authority over organic livestock producers.
    Under City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013), the Supreme 
Court held that the Chevron framework applies to an agency's 
interpretation of ambiguous statutory language concerning the scope of 
its authority. Id. at 302 (``[W]e have consistently held `that Chevron 
applies to cases in which an agency adopts a construction of a 
jurisdictional provision of a statute it administers.' 1 R. Pierce, 
Administrative Law Treatise Sec.  3.5, p. 187 (2010).''). While the 
regulations in City of Arlington were based on an expansive 
construction of statutory authority, AMS is aware of no reason, and 
commenters cited none, suggesting deference is limited to 
interpretations of expansive authority. Rather, the City of Arlington 
decision is not a one-way ratchet; and an agency would also be entitled 
to deference when it interprets the scope of its authority narrowly.
    Some commenters also stated that certain parts of the OLPP Rule do 
relate to animal health care, such as provisions concerning physical 
alterations. OFPA does not define the terms ``care,'' ``health care,'' 
``welfare,'' or ``wellbeing.'' Accordingly, some commenters rejected 
the contextual construction adopted by AMS to argue that the reference 
in section 6509(d)(2) to additional standards ``for the care of 
livestock to ensure that such livestock is organically produced'' 
necessarily encompasses the statutory authority to issue stand-alone 
animal welfare regulations because animal health and welfare are 
``inextricably linked.'' This requires an expansive interpretation of 
the direction to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to 
``recommend to the Secretary standards in addition to those in 
paragraph (1) for the care of livestock'' in 7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(2) to 
encompass stand-alone animal welfare standards. However, the regulatory 
authority conferred by subparagraph (d)(2) does not extend to all 
aspects of animal care, but rather is limited to those necessary to 
``ensure that such livestock is organically produced.''
    Moreover, subparagraph (d)(2) specifically refers back to 
subparagraph (d)(1) when calling for standards of livestock care in 
addition to the prohibitions set forth in subparagraph (d)(1). This 
demonstrates that any additional standards promulgated pursuant to 
section (d)(2) are to be similar to those set forth in section (d)(1), 
all of which are related to ensuring that organic livestock is raised 
with minimal administration of chemical and synthetic substances. That 
subparagraph's reference to ``care for livestock'' cannot be read more 
expansively than the previous references to animal health care found in 
section 6509 generally. Thus, even if some aspects of the OLPP Rule--
such as certain provisions pertaining to physical alterations--can be 
characterized as relating to ``health care,'' AMS finds that they are 
not related to the OFPA's overarching purpose of regulating the use of 
chemical and synthetic substances in organic farming. Therefore, 
section 6509 does not provide authority for those provisions. AMS notes 
that some commenters agree with this interpretation of section 6509(d).
    c. Several commenters also cited certain passages from OFPA's 
legislative history that they claim demonstrate Congress' intention to 
give the Secretary authority to regulate the stand-alone welfare of 
organic livestock, but they either misinterpret or selectively quote 
the legislative history. Specifically, the commenters noted that Senate 
Report 101-357, which accompanied S. 2830, the Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, states, ``[t]he Committee expects 
that, after due consideration and the reception of public comment, the 
[National Organic

[[Page 10778]]

Standards Board or NOSB] will best determine the necessary balance 
between the goal of restricting livestock medications and the need to 
provide humane conditions for livestock rearing.'' The commenters 
suggest that this reference to ``the need to provide humane conditions 
for livestock rearing'' is proof that OFPA authorizes USDA to 
promulgate wide-ranging animal welfare regulations for organic 
livestock to ensure ``humane conditions for livestock rearing.''
    However, this statement actually states that the NOSB is to weigh 
the fact that administering certain livestock medications to livestock 
may disqualify said livestock from claiming organic status against the 
fact that withholding these medications in order to claim organic 
status may in fact be inhumane; it does not direct or authorize the 
Secretary to issue regulations to promote animal welfare by ensuring 
that organic livestock are reared humanely. In other words, the Senate 
Report does not equate organic production with humane treatment; to the 
contrary, it conveys an understanding that organic production may be in 
tension with humane rearing. To the extent that is so, the Senate 
Report suggests that AMS may relax organic objectives in order to 
accommodate countervailing principles of humane treatment. But the 
Senate Report in no way suggests that AMS is permitted to regulate 
animal welfare as a stand-alone objective. Furthermore, the commenters 
were selectively quoting from the Senate Report; the full statement 
reads as follows:

    The Committee felt strongly that organically produced feed 
should be required for livestock. However, on the issue of livestock 
medication, the Committee felt that this required further 
consideration by the National Organic Standards Board. Livestock 
parasiticides and medications must be on the National List in order 
to be used but in no case shall livestock be given subtherapeutic 
doses of antibiotics, synthetic internal parasiticides on a routine 
basis, or be administered medication other than vaccinations in the 
absence of illness. The Committee expects that, after due 
consideration and the reception of public comment, the Board will 
best determine the necessary balance between the goal of restricting 
livestock medications and the need to provide humane conditions for 
livestock rearing.

1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4656, 4956.
    The language preceding that cited by the commenters strengthens, 
rather than refutes, USDA's belief that section 6509(d)(2) authorizes 
AMS only to establish additional medical standards for the care of 
livestock to ensure that these livestock are organically produced. This 
legislative history supports an interpretation that the Secretary does 
not have the authority to promulgate stand-alone animal welfare organic 
requirements.
    Several commenters also noted that the Senate Report and the House 
Conference Report 101-916 on the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
Trade Act of 1990 make references to the expectation that USDA would 
promulgate regulations regarding livestock standards. However, this 
legislative history does not specify that the referenced livestock 
standards go beyond the specific types of practices referenced in the 
statute to include animal welfare. Rather, they are general statements 
that do not change the statutory plain meaning or AMS's permissible 
interpretation of the scope of its statutory authority.
    d. Several commenters argued that AMS may not withdraw the OLPP 
final rule because it did not consult with the NOSB prior to proposing 
the withdrawal. Additionally, they stated that withdrawal would be 
improper because it is contrary to the NOSB's recommendations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These commenters offer a constitutionally troubling 
construction of the OFPA. To comply with the Appointments Clause of 
the U.S. Constitution, National Organic Standards Board members must 
serve at the pleasure of the Secretary and be subordinate to him or 
her. The Secretary must be free to accept, reject, or revise the 
recommendations of an advisory committee such as the NOSB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OFPA requires USDA to consult with the NOSB on certain matters and 
to receive recommendations from it, but nothing in OFPA requires AMS to 
consult the NOSB at every phase of the rule making process or makes the 
NOSB's recommendations binding on the Secretary, nor could it.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OFPA requires AMS to consult with the NOSB only under 
limited circumstances: In developing the organic certification 
program (section 6503(c)), exemption for certain processed food 
(section 6505(c)), and certification and labeling of wild seafood 
(section 6506(c)). Thus, OFPA does not require AMS to consult with 
the NOSB prior to undertaking a rulemaking to withdraw the OLPP 
final rule. Additionally, requiring USDA to consult NOSB on every 
action that it takes with respect to organic standards and practices 
would be impractical. The NOSB meets only twice a year and is not 
available for consultation on the many steps involved in a 
significant rulemaking. Regardless, AMS did present to the NOSB an 
update concerning the status of the proposed withdrawal of the OLPP 
final rule. AMS participated in the NOSB's meeting in the April 
2017, during which NOSB discussed the delayed effective date of the 
OLPP final rule and unanimously voted to ``urge[ ] the Secretary to 
allow the [OLPP] Rule to become effective on May 19, 2017 without 
further delay.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. Several commenters argued that 7 U.S.C. 6506(a)(11) \7\ and 6512 
\8\ provided additional statutory authority for the OLPP final rule. 
Sections 6506(a)(11) and 6512 do not convey to the Secretary limitless 
and unfettered discretion to require whatever terms and conditions he 
or she may want. Rather, the exercise of discretion under those 
sections must be grounded in the statutory authority for the organic 
production. As discussed above for Sec.  6509, the authority for care 
of organic livestock is to ensure that organic livestock is raised with 
minimal administration of chemical and synthetic substances. 
Additionally, to the extent that section 6506(a)(11) may provide 
authority for livestock care regulations, it does so only if the 
Secretary determines that they are necessary, which the OLPP final rule 
is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``[R]equire such other terms and conditions as may be 
determined by the Secretary to be necessary.''
    \8\ ``If a production or handling practice is not prohibited or 
otherwise restricted under this chapter, such practice shall be 
permitted unless it is determined that such practice would be 
inconsistent with the applicable organic certification program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    f. Certain commenters noted that NOSB made recommendations 
concerning animal welfare standards and living conditions over a period 
of nearly two decades, a situation that has caused a majority of small- 
and medium-sized operations to have significant reliance interests in 
animal welfare standards under NOP rules in general, including the OLPP 
final rule. They further asserted that, under Encino Motorcars v. 
Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117 (2016), AMS is required to address any 
disruption of long standing policies upon which the industry may have 
relied but has failed to do so. As proof of such reliance, some 
commenters asserted that they have made capital expenditures based on 
the 2002 NOP policy statement on outdoor access and 7 CFR 205.239.
    The subject matter of Encino Motorcars is distinguishable from this 
rule. The Court in Encino Motorcars was concerned with the Department 
of Labor's decision to reverse an established rule that had governed 
the regulated industry for over 30 years, thereby upsetting a 
longstanding, and therefore, settled reliance interest (``[I]n 
explaining its changed position, an agency must be cognizant that 
longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests 
that must be taken into account (emphasis added)'').\9\ The commenters 
who claimed that USDA should consider their ``reliance interests'' 
acknowledged that they relied on a history of NOSB recommendations 
(which do not constitute official USDA policy) and the NOP policies and 
regulations that are already in effect,

[[Page 10779]]

rather than the OLPP final rule. Indeed, they could not have relied 
(and did not assert specific reliance upon) the OLPP final rule because 
AMS published that rule in the Federal Register in January 2017 and it 
never went into effect. Accordingly, any capital investments or other 
activities that the regulated industry made in order to comply with the 
OLPP rule prior to its effective date were not made pursuant to that 
rule, but in accordance with existing NOP policies and regulations 
governing animal welfare standards. USDA is not proposing to withdraw 
existing organic animal welfare standards or the 2002 NOP policy 
statement on outdoor access, and they remain in effect. Therefore, 
withdrawal of the OLPP final rule is not a reversal of a longstanding 
agency policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Encino Motorcars, 136 S. Ct. at 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Finally, several commenters disagreed with USDA's current 
interpretation of OFPA by noting that USDA previously promulgated 7 CFR 
205.238, 205.239, and 205.240, which they interpret to address the 
wellbeing of organic livestock. They cited those regulations as proof 
that USDA has authority to promulgate stand-alone animal welfare 
standards. In the alternative, they noted that some of these standards 
address animal health and they question why the OLPP final rule cannot 
be promulgated on the same ground.
    AMS notes that the validity of Sec. Sec.  205.238, 205.239, and 
205.240 is not before it in the present rulemaking. As such, a detailed 
consideration of whether those regulations accord with AMS' statutory 
interpretation is not within the scope of this rulemaking. Thus, even 
if AMS were to decide that it does not have authority to promulgate 
those regulations under OFPA, it could not withdraw them through this 
final rule because the NPRM did not provide notice that this action was 
under consideration. As part of the regulatory reform review, however, 
AMS may seek comment in the future regarding whether the cited 
regulations are in accordance with AMS' statutory authority.

B. Impact of OLPP Final Rule on Producers and Lack of Market Failure

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to assess the 
costs and benefits of economically significant regulatory actions. 
Executive Order 12866 also generally requires that the agency ``propose 
or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the 
benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and further, 
that the agency ``shall tailor its regulations to impose the least 
burden on society . . .'' Executive Order 12866 also states that 
``Federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are 
required by law, are necessary to interpret the law, or are made 
necessary by compelling need, such as material failures of private 
markets . . .'' While participation in the NOP is technically 
voluntary, this fact does not neutralize the impacts of changes to the 
USDA organic regulations because Executive Order 12866 does not exempt 
regulations of voluntary programs from this evaluation. Changes to the 
regulations could affect voluntary participation and would have real 
costs.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated OLPP as an 
economically significant rule. Under Executive Order 12866, AMS is 
obligated to consider whether the potential impacts of the OLPP rule 
meet the principles of Executive Order 12866 and demonstrate a need for 
regulation. AMS did not identify a market failure in the OLPP final 
rule RIA and therefore AMS has now concluded that regulation is 
unwarranted. In fact, several organic producers and organizations that 
oppose withdrawal of the OLPP rule, including a few that argued that 
there was market failure necessitating the OLPP final rule, purchased a 
full-page advertisement in a newpaper about this rulemaking. In it they 
recognized that ``[o]rganic farmers have pioneered new practices to 
enhance animal welfare because consumers demand it and because it makes 
farms resilient and profitable.'' \10\ If this is true, it is 
additional evidence from those involved in organic production that 
supports AMS' conclusion that the market is working and that additional 
regulation is unwarranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Washington Post, January 16, 2018, Page A7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, AMS maintains that the costs of the OLPP final rule 
outweigh potential benefits. After publication of the OLPP final rule, 
AMS discovered a mathematical error in the calculation of benefits. The 
error was related to the formula used to calculate the 7 percent and 3 
percent discount rates. In addition, AMS determined that there was a 
more suitable willingness-to-pay estimate for outdoor access than the 
range used to estimated benefits in the OLPP final rule. Although there 
was another error correction that moved the results in the opposite 
direction, the estimated benefits declined overall when AMS 
recalculated those values based on the above findings. In summary, 
given the high degree of uncertainty and subjectivity in evaluating the 
benefits of the OLPP final rule, and the lack of any market failure to 
justify intervention, and the clear potential for additional regulation 
to distort the market or drive away consumers, even if the comparison 
of costs and benefits was a close call, AMS would choose not to 
regulate as a policy matter.
    Several commenters opined that AMS did not properly account for 
qualitative benefits to farm animals and producers in determining that 
there are net costs for the OLPP final rule. AMS finds that the 
qualitative benefits are speculative because it is uncertain that 
organic farmers and consumers would see positive impacts from 
implementation of the OLPP rule. The assertion that the OLPP final rule 
would result in economic benefits from healthier animals is not 
supported by information or research linking outdoor access on pasture 
or vegetation to improved economic outcomes for producers. AMS did not 
use the potential outcome of healthier animals as justification for the 
OLPP final rule. The withdrawal of the OLPP final rule does not prevent 
organic producers from providing outdoor access on pasture or 
vegetation, communicating that to consumers, and receiving any 
potential benefits from those practices.
    AMS concludes that the costs to consumers of implementing the OLPP 
final rule would outweigh any potential benefits to consumers because 
it anticipates that a significant portion (50 percent) of current 
organic egg producers would exit the organic market following 
implementation, resulting in supply shortages and price increases for 
organic eggs. The OLPP final rule RIA estimated that organic egg prices 
could increase by a mean of $1.25 per dozen (assuming a demand 
elasticity of 1.0) as a result of that rule, which exceeded the RIA's 
estimate of consumers' willingness to pay for the costs of implementing 
the OLPP final rule. Furthermore, as AMS explained in the PRIA issued 
in connection with this final rule on withdrawal, the initial consumer 
willingness-to-pay estimates for eggs from hens with outdoor access 
were likely overstated in the RIA for the OLPP final rule and should be 
lower (initial range: $0.21 to $0.49 per dozen versus revised range: 
$0.16 to $0.25 per dozen). Therefore, the estimated benefits in the RIA 
for the OLPP final rule were inflated, and there are no clear net 
benefits for producers or consumers from implementation of the OLPP 
final rule.
    Ultimately, the reduction of potential qualitative benefits, as a 
result of recalculations due to mathematical errors, the absence of a 
market failure,

[[Page 10780]]

and tenuous qualitative benefits leaves net costs that would be overly 
burdensome to organic producers and consumers.
    Some commenters have stated that withdrawal of the rule would 
undermine public trust and consumer confidence in the organic label. 
AMS believes, based on data and experience, that this outcome will not 
be realized. First, the withdrawal of the OLPP final rule maintains the 
current organic regulations for livestock that cover health care 
practices and living conditions, including the requirement for year-
round outdoor access. This rule does not withdraw any requirements that 
are currently codified in the USDA organic regulations for livestock. 
AMS anticipates that consumer confidence in the organic label will be 
preserved and that certified organic livestock producers will continue 
to use that label to differentiate their products in the marketplace.
    Further, market data suggests that consumer perception of the USDA 
organic regulations, which will remain in effect upon withdrawal of the 
OLPP final rule, is positive. Under the current regulations, sales of 
organic products have increased annually. From 2007 to 2016, the number 
of organic layers has increased by 12.7% annually. The Organic Trade 
Association (OTA) 2017 Organic Industry Survey reports, ``2016 was a 
tremendous year for organic meat and poultry, with sales growing 
17.2%.'' That survey further states, ``Consumers have moved from 
conventional to natural to hormone-free or grass-fed, and now finally 
to organic or organic grass-fed as they understand all that organic 
encompasses.'' Regarding organic eggs, the OTA 2017 Organic Industry 
Survey predicted that the organic egg market will ``stabilize'' by the 
latter half of 2017, after the supply of organic eggs spiked in 
response to the 2015 outbreak of Avian Influenza and the drop in demand 
for organic eggs in 2016 due to the wide price gap between organic and 
conventional.
    These market data do not support commenters' assertions that the 
withdrawal of the OLPP final rule and maintenance of current 
regulations will damage consumer confidence and trust in organic 
products. The industry has continued to expand under the current 
regulations and the outlook for continued growth in the organic sector 
has not been predicated upon the implementation of the OLPP final rule. 
Further, the OTA survey indicates that consumers are choosing organic 
meat and poultry, demonstrating consumer validation of the sufficiency 
of the existing regulations; plainly, the organic label is an effective 
means for product differentiation in the marketplace.
    A number of commenters mentioned that withrawal of the rule 
contradicts the ``consensus'' favoring new, broadly prescriptive 
regulations and that considerations for animal welfare should override 
potential costs. Commenters urged implementation of the OLPP final rule 
because the organic industry requested that regulation.
    AMS will not regulate when statutory authority is insufficient and 
potential costs do not justify potential benefits, whether there is a 
pro-regulatory ``consensus'' or not. As a matter of USDA regulatory 
policy, AMS should not regulate simply because some industry players 
believe that more regulations will help their competitive position. 
Furthermore, AMS believes the very notion of a ``consensus'' is at odds 
with prior public comments and some data on consumer behavior around 
organic purchases. In response to the April 2016 OLPP proposed rule, 
AMS received a number of comments representing consumer and organic 
farmer interests that stated that the current USDA organic regulations 
are adequate and enforceable and new regulations are not necessary or 
preferable. In the 2017 OTA U.S. Families' Organic Attitudes and 
Behavior survey, respondents were asked to rank the importance of 
several ``true'' statements about organic products. The statement, 
``Animals used in the production of organic food are treated humanely, 
fed an organic diet and are not rasied in confinement,'' was ranked 
fourth out of fourteen.\11\ This data, plus the reports of increased 
sales in organic livestock products, shows consumer trust in the 
current practices and requirements for organic livestock products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The question provided a list and asked, ``All of the 
following statements are true with regards to products certified as 
organic by the USDA. From this list, what is or would be most 
important to you, if any, when deciding whether or not to purchase 
organic foods specifically? The statement, ``Animals used in the 
production of organic foods are treated humanely, fed an organic 
diet and not raised in confinement,'' ranked 4 out of 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the mere fact that some organic consumers care about 
animal welfare does not mean that the term ``organic'' should be 
equated with animal welfare assurances.
    The current USDA organic regulations, which will remain in effect, 
have standards for livestock healthcare, feed, and living conditions. A 
central premise of these regulations, which producers must uphold and 
certifying agents must enforce, is for year-round living conditions 
that accommodate the health and natural behavior of the animals. 
Moreover, AMS has estimated that a sizeable portion of organic 
livestock producers already meet the requirements in the OLPP final 
rule. In the RIA for the OLPP final rule, AMS stated that the mammalian 
livestock provisions of the OLPP final rule largely codify existing 
industry practices. In addition, AMS estimated that the majority of 
organic egg producers and about half of organic egg production meet the 
outdoor access requirements in the OLPP final rule. The withdrawal of 
the OLPP final rule would not compel changes in organic livestock 
production for these producers, who can continue to cater to consumers 
willing to pay a premium for animal welfare guarantees if they choose. 
Finally, the withdrawal of the OLPP final rule does not restrict 
organic producers from using private certification labels to 
communicate additional information to consumers about production 
practices or product attributes.
    Some commenters asserted that the voluntary nature of the organic 
program mitigates the potential costs of implementing the OLPP final 
rule. The bases for evaluating the potential costs of compliance are 
the requirements of Executive Order 12866 and the final rule 
establishing the NOP in 2002 (65 FR 80548). The 2002 final rule 
quantified costs of complying with that rule, e.g., voluntarily 
obtaining or maintaining organic certification. AMS cannot negate the 
costs of the OLPP final rule on the basis that obtaining organic 
certification is voluntary because some producers that are in 
compliance with current regulations would incur costs to either change 
practices or to exit organic production. AMS notes that participation 
in many regulated markets is technically voluntary, but participants 
nevertheless invest substantial resources in and frequently stake their 
livelihoods on such participation. Moreover, the voluntary nature of 
the market is not an answer for consumers that would like to purchase 
organic products but cannot afford the premium that will result from 
the cost of implementing the OLPP rule. These consumers could be 
excluded from the organic market despite their preference to 
participate.
    A number of commenters also addressed biosecurity and disease risk, 
stating that some of the outdoor access requirements, such as the 
presence of vegetation and no roofs, conflict with FDA requirements and 
biosecurity practices. These comments were also submitted in response 
to the April 2016 OLPP proposed rule and were addressed in the OLPP 
final rule (p. 7068-7070;

[[Page 10781]]

7072). Existing USDA organic regulations allow for the temporary 
confinement of animals for conditions under which the health, safety, 
or well-being of the animal could be jeopardized. AMS acknowledges that 
the existing requirements for outdoor access and the provisions for 
temporary confinement provide organic producers with the flexibility to 
mitigate biosecurity and disease risks.
    A comment noted that AMS must assess the impact of withdrawing the 
OLPP final rule on the equivalency arrangements with the European Union 
and Canada and the economic impacts of the potential dissolution of 
those agreements as a result of this action. In the OLPP final rule, 
AMS responded to comments concerning potential impacts on trade 
agreements (p. 7080). AMS' responses to these comments remains the 
same.
    AMS provided a 30-day public comment period in order to consider 
the public comments received on the proposed withdrawal and make a 
final decision on the OLPP final rule by the current effective date of 
May 14, 2018. AMS did not grant requests for extension of the public 
comment period because interested parties had the opportunity to 
comment on the underlying OLPP final rule in 2016 as well as the 
rulemaking in 2017 that culminated in the delay of the effective of the 
OLPP final rule until May 14, 2018. Moreover, commenters were on notice 
of the proposal since November 14, 2017, when it was discussed in a 
final rule published on that date. Furthermore, and in light of this 
backdrop, the December 18, 2017 proposed rule presented discrete issues 
that interested parties should have been able to address within the 30-
day comment period. Additionally, extending the comment period would 
have prevented AMS from resolving the status of the OLPP rulemaking by 
May 14, 2018.
    For the reasons described above, AMS maintains that the OLPP final 
rule exceeds AMS' scope of authority under OFPA and would be overly 
burdensome for organic poultry producers. Therefore, AMS is withdrawing 
the OLPP final rule.

VI. Executive Orders 12866/13563 Review

    This section provides an Executive Summary of the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA) for this final rule on withdrawal. A full analysis is 
posted on the Regulations.gov website. This rulemaking has been 
designated as an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866, and, therefore, has been reviewed by OMB. This 
RIA on withdrawal remains unchanged from the PRIA because AMS did not 
receive new information via public comments on the December 18, 2017 
proposed rule that would have altered the RIA.
    Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 control regulatory review. 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 
and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and, if regulation 
is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net 
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health 
and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, 
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive 
Order 13771 directs Agencies to identify at least two existing 
regulations to be repealed for every new regulation unless prohibited 
by law. The total incremental cost of all regulations issued in a given 
fiscal year must have costs within the amount of incremental costs 
allowed by the Director of OMB, unless otherwise required by law or 
approved in writing by the Director of OMB. This rule is an Executive 
Order 13771 deregulatory action. AMS estimates that withdrawal of the 
OLPP final rule will result in cost savings of $10.2 million to $32.6 
million per year, discounted at 7 percent over 15 years. When factored 
over perpetuity and extended to account for future years, the estimated 
cost savings become, on an annualized basis, $8.5 million to $34.9 
million. Details on the estimated cost savings of this rule over 15 
years can be found in the RIA, posted separately and summarized below.
    The estimated costs of implementing the OLPP final rule were based 
on three potential scenarios of how organic egg producers would 
respond. First, AMS estimated that if all organic livestock and poultry 
producers came into compliance, the costs would be $28.7 to $31 million 
each year. Second, if 50 percent of the organic egg producers moved to 
the cage-free egg market and the organic industry continues to grow at 
historical rates, the estimated costs are $11.7-$12.0 million. Plus, 
AMS estimated transfers in the amount of $79.5 million to $86.3 million 
per year for producers that move from the organic to the cage-free 
market and lose the organic price premium. Third, if 50 percent of the 
organic egg producers moved to the cage-free egg market and there were 
no new entrants that could not already comply, the estimated costs are 
$8.2 million. For this scenario, AMS estimated transfers to be $43.7 
million to $47.4 million per year. These costs do not include an 
additional $1.95-$3.9 million associated with the estimated paperwork 
burden. Withdrawing the OLPP final rule prevents these potential costs 
from taking effect, resulting in substantial organic poultry producer 
cost savings.
    The estimated benefits of implementing the OLPP final rule were 
calculated for the three scenarios above and were based on consumer 
willingness-to-pay for outdoor access for laying hens. If all organic 
livestock and poultry producers came into compliance, AMS estimated the 
benefits would be $13.0-$31.6 million. Second, if 50 percent of the 
organic egg producers moved to the cage-free egg market and the organic 
industry continues to grow at historical rates, the estimated benefits 
are $3.6-$8.7 million. Third, if 50 percent of the organic egg 
producers moved to the cage-free egg market and there were no new 
entrants that could not already comply, the estimated benefits are 
$3.3-$8.0 million.
    For all scenarios described above, the midpoint of the cost 
estimates, including the estimated paperwork burden, exceeds the 
midpoint of the estimated benefits.
    The OLPP final rule estimated the benefits from the rule's 
implementation as $4.1 to $49.5 million annually. The estimated 
benefits spanned a wider range than the estimated costs and were based 
on research that measured consumers' willingness-to-pay for outdoor 
access for laying hens. The OLPP final rule acknowledged that the 
benefits were difficult to quantify.
    In reviewing the OLPP final rule, AMS found that the calculation of 
benefits contained mathematical errors in calculating the discount 
rates of 7% and 3%. The error resulted in overstating the value of the 
benefits. Using the correct discounting formula, the estimated costs 
and paperwork burden for the OLPP final rule exceed the estimated 
benefits for all producer response scenarios. AMS also found the 
estimated benefits over time were handled differently than were the 
estimated costs over time. Specifically, costs were constant over time 
while benefits declined by an equal amount each year corresponding to 
the depreciation of poultry housing. In addition, AMS determined that 
the range used for estimating the benefit interval should be replaced 
with more suitable estimates. The estimate used in the benefits 
calculations for the OLPP final rule were based on consumers' 
willingness-to-pay for eggs produced by chickens raised in a cage-free

[[Page 10782]]

environment without induced moulting and with outdoor access. Because 
the first two practices are already required in organic production, AMS 
determined that a narrower range for the willingness-to-pay for outdoor 
access estimate was more precise and appropriate. The revised 
calculations of benefits are presented in the accompanying RIA.
    As a result of reviewing the calculation of estimated benefits, AMS 
reassessed the economic basis for the rulemaking as well as the 
validity of the estimated benefits. On the basis of that reassessment, 
AMS finds little, if any, economic justification for the OLPP final 
rule.
    The RIA for the OLPP final rule did not identify a significant 
market failure to justify the need for rule. The RIA for the OLPP final 
rule noted that there is wide variance in production practices within 
the organic egg sector and asserted that ``as more consumers become 
aware of this disparity, they will either seek specific brands of 
organic eggs or seek animal welfare labels in addition to the USDA 
organic seal.'' OLPP final rule RIA at 14. AMS also found the 
``majority of organic producers also participate in private, third-
party verified animal welfare certification programs.'' Id. Variance in 
production practices and participation in private, third-party 
certification programs, however, do not constitute evidence of 
significant market failure or weigh against withdrawal of the OLPP 
rule.
    First, while AMS recognizes that the purpose of the OFPA is to 
assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent 
standard, that purpose does not imply that there can be no variation in 
organic production practices. Rather, a variety of production methods 
may be employed to meet the same standard. Some may be more labor 
intensive and others more capital intensive, and some may be 
appropriate for small operations while others are appropriate for large 
operations. Importantly, producers will adopt different production 
methods over time as technology evolves and enables operations to meet 
the same standard more efficiently. Moreover, producers may follow 
different standards with respect to aspects of production that are not 
relevant to organic certification or otherwise subject to regulation. 
Thus, variation in production practices is expected and does not stand 
as an indicator of a significant market failure.
    Second, private, third-party certification programs are common in 
the dynamic food sector. That organic suppliers participate in such 
programs does not indicate a market failure with respect to the 
standards promulgated under the USDA NOP. Rather, the use of third-
party certifications in addition to the USDA organic seal merely 
indicates that participants in the food sector seek ways to 
differentiate their products from those of their competitors. That some 
aspects of a private certification may overlap with the requirements 
underlying the USDA organic seal demonstrates that food producers, 
manufacturers, and retailers use multiple methods to communicate with 
consumers about the attributes of the foods that they produce and sell. 
Private, third-party certifications reflect attributes that food 
sellers wish to emphasize, and the existence of such certifications on 
organic products provides no evidence of a significant market failure 
relating to USDA organic standards. Nor is it clear that implementation 
of the OLPP final rule would reduce participation in third-party 
certification programs; instead, third-party certification programs may 
simply evolve as producers find new ways to distinguish their products.
    Finally, the accompanying RIA explains several calculation errors 
associated with the OLPP final rule RIA. The RIA also provides 
additional information regarding the estimated benefits and explains 
why they likely were overstated in the original OLPP final rule RIA. In 
any case, withdrawing the OLPP final rule would prevent the negative 
cost impacts from taking effect, resulting in substantial organic 
poultry producer cost savings of $8.2 to $31 million annually, plus 
additional cost savings of $1.95-$3.9 million from paperwork reduction.

Consideration of Alternatives

    AMS considered three alternatives in developing this rule to 
withdraw the OLPP final rule. The first alternative was to implement 
the OLPP final rule on May 14, 2018, which is the current effective 
date. The second alternative was to further delay the final rule. The 
third alternative, which is the selected alternative, was to withdraw 
the final rule.
    For the first alternative, if the OLPP final rule were to become 
effective on May 14, 2018, the costs and transfers described in the RIA 
would be expected to occur, resulting in requirements with substantial 
costs not supported by evidence of significant market failure.
    The second alternative was to further delay the OLPP final rule. 
This alternative, however, would defer the decision on whether to 
implement or withdraw to a future date, despite the agency having 
performed its review and received comments from the public. This 
alternative fails to achieve USDA's goal of reducing regulatory 
uncertainty.
    AMS has selected the third alternative, to withdraw the OLPP final 
rule, as the preferred alternative. This alternative estimates cost 
savings for poultry producers of $8.2 to $31 million per year (based on 
15-year costs). In addition, $1.95-$3.9 million in annual paperwork 
burden would not be incurred. As described in the RIA, the range of 
benefits could be expected to be lower than projected in the OLPP final 
rule RIA. Moreover, a priori, the benefits associated with any 
government intervention in the absence of an identifiable market 
failure will be lower than the required costs of imposing such an 
intervention. Given the unclear nature of the market failure being 
addressed by the OLPP final rule, AMS would give clear preference to 
the lower end of the benefit range, which consistently falls below the 
costs associated with the OLPP final rule.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires agencies 
to consider the economic impact of each rule on small entities and 
evaluate alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of the rule 
without unduly burdening small entities or erecting barriers that would 
restrict their ability to compete in the market.
    Data suggest nearly all organic egg producers qualify as small 
businesses. OLPP final rule RIA at 140-141. Small egg producers are 
listed under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 
112310 (Chicken Egg Production) as grossing less than $15,000,000 per 
year, and AMS estimates that out of 722 operations reporting sales of 
organic eggs, only four are not small businesses. Thus, the OLPP final 
rule RIA found that some small egg producers and small chicken 
(broiler) producers would be affected by the poultry outdoor access and 
space provisions. See OLPP final rule RIA at 136-138, 142, 145-146. 
Furthermore, the RIA of the OLPP final rule noted that some small 
producers were particularly concerned about limited land availability 
for outdoor access requirements and the potential for increased 
mortality attendant to the new regulatory demands. These concerns were 
identified as sources of burdensome costs and/or major obstacles to 
compliance for some small businesses. See id. at 26-28. Based on 
surveys of organic egg producers, AMS believes approximately fifty 
percent of layer production will not be able to

[[Page 10783]]

acquire additional land needed to comply with the OLPP final rule and 
some of this burden will be borne by small entities. Id. at 142. Also, 
certain existing certified organic slaughter facilities could surrender 
their organic certification as a result of the OLPP final rule and 
certain businesses currently providing livestock transport services for 
certified organic producers or slaughter facilities may be unwilling to 
meet and/or document compliance with the livestock transit 
requirements. Id. at 149.
    Withdrawing the OLPP final rule avoids these economic impacts 
without introducing any incremental burdens or erecting barriers that 
would restrict the ability of small entities to compete in the market. 
This conclusion is supported by the historic growth of the organic 
industry without the regulatory amendments.
    This rule relieves producers of the costs of complying with the 
OLPP final rule. The effects of withdrawal will be beneficial and not 
defined as significant for the specific purposes of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. Some small entities may experience time and money 
savings as a result of not having to change practices to comply with 
the OLPP final rule. Affected small entities would include organic egg 
and organic broiler producers. This rule will provide measurable, 
savings for small entities. However, for the definitional purposes of 
the RFA, these savings are not considered a ``significant'' economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of AMS has determined 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities and certifies as such.

VIII. Executive Order 12988

    Executive Order 12988 instructs each executive agency to adhere to 
certain requirements in the development of new and revised regulations 
in order to avoid unduly burdening the court system.
    Pursuant to section 6519(f) of OFPA, this final rule would not 
alter the authority of the Secretary under the Federal Meat Inspection 
Act (21 U.S.C. 601-624), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
451-471), or the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056), 
concerning meat, poultry, and egg products, 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 U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 
U.S.C. 136-136(y)).

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

X. Executive Order 13175

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

XI. Civil Rights Impact Analysis

    AMS has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Department 
Regulation 4300-4, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, to address any major 
civil rights impacts the rule might have on minorities, women, and 
persons with disabilities. AMS has determined that withdrawing the OLPP 
final rule has no potential for affecting producers in protected groups 
differently than the general population of producers.

XII. Conclusion

    In compliance with OFPA and consistent with the regulatory policies 
of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, AMS is withdrawing the OLPP final 
rule.

    Dated: March 8, 2018.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-05029 Filed 3-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-02-P