7042 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A. Purpose of the Final Rule certified organic operations and to B. Summary of Provisions provide for more effective Agricultural Marketing Service C. Costs and Benefits administration of the National Organic II. General Information Program (NOP) by AMS. One purpose of 7 CFR Part 205 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? III. Background the Organic Foods Production Act of [Document Number AMS–NOP–15–0012; IV. Comments Received 1990 (OFPA) (7 U.S.C. 6501–6522) is to NOP–15–06FR] A. Regulatory Authority of the Final Rule assure consumers that organically B. Regulatory Clarity of the Final Rule produced products meet a consistent RIN 0581–AD44 C. Consumer Education and Outreach and uniform standard (7 U.S.C. 6501). D. International Trade Agreements National Organic Program (NOP); E. Meat and Poultry Imports B. Summary of Provisions Organic Livestock and Poultry V. Related Documents. Specifically, this final rule: Practices VI. Definitions (§ 205.2) A. Description of Regulations 1. Clarifies how producers and AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, B. Discussion of Comments Received handlers participating in the NOP must USDA. VII. Livestock Health Care Practices treat livestock and poultry to ensure ACTION: Final rule. (§ 205.238) their wellbeing. A. Description of Regulations 2. Clarifies when and how certain SUMMARY: The United States Department B. Discussion of Comments Received physical alterations may be performed of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural VIII. Mammalian Living Conditions on organic livestock and poultry in Marketing Service (AMS) is amending (§ 205.39) order to minimize stress. Additionally, A. Description of Regulations the organic livestock and poultry some forms of physical alterations are production requirements by adding new B. Discussion of Comments Received IX. Avian Living Conditions (§ 205.241) prohibited. provisions for livestock handling and A. Description of Regulations 3. Sets maximum indoor and outdoor transport for slaughter and avian living B. Discussion of Comments Received stocking densities for organic chickens, conditions; and expanding and X. Transport (§ 205.242(a)) which vary depending on the type of clarifying existing requirements A. Description of the Final Rule production and stage of life. covering livestock care and production B. Discussion of Comments Received 4. Defines outdoor space and requires XI. Slaughter (§ 205.242(b) and (c)) practices and mammalian living that outdoor spaces for organic poultry conditions. A. Description of Regulations B. Discussion of Comments Received include soil and vegetation. DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes XII. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563— 5. Adds new requirements for effective March 20, 2017. Executive Summary transporting organic livestock and Implementation Dates: This rule will XIII. Retrospective Analysis poultry to sale or slaughter. be fully implemented March 20, 2018. XIV. Executive Order 12988 6. Clarifies the application of USDA There are two exceptions: XV. Executive Order 13175 Food Safety and Inspection Service (1) Organic egg operations that are XVI. Paperwork Reduction Act (FSIS) requirements regarding the certified before March 20, 2020 need to A. Summary B. Discussion of Comments Received handling of livestock and poultry in implement the outdoor access XVII. Civil Rights Impact Analysis connection with slaughter to certified requirements by March 21, 2022. organic livestock and poultry Organic egg operations that become List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205 establishments and provides for the certified after March 20, 2020 need to I. Executive Summary enforcement of USDA organic comply with the outdoor access regulations based on FSIS inspection requirements in order to obtain A. Purpose of the Final Rule findings. certification. This final rule creates greater 7. AMS has only established indoor (2) Organic broiler operations must consistency in organic livestock and space requirements for chickens in this fully implement the indoor space poultry practice standards. Based on final rule. AMS may propose space requirements by March 20, 2020. recommendations from the Office of requirements for other avian species in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Inspector General and the National the future. Other avian species must Lewis, Ph.D., Director of Standards Organic Standards Board, AMS meet all other indoor requirements Division, Telephone: (202) 720–3252; determined that the current USDA including exit doors, ammonia levels, Fax: (202) 260–9151. organic regulations (7 CFR part 205) and lighting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: covering livestock care and production C. Costs and Benefits practices and living conditions needed Table of Contents additional specificity and clarity to AMS estimates the following costs I. Executive Summary better ensure consistent compliance by and benefits for this final rule.

Benefits, Transfers, Assumed conditions Affected population Costs, millions a millions millions

All producers remain in organic market; Or- Organic layer and organic broiler production $28.7–$31.0 $16.3–$49.5 N/A ganic layer and broiler populations con- at full implementation of rule, i.e., 2022 for tinue historical growth rates after rule. layers; 2020 for broilers. 50% of organic layer production in year 6 Organic layer and organic broiler production $11.7–$12.0 $4.5–$13.8 $79.5–$86.3 (2022), moves to the cage-free market. Or- at full implementation of rule, i.e., 2022 for ganic layer and broiler populations con- layers; 2020 for broilers. tinue historical growth rates after rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7043

Assumed conditions Affected population Costs, Benefits, Transfers, millions a millions millions

50% of current organic layer production Current organic layer production; organic $8.2 $4.1–$12.4 $45.6–$49.5 moves to the cage-free market in year 6 broiler production at full implementation of (2022). There are no new entrants after rule in 2020. publication of this rule that cannot comply.

Other impacts: Estimated paperwork burden: $3.9 million a All values in the costs, benefits and transfer columns of this table are annualized and discounted at 3% and 7% rates.

II. General Information outdoor areas, while other operations received from producers, producer provide minimal outdoor space or use associations, handlers, certifying agents, A. Does this action apply to me? screened and covered enclosures consumers and consumer groups, You may be affected by this action if commonly called ‘‘porches’’ to meet animal welfare organizations, you are engaged in the meat, egg, outdoor access requirements. In a 2010 veterinarians, state government poultry, dairy, or animal fiber audit, the USDA Office of Inspector agencies, foreign government agencies, industries. Affected entities may General identified inconsistencies in and trade associations or organizations. include, but are not limited to: how accredited certifying agents (or AMS analysis and response to • Individuals or business entities that ‘‘certifiers’’) consider porches under comments is described in the following are considering organic certification for outdoor access while implementing preamble sections of the final rule. a new or existing livestock farm or certification of organic poultry A. Regulatory Authority of the Final slaughter facility. operations. AMS initially responded to Rule • Existing livestock farms and this audit finding by publishing draft slaughter facilities that are currently guidance on outdoor access for organic (Comment) Several comments argued certified organic under the USDA poultry. However, after receiving public that USDA does not have sufficient organic regulations. comment on the draft guidance, AMS regulatory authority under OFPA to • Certifying agents accredited by determined that rulemaking was publish final rules for livestock living USDA to certify organic livestock necessary to reduce the variation in conditions and animal welfare as operations and organic livestock outdoor access practices for organic described in the proposed rule. They handling operations. poultry; therefore, AMS did not finalize argued that the livestock section of This listing is not intended to be the draft guidance. To assist with this OFPA only provides authority to exhaustive, but identifies key entities rulemaking, the NOSB developed a prepare regulations regarding feeds and likely to be affected by this action. Other series of recommendations to further animal health care issues. types of entities could also be affected. clarify organic livestock and poultry (Response) AMS affirms that USDA To determine whether you or your care and production practices, transport, has the authority to conduct this business may be affected by this action, slaughter, and living conditions, rulemaking; this action falls within our you should carefully examine the including outdoor access for poultry. purview to implement the Organic regulatory text. If you have questions The NOSB deliberations on these Foods Production Act. AMS is issuing regarding the applicability of this action recommendations revealed that there is these regulations to strengthen the to a particular entity, consult the person considerable support for these USDA organic livestock production listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION recommendations within the organic regulations with clear provisions to CONTACT. community and consumers have fulfill one purpose of OFPA: to assure consumers that organically-produced III Background specific expectations for organic livestock care, which includes outdoor products meet a consistent and uniform This final rule addresses care and access for poultry. standard (7 U.S.C. 6501). In accordance production practices, transport, On April 13, 2016 AMS issued a with OFPA, this action will clarify slaughter, and living conditions for proposed rule to amend organic USDA statutory and regulatory organic livestock and poultry.1 The livestock and poultry practices. mandates and establish consistent, provisions in this rule on outdoor access Background on current organic livestock transparent, and enforceable for organic poultry have a significant standards, NOSB recommendations requirements. Two provisions within history of AMS actions that are based on contributing toward the development of OFPA convey the intent for the USDA National Organic Standards Board (the the proposed rule, AMS policy, and to develop more specific standards for NOSB) recommendations. Outdoor related issues are described in preamble organic livestock production; that access is a prominent issue in this final of that action.2 purpose was also explained in the rule. Poultry practices for outdoor accompanying Senate Committee IV. Comments Received access currently vary, especially report.3 Section 6509(d)(2) authorizes practices implemented for layer In response to AMS’s request for operations. Some organic poultry comments on the proposed rule, a total 3 The Senate report that accompanied the OFPA of 6,675 written comments were legislation set the expectation for greater specificity operations provide large, open-air in the future for organic livestock standards as the received. Approximately 78 percent of industry matured: ‘‘More detailed standards are 1 As defined in § 205.2, the term ‘‘livestock’’ the submitted comments—or 5,182 enumerated for crop production than for livestock includes any cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry, or comments—consisted of form letters. production. This reflects the extent of knowledge equine animals used for food or in the production There were 1,493 individual comments and consensus on appropriate organic crop of food, fiber, feed, or other agricultural-based production methods and materials. With additional consumer products. In this final rule, the terms on the proposed rule. Comments were research and as more producers enter into organic ‘‘livestock’’ and ‘‘livestock and poultry’’ are used livestock production, the Committee expects that throughout the preamble. Unless otherwise 2 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ USDA, with the assistance of the National Organic specified, the term ‘‘livestock’’ refers to both 2016/04/13/2016–08023/national-organic-program- Standards Board will elaborate on livestock mammalian livestock and avian livestock. organic-livestock-and-poultry-practices. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7044 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

the NOSB to recommend standards in contrast, one comment stated that that accordance with the terms established addition to the OFPA provisions for rule is confusing specifically addressing in the international organic equivalency livestock health care to ensure that mammals and avian species. Another arrangement. In addition, the proposed livestock is organically produced. comment stated that only organic regulations are shared with the World Further, section 6509(g) directs the certifiers with limited livestock Trade Obligations (WTO) pursuant to Secretary to develop detailed experience will find the current the the WTO Agreement on Technical regulations through notice and comment organic regulations clear and concise in Barriers to Trade. Under the current rulemaking to implement livestock contrast to the more seasoned organic organic equivalency arrangements, the production standards. AMS has already inspector community. This commenter USDA notifies the trading partner in exercised this authority to implement further stated that those experienced in advance of any final USDA organic additional regulations regarding feed the organic industry realize the regulation that may affect the terms of and living conditions for organic challenge to promulgate universal the existing equivalency determination. livestock (see Access to Pasture, 75 FR standards. The comment also asserted The foreign country reviews the 7154 (February 17, 2010)). Therefore, that creating new standards will make it information, and may initiate discussion the statute contemplated that the difficult for certifiers to be effective in to determine whether a renegotiation of assurance of organic integrity for their work. the equivalence arrangement is needed. livestock products would require more (Response) Where appropriate, AMS With recognition arrangements, the specific guidelines and provided the has amended sections of the final rule certification bodies in the foreign authority for that future regulatory to clarify the requirements based on country are accredited by the recognized activity. comments, with the goal of making the foreign government authority to certify This rule would continue the process requirements readily understandable for operations under the USDA organic initiated with the Access to Pasture organic stakeholders. regulations. As a result, the USDA rulemaking to establish clear and notifies the foreign government of the C. Consumer Education and Outreach comprehensive requirements for all final USDA organic regulation, and the organic livestock, consistent with (Comment) A few comments stated foreign government authority informs its recommendations provided by USDA’s that USDA should do more to inform accredited certification bodies of the Office of Inspector General and nine consumers about what organic means final regulation. AMS will provide separate recommendations from the and doesn’t mean, and that educating training and technical assistance during NOSB. Further, it will align regulatory consumers about the existing standards the implementation period to assist language and intent to enable producers would be better than changing the foreign governments and accredited and consumers to readily discern the regulations. certification bodies. required practices for organic poultry (Response) AMS agrees that consumer production and to differentiate the education is important to ensure that E. Meat and Poultry Imports products in the marketplace. organic consumers understand the (Comment) USDA received comments limitations of the existing organic regarding meat and poultry imports and B. Regulatory Clarity of the Final Rule regulations. However, numerous how AMS will regulate livestock (Comment) The proposed rule sought comments and the NOSB have slaughter by certified operations in comments on the clarity of the proposed requested that AMS clarify the current foreign countries. One comment requirements by posing the following regulatory text and add sufficient detail provided country-specific specific question: ‘‘Can farmers, in support of consistent enforcement of recommendations regarding cattle to handlers, and certifying agents readily the USDA organic regulations that affect stipulate that while cattle are in determine how to comply with the the welfare of organic livestock and Australia, ‘‘they must abide by the proposed regulations?’’ poultry. Therefore, AMS has opted to standards and guidelines prescribed in Though they did not directly answer proceed with this rulemaking. AMS the Australian Animal Welfare the question posed in the proposed rule, received a number of comments which Standards for the Land Transport of a few comments nevertheless addressed how the variability in Livestock (The Standards).’’ commented more generally on the outdoor access practices among organic Additionally, a comment indicated that clarity of the proposed rule. Speaking producers threatens consumer U.S. certifiers are currently unequipped specifically of the revisions to confidence in the organic label. This is to verify compliance with these other mammalian living conditions, one discussed more fully in the Executive rules/laws for producers outside of the comment indicated that the proposed Orders 12866 and 13563 section—see U.S. rule was needed as a means to Impact of Consumer Confusion. (Response) Products certified under strengthen vague organic livestock the USDA organic regulations must first standards. This comment did, however, D. International Trade Agreements comply with the requirements of the highlight areas that continue to be (Comment) A number of comments Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unclear, claiming inconsistencies in the asked how the final rule would impact and Food Safety and Inspection Service interpretation of standards upon existing organic trade agreements, such (FSIS). In other countries, FSIS has implementation of the rule. Another as equivalency agreements and memorandums of understanding that commenter provided general support for recognition agreements. For example, recognize other countries’ processes for the proposed rule, as rulemaking clarity some comments highlighted where safe and humane livestock handling and will lead to consistent compliance by specific standards in the proposed rule slaughter. Generally, USDA organic certified operations while addressing differ from existing standards in specific requirements go beyond minimum consumer expectations and demand. In countries. It was also asked whether regulatory requirements for humane existing equivalency agreements would handling and slaughter. For NOP criteria.’’ Senate Committee on Agriculture, require renegotiation as a result of a requirements, certifiers must ensure Forestry and Nutrition, Report of the Committee on final rule. inspectors are qualified to evaluate Agriculture, Forestry and Nutrition to Accompany S. 2830 Together with Additional and Minority (Response) When the USDA organic compliance of applicants for organic Views, 101st Congress, S. REP. NO. 101–357, at 289 regulations are amended, the USDA certification. Certifiers are not (1990). notifies the trading partner in responsible for verifying compliance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7045

with regulations other than those for final rule so that certifying agents and not fit within one of the types defined organic certification. AMS did not producers may ensure that they do not in § 205.2. amend the proposed rule based on these inadvertently perform a prohibited The final rule further clarifies the comments. physical alteration which may be requirements for avian species indoor known by a different name locally. space requirements by defining the term V. Related Documents ‘‘perch’’ as a rod or branch type Documents related to this final rule Indoors or Indoor Space structure or flat space above the floor of include the Organic Foods Production The final rule defines ‘‘indoors or the house that accommodates roosting, Act of 1990, as amended, (7 U.S.C. indoor space’’ as the space inside of an allowing birds to utilize vertical space 6501–6522) and its implementing enclosed building or housing structure in the house. regulations (7 CFR part 205). The NOSB that has a solid, slatted, or perforated Outdoors or Outdoor Space deliberated and made the floor. The term ‘‘indoors’’ from the recommendations described in this proposed rule was modified to include The final rule defines ‘‘outdoors or proposal at public meetings announced ‘‘or indoor space’’ because both of these outdoor space’’ to clarify the meaning of in the following Federal Register terms are used interchangeably outdoor areas for mammalian and avian Notices: 67 FR 19375 (April 19, 2002); throughout the rule. While all organic species. The term ‘‘outdoors’’ from the 74 FR 46411 (September 9, 2009); 75 FR livestock must be provided with proposed rule was modified to include 57194 (September 20, 2010); and 76 FR species-appropriate shelter, structures ‘‘or outdoor space’’ because these two 62336 (October 7, 2011). NOSB providing indoor space are not required. terms are used interchangeably meetings are open to the public and If indoor spaces are provided to organic throughout the rule. ‘‘Outdoors or allow for public participation. livestock, then species-specific outdoor space’’ is defined as any area outside of an enclosed building or AMS published a series of past requirements for the indoor space must enclosed housing structure, but proposed rules that addressed, in part, be met. Indoor spaces are differentiated including roofed areas that are not the organic livestock requirements at: 62 from outdoor spaces based upon the enclosed. In this definition, ‘‘outdoors FR 65850 (December 16, 1997); 65 FR structure being enclosed so that or outdoor space’’ includes all of the 13512 (March 13, 2000); 71 FR 24820 livestock may be confined within the non-enclosed space encompassing soil- (April 27, 2006); and 73 FR 63584 footprint of the building. (October 24, 2008). Past final rules based areas such as pastures, pens, or Indoor space is enclosed so that relevant to this topic were published at: sacrifice lots; hardened surface areas livestock may be confined within the 65 FR 80548 (December 21, 2000); 71 FR such as feedlots, walkways, or loafing building or housing structure; outdoor 32803 (June 7, 2006); and 75 FR 7154 sheds; and areas providing outdoor space is the area outside of the enclosed (February 17, 2010). AMS published the shelter such as windbreaks and shade building or enclosed housing structure, most recent proposed rule at 81 FR structures. but includes roofed areas that are not 21956 (April 13, 2016). The outdoor space has species- enclosed. One of the key considerations specific requirements. For example, this VI. Definitions (§ 205.2) distinguishing indoor space from rule sets the requirement that 50 percent outdoor space is how the livestock are A. Description of Regulations of the outdoor space for avian species managed in that space. How livestock must be soil-based and that the soil be 1. Summary of the Final Rule are managed may determine whether maximally covered with vegetation. This final rule adds sixteen new terms space is considered indoors, outdoors, Vegetative cover must be maintained in to § 205.2: beak trimming, caponization, or neither indoors nor outdoors. As an a manner that does not provide cattle wattling, de-beaking, de-snooding, example, a screened in and roofed porch harborage for rodents and other pests. dubbing, indoors or indoor space, to which the (enclosed) birds always For avian species, the definition of mulesing, non-ambulatory, outdoors or have access, including during temporary outdoors has been revised to include outdoor space, perch, pullet, ritual confinement events, would be pasture pens, which are floorless pens slaughter, soil, toe clipping, and considered indoor space. That same that are moved regularly and provide vegetation. Six of these terms— porch would be considered neither direct access to soil and vegetation. caponization, cattle wattling, de- indoors nor outdoors if the birds did not These pens may consist of solid roofing snooding, dubbing, mulesing, and soil— have continuous access to the space over all or part of the pen to provide remain unchanged from the proposed during temporary confinement events. If shelter for the birds. For further rule. The definitions of seven additional the screens were removed from that discussion see ‘‘Pasture Pens vs. Other terms were revised in response to porch so that the birds could freely Mobile Housing’’ in section IX. Avian comments: beak trimming, de-beaking, access other outdoor space, then the Living Conditions. indoors or indoor space, outdoors or porch would be considered outdoor To assist with the mitigation of outdoor space, perch, pullets, and toe space (see ‘‘Outdoors or outdoor space,’’ biosecurity and predation risks, fencing, clipping. The term roost, which was below). These distinctions provide netting, or other materials are permitted included in the proposed rule, has been flexibility for producers to work with over all or part of the outdoor areas to removed from the final rule in response their certifying agents when developing prevent predators and other wild birds to comments. Three terms that were not their organic system plans (OSPs), yet from entering the outdoor area. Many included in the proposed rule, non- still aligns with the position that producers also use portable or ambulatory, ritual slaughter, and enclosed porches are not considered to permanent shade structures throughout vegetation, have been added to the final be outdoor space. their pastures. Structures for shade are rule. The final rule defines four types of also permitted in the outdoor space. For avian indoor space. These indoor example, the area within a standalone, Physical Alterations housing types are defined because each roofed shade structure could be The final rule prohibits several housing type has a differing indoor included as outdoor space area. Areas physical alterations on organic space requirement. AMS continues to under the eaves or the awning of a livestock. Eight terms related to these include an indoor space requirement at building, with a roof attached to the physical alterations are defined in the § 205.241(b)(8)(v) for housing that does outer wall of the indoor space structure,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7046 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

can also be considered outdoors. While for avian species, and the producer must which recommended the following these areas may have solid roofs ensure that the area provided is large definition: ‘‘Beak trimming (formerly overhead, they can offer the same enough to not exceed the established de-beaking) is the removal of quality of outdoor space as uncovered maximum stocking density when all approximately one-quarter to one-third outdoor areas, including natural birds in the flock are on the given area of the upper beak, or both upper and ventilation/open air, direct sunlight, (i.e., indoors) or unit of land. lower beak, of a bird in order to control soil, vegetation, and open access to injurious pecking and cannibalism.’’ uncovered areas beyond. Ritual Slaughter Four comments suggested that the The final rule defines ‘‘soil’’ as the The final rule adds the term ‘‘ritual proposed definition be revised to outermost layer of the earth comprised slaughter’’ and references the definition specify the anatomical name of the of minerals, water, air, organic matter, in the Humane Methods of Slaughter portion of the beak that is removed in fungi, and bacteria, in which plants may Act (7 U.S.C. 1902(b)). This Act defines beak trimming. Other comments stated grow roots. Soil is defined to distinguish ritual slaughter as ‘‘slaughtering in that the definition should specify the these areas from impervious areas such accordance with the ritual requirements age at which beak trimming can be as concrete or pavement. Soil may of the Jewish faith or any other religious performed. consist of bare ground but is generally faith that prescribes a method of (Response) AMS agrees with the covered with vegetation. As described slaughter whereby the animal suffers majority of comments which expressed in the mammalian and avian living loss of consciousness by anemia of the that the definition of beak trimming condition sections, maximum vegetative brain caused by the simultaneous and should be clarified. We have replaced cover should be maintained on the soil instantaneous severance of the carotid the definition from the proposed rule as appropriate for the species, season, arteries with a sharp instrument and with a definition similar to the one geography, and climate. Designated handling in connection with such provided by AMVA which specifies that sacrifice areas or dry lots are permitted. slaughtering.’’ beak trimming is ‘‘the removal of Outdoor areas must be maintained in a Organic livestock and handling approximately one-quarter to one-third manner that maintains or improves operations may use ritual slaughter to of the upper beak, or both upper and natural resources, including soil and convert their livestock to meat or lower beak’’. For the purposes of these water quality. Temporary confinement poultry without loss of organic status. regulations, AMS modified the AVMA may be provided to protect soil and definition to replace the word water quality. Vegetation ‘‘approximately’’ with ‘‘not more than’’ The final rule adds the term in order to ensure that beak trimming is Non-Ambulatory ‘‘vegetation’’ and defines it as living clearly distinguished from de-beaking. The final rule adds the term ‘‘non- plant matter that is anchored in the soil We believe that this definition ambulatory’’ and references the by roots and provides ground cover. adequately addresses the comments definition in 9 CFR 309.2(b). FSIS This term applies to the requirement for received and is both accurate and clear defines non-ambulatory as ‘‘livestock vegetation in outdoor areas, which is without being overly prescriptive. AMS that cannot rise from a recumbent central to protecting soil and water does not believe that it is necessary to position or that cannot walk, including, quality as well as providing for livestock refer to anatomical names for portions of but not limited to, those with broken to exhibit their natural behaviors. The the beak in this definition since these appendages, severed tendons or roots of vegetation provide stability and terms are not used in the regulatory text. ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured structure to soil. Vegetation helps water Other comments in response to the age vertebral column, or metabolic soak into the soil rather than running at which beak trimming can be done are conditions.’’ Any non-ambulatory off, which can cause erosion. Livestock addressed in the avian living conditions livestock on organic farms must be also have natural behaviors of grazing, section of the final rule. medically treated, even if the treatment rooting, nesting, etc., which require 2. Definition of De-Beaking causes the livestock to lose organic vegetation. status or be humanely euthanized. (Comment) The term de-beaking was B. Discussion of Comments Received included in the proposed rule and was Pullets defined as ‘‘the removal of more than 1. Definition of Beak Trimming AMS modified the definition of the beak tip.’’ The comments received pullets, which is used by the AMS (Comment) The term beak trimming regarding the term beak trimming also Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, to was included in the proposed rule and addressed de-beaking, expressing that include species other than chickens. was defined as the removal of the the proposed definition was vague and This final rule defines ‘‘pullets’’ as curved tip of the beak. Many comments that the distinction between beak female chickens or other avian species expressed that the definition for this trimming and de-beaking was not clear. being raised for egg production that term was vague and that the difference One comment requested that the have not yet started to lay eggs. Once between beak trimming and de-beaking definition of de-beaking be removed avian females begin laying eggs, AMS was unclear. Comments also shared that entirely as the industry has taken steps refers to them as layers. The term it is common within the industry to use to eliminate this practice. ‘‘pullets’’ does not describe young the terms beak trimming and de-beaking (Response) In response to comments, broilers used for meat production. interchangeably and that a more AMS amended the definition of de- quantitative measure should be beaking in the final rule to make it more Stocking Density included if the intent of the rule is to specific. AMS believes that it is The final rule defines ‘‘stocking control the amount of beak trimmed. important to define de-beaking in order density’’ as the weight of animals on a One comment requested additional to differentiate it from beak trimming. given area or unit of land. This term is clarification with regards to trimming Comments did not provide a suggested used to describe the indoor and outdoor the bottom of the beak. Some comments definition for the term, and as a result space requirements for organic suggested revisions to the definition to AMS decided to define de-beaking as livestock. For example, the final rule provide clarity, including the American anything that goes beyond what is establishes maximum stocking densities Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) defined in this rule as beak trimming.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7047

Thus, the amended definition of de- the actual types of pasture housing used AMS agrees with comments that the beaking clarifies that it is the removal of in pastured-poultry operations. proposed definitions for these terms did more than one-third of the upper beak, Commenters used ‘‘Salatin’’ style not adequately consider pastured or more than one-third of both the upper housing, ‘‘Prairie Schooners,’’ and poultry systems where birds are and lower beaks of a bird. simple hoop structures as examples of contained within a lightweight, floorless moveable pasture pens. The comments enclosure such as a pen that provides 3. Definition of Caponization described these systems as providing the birds in the pen with direct contact (Comment) AMS received two direct access to soil and vegetation; to soil and vegetation. As such, these comments stating that the definition for having walls and roofs made of mesh, systems did not clearly fall under either ‘‘caponization’’ should not be included plastic, wood, and other materials; and definition that AMS proposed for in the final rule. Comments stated that having mobility. Birds in these systems indoors or outdoors. AMS has clarified it is unnecessary for AMS to define are on pasture 24 hours per day, while that pasture pens are outdoors or ‘‘caponization’’ because it beyond the roofing on all or part of the structure outdoor space by revising the definition purview of the AMS. provides shade and protection. These in section 205.2. For further discussion (Response) This final rule prohibits commenters argued that these systems of this topic, see section IX. Avian caponization, as defined, based upon a are unique, provide access to the soil Living Conditions, ‘‘Pasture Pens vs. recommendation from the NOSB. Thus, and vegetation, and allow birds to Other Mobile Housing.’’ it is within AMS’s purview. AMS exhibit natural behavior, and should be Organic livestock must be provided believes that, because caponization is specifically permitted and addressed in with outdoor space as the default living prohibited, it is necessary to clearly the requirements. space, along with shelter. Organic define what it is so that certifying agents (Response) AMS agrees that the producers may choose to provide indoor and producers can ensure that they do proposed definition for indoors focuses covered, enclosed and floored space as not inadvertently perform this physical specifically on describing what qualifies shelter if needed for the health and alteration. as indoor areas for avian species. Rather wellbeing of the birds, but it is not 4. Definition of Indoors than creating a new term, ‘‘indoors for required. In addition to revising the avian species,’’ AMS determined that it broad definition of indoors, AMS (Comment) AMS received a range of would be best to define indoors more responded to these comments by comments on the proposed definition of broadly, and provide a separate sub- providing a separate definition of indoors. A number of comments category of terms that define what is pasture pens under the definition of suggested that the term ‘‘indoors’’ be indoors specifically for avian species. outdoors at section 205.2. The definition replaced by the term ‘‘indoors for avian Having a broadly applicable definition of outdoors, similar to the definition of species’’ since the definition of the term of indoors helps to clearly distinguish it indoors, defines pasture pens in a sub- is specifically related to avian living from the meaning of outdoors. Further category of terms describing outdoors spaces. Other comments recommended defining indoor areas for avian species for avian species. changing the term ‘‘pasture housing’’ to within the definition of indoors allows Nest Box Areas and Other Indoors ‘‘mobile housing.’’ These comments AMS to provide more specificity where Comments pointed out that there are fixed housing it is needed. As a result, AMS revised systems that offer pasture to birds. They the basic definition of indoors to define (Comment) A small number of also noted that the term ‘‘pasture- it as the space inside of an enclosed comments stated that it was unclear raised’’ is defined by other third-party building or housing structure with solid, from the proposed rule whether animal welfare standards, and those slatted, or perforated flooring. accessible nest box areas could be standards allow fixed housing to be AMS also agrees with comment that included in indoor space calculations. used in combination with a spoke-and- stated that the term ‘‘mobile housing’’ is These comments suggested adding ‘‘and wheel pasture rotation for pasture-raised more appropriate to describe pasture accessible nest boxes’’ to the first poultry. Thus, they felt that the term housing that is regularly moved to sentence of the definition for indoors. ‘‘mobile housing’’ is more accurate provide birds with access to new Some comments requested that the based on the type of housing that AMS pasture. In various situations, the term definition of indoors clarify that the intended to describe in the proposed ‘‘pasture housing’’ may be applied to term includes porches and lean-to type definition. stationary housing that provides access structures attached to the building or Two comments recommended that the to pasture, and this could cause housing structure. One comment reference to 70% perforated flooring be confusion for producers, certifying questioned the reference to feed and removed from the description of pasture agents, and inspectors. In response to water on each level in the description of housing since this requirement is comments, AMS replaced the term aviary housing. This comment noted restrictive when considering that ‘‘pasture housing’’ with ‘‘mobile that it is not necessary to include this different types of pasture housing (or housing’’ in the final rule. specific requirement in case producers mobile housing) vary in design. These Additionally, AMS removed the prefer to keep food and water on the comments suggested that the definition reference to 70% perforated flooring main level of housing to encourage birds instead focus on the mobility of the from the definition of mobile housing. to move around and go outdoors. One housing and its frequent movement. AMS agrees with comments that comment suggested a new definition for Various comments expressed that defining mobile housing without ‘‘indoors’’ as: ‘‘The flat space or more clarity is needed in the definition specifying what its flooring is made of platform areas which are under a solid of ‘‘indoors’’ in order to define exactly is more applicable given the diversity of roof and contained within a solid wall.’’ what counts as indoors and outdoors for structures used in mobile housing Another comment that the definition for the various types of pasture-based systems. indoors specify that it may not contain systems used. These comments AMS made several revisions in the prohibited materials. recommended that definitions for final rule in response to comments (Response) AMS did not add ‘‘moveable pasture pen’’ and ‘‘day range requesting more clarity around the ‘‘accessible nest boxes’’ to the definition system’’ be added in order to provide definitions of indoors and outdoors as of indoors as some comments requested. additional clarity and to better represent they apply to pasture-based systems. Most third-party animal welfare

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7048 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

standards consider nest boxes to be 5. Definition of Outdoors Including a requirement for vegetation distinct from usable floor areas of the Soil/Vegetation Requirement in the definition for outdoors may make house where birds can move around it difficult for some producers to meet freely. These third-party standards use (Comment) Many comments stated outdoor access requirements during indoor space calculation methods that that the definition of outdoors should certain times of the year (i.e. winter do not include nest boxes. AMS believes include a requirement for vegetation months, dry seasons), in certain regions, instead of soil. These comments that aligning with other third-party or for certain species. expressed concern about soil and water animal welfare standards by excluding AMS agrees that outdoor areas that quality in the absence of vegetation in nest boxes from indoor space are partially covered, such as areas outdoor areas used by livestock. Many under the eaves or the awning of a calculations is the most sensible also felt that vegetation is important for approach. Since many organic egg building, can be considered outdoors. animal health and natural behaviors. These areas can offer the same qualities producers participate in other third- Other comments requested that the 50 party verified animal welfare programs, of outdoor space (such as natural percent soil requirement in the ventilation, soil, vegetation, and open this approach avoids creating separate definition of outdoors should be access to uncovered outdoor areas) as requirements for producers which could removed. These comments felt that this independent shade structures. In be confusing and burdensome.4 In reference contradicted the use of feeding response to comments, AMS revised the addition, AMS’ approach aligns with pads and feeding yards, which are definition of outdoors to remove the the NOSB’s 2011 recommendation specifically allowed under the rule. statement that disqualifies areas where stating that nest boxes cannot be They also expressed concern that there is a solid wall or roof attached to included in the calculation of indoor including a requirement specifically for the indoor living space. This revision is 5 space. Therefore, AMS did not change 50 percent soil in the definition of intended specifically to accommodate the definition of ‘‘indoors’’ to include outdoors could negatively impact soil for features of an avian housing nest boxes. AMS also clarified in and water quality during winter or dry structure that may provide cover but are § 205.241(b)(7) that nest boxes cannot be months. in areas that are truly outdoors. In these included in indoor space calculations. Various comments questioned the areas, birds have access to soil and AMS determined that a specific statement in the proposed definition vegetation, natural ventilation, and open reference to porches and enclosed lean- indicating that areas with solid walls or access to uncovered outdoor areas to type structures is not necessary in the a solid roof attached to the outer wall beyond. AMS considers these areas as definition of ‘‘indoors.’’ AMS believes of an indoor living space cannot be distinct from porches specifically that the definition adequately covers considered outdoors. Comments because they are not fully enclosed. these types of structures and that questioned how these areas (such as For further discussion about porches eaves or awnings) are different from an including them in a broader list of see ‘‘Porches’’ in the Discussion of outdoor space that has a solid roof and housing categories would be confusing. Comments Received, section IX. Avian no walls and is not connected to the However, AMS does provide Living Conditions. structure providing the indoor space. clarification in the regulatory text under They reasoned that these areas provide 6. Definition of Perch and Roost Avian Living Conditions (§ 205.241) that the same quality of outdoor space and (Comment) AMS received a number of these structures can be counted as are important for providing shade and comments about the proposed indoor space provided that they are protection. Other comments stated that definitions of the terms ‘‘perch’’ and fully accessible to birds at all times, allowing areas under the eaves of ‘‘roost.’’ Comments stated that the terms including during temporary buildings and awnings to be counted as in the proposed rule were confusing and confinement. outdoors would simplify outdoor space are used interchangeably within the AMS removed ‘‘feed and water on calculations. proposed rule and within the industry. each level’’ from the definition of aviary Some comments stated that porches Some comments suggested replacing the housing in the definition of ‘‘indoors or should be included in the definition of word roost with the word slats, to refer indoor space’’ at § 205.2. Not all avian outdoors. They cited the need to to raised slats positioned over a manure housing is designed this way, and this calculate porches as outdoor space due pit. Other comments stated that the revision allows producers to work with to producer costs, biosecurity concerns, reference to manure pit(s) should be their certifying agents to determine the mortality rates, and environmental removed from the definition of roost best location for food and water concerns. entirely, as not all roosts are located depending on their housing system. (Response) AMS agrees with over one. comments that it is important that (Response) AMS recognizes that using 4 United Egg Producers: http:// outdoor areas for livestock include both terms ‘‘perch’’ and ‘‘roost’’ could www.unitedegg.org/information/pdf/UEP-Animal- vegetation to protect soil and water be confusing, as the terms can be used Welfare-Guidelines2016.pdf. quality and promote animal health and interchangeably by producers and Humane Farm Animal Care: http:// natural behaviors. AMS is also in industry. AMS determined that it is certifiedhumane.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ Std14.Layers.6A.pdf. agreement with comments that only necessary to include the term Global Animal Partnership: http://gapstaging. requested that the reference to soil be ‘‘perch’’ in the final rule. As defined, blob.core.windows.net/standards/DRAFT%205- removed from the definition of this term is intended to refer to various Step%20Animal%20Welfare%20Rating%20Pilot outdoors. In response to these features in poultry housing, such as %20Standards%20for%20Laying%20Hens.pdf. comments, AMS in conjunction with rods, branch type structures, and flat American Humane Certified: http://www.humane heartland.org/index.php?option=com_ Natural Resource Conservation Service, roost slats that accommodate roosting content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=106&jsmallfib= determined that requirements for soil and are elevated to allow birds to stay 1&dir=JSROOT/Animal+Welfare+Full+Standards+ and vegetation in outdoor access areas off the floor of the house. Perches may %2B+Supplements. should be included in the sections of be over a manure pit but this is not a 5 NOSB, 2011. Formal Recommendation by the requirement. AMS also removed ‘‘roost’’ NOSB to the NOP, Animal Welfare and Stocking the final rule that address mammalian Rates. Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules- and poultry living conditions rather from the definitions section and regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations. than in the definition of outdoors. regulatory text section based on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7049

comment feedback that the term was not requirements to be calculated by enrichment in the final rule. For further necessary. applying the stocking density to a discussion, see AMS’s response to percentage of animals that might be in comments in the section on FDA 7. Definition of Soil an area at a point in time, rather than regulations and food safety. (Comment) A small number of applying the stocking density to the Willful Acts of Abuse comments expressed confusion over the total flock. proposed definition of soil and asked (Response) In the final rule, AMS has One comment requested that the rule whether soil, as defined, is required to removed the phrase ‘‘at any one time’’ provide a definition of ‘‘willful acts of be bare since the definition did not from the definition to reduce the chance abuse.’’ The comment noted that this include a reference to vegetation. One of of confusion over the intended meaning definition was included in the NOSB’s these comments suggested revising the and application of the term. AMS has 2011 recommendation on transport and definition to add ‘‘which may be bare or also revised the term to include ‘‘given slaughter. Since the term ‘‘willful acts of vegetated’’ in order to provide area’’ in response to comments that the abuse’’ is not included in the regulatory clarification. Another comment term is used for both indoor and text, AMS sees no need to define the requested that the definition of soil be outdoor areas. term. revised to describe it as being vegetated, For further discussion about space citing soil and water quality concerns. calculations, please see AMS’s response Litter Other comments expressed concern to comments in Avian Living One comment requested that AMS about conflicts with other definitions of Conditions. include a definition of litter in the rule. soil currently in use. One of these 9. Definition of Toe Clipping This comment stated that it is unclear comments suggested replacing the if litter is intended to mean bedding or proposed definition of ‘‘soil’’ with a (Comment) AMS received various if it can consist solely of dehydrated more technical definition from the comments questioning whether toe manure. AMS determined that the term Natural Resources Conservation Service clipping is the same as toe trimming. ‘‘litter’’ is commonly used by avian (NRCS), while another comment Toe clipping was a new term defined producers to describe substrates used to suggested using the term ‘‘certified and used in the proposed rule. Toe absorb moisture and dilute manure, as ground.’’ A separate commenter thought trimming, a similar term, was also used well as to provide birds the opportunity that the impact of the proposed rule was in various places throughout the to express natural behaviors such as limited without an adequate definition proposed rule and brought forth of soil that clearly states the quality, questions about interchangeability foraging and dust bathing. AMS did not depth, and presence of vegetation. between the terms. provide a definition for litter in the final (Response) After considering the A number of comments also pointed rule. Instead, litter is described in more comments received, we have retained out that toe clipping can be performed detail in the avian living section of the the definition of soil from the proposed on both male and female birds. These rule. rule because we believe that it is an comments said that the definition of the Dubbing accurate and a commonly understood term would be more accurate if the description of the term. AMS believes specific reference to a male bird was Four comments stated that the that a more complex or overly technical removed. definition of dubbing does not include definition of soil is unnecessary and (Response) AMS recognizes that the the removal of the wattles. AMS could contribute to confusion. However, proposed rule defined toe clipping and reviewed the uses of the term dubbing AMS recognizes that the intent of some used the term toe trimming in the and found some references that comments was to avoid circumstances proposed rule. AMS also recognizes that included the removal of wattles and in which animals on bare soil could toe clipping can be done on both male others that only referred to combs. Other create soil or water quality problems, and female birds. In response to sources refer to the practices separately and the Agency agrees that avoiding comments, the final rule defines toe as ‘‘wattle trimming’’ and ‘‘comb such an outcome is paramount. The clipping as the removal of the nail and trimming.’’ AMS retained the definition final rule provides additional distal joint of the back two toes of a bird of dubbing in the final rule to include clarification in the avian and without reference to the sex of the bird. the removal of both combs and wattles. mammalian living conditions sections Additionally, the term ‘‘toe clipping’’ is Swine Aggression regarding the various requirements for used consistently throughout the final soil and vegetation in outdoor areas to rule and ‘‘toe trimming’’ has been One comment requested that the final differentiate between the needs and removed. rule define ‘‘swine aggression’’ to prevent unnecessary confinement of management of avian and mammalian 10. Miscellaneous Comments species. pigs. This commenter stated that Scratch Area without a definition for the term, the 8. Definition of Stocking Density Two comments asked for clarification provision of the rule allowing for (Comment) AMS received various about of the definition and composition individual housing for swine in cases comments identifying that the reference of a scratch area. AMS has removed the where aggression is documented could to ‘‘unit of land’’ in the definition for term ‘‘scratch area’’ from the regulatory be used for unnecessary confinement of stocking density is limiting, since it text. Since the term ‘‘scratch area’’ is not pigs. AMS determined that it would be applies to both outdoor and indoor included in the regulatory text, AMS challenging to develop a definition for space. Comments suggested that the sees no need to define the term. ‘‘swine aggression’’ that would be definition refer to ‘‘area of space’’ applicable across stages of production, instead of to ‘‘unit of land.’’ One Enrichment/Suitable Enrichment and the diverse realities that exist on comment suggested that AMS also A small number of comments asked each farm. Instead, producers should remove the phrase ‘‘at any one time’’ AMS to define the term enrichment or work with their certifying agents to from the definition of stocking density. the phrase suitable enrichment. AMS describe the types of aggression that The comment stated that this phrase has not defined the term, as we have would warrant individual housing on could be interpreted to allow space removed the requirement for suitable their operation as they develop an OSP.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7050 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

VII. Livestock Health Care Practices would also need to document that biologics are inadequate to prevent (§ 205.238) alternative methods to prevent scarring sickness. had failed. Such alternative methods AMS amended § 205.238(c)(1) to A. Description of Regulations. may include, but are not limited to, clarify that milk from an animal treated 1. Summary of the Final Rule cross-fostering prior to teat fidelity with an allowed substance in § 205.603, which has a withholding time, may not AMS amended current provisions and across litters to minimize weight be sold, labeled, or represented as added new provisions to the organic variation, providing sufficient organic during that holding time. livestock care and production practice enrichment materials, and providing However, organic animals or breeder standards. The amendment to vegetation for rooting. AMS is finalizing § 205.238(a)(5)(ii) to stock may continue to provide milk for § 205.238(a)(2) specifies that the list the physical alterations that are organic calves on the same operation sufficiency of the feed ration be prohibited in an organic operation. during the withholding time. This is demonstrated by appropriate body Based on the 2011 NOSB consistent with the 2010 NOSB condition of the livestock. Livestock recommendations, the following recommendation that a calf nursing a producers are required to monitor their physical alterations to avian species are cow treated topically with lidocaine or animals to ensure body condition is prohibited: De-beaking, de-snooding, other approved synthetic with a being maintained. In addition, certifying caponization, dubbing, toe clipping of withdrawal time would not lose organic agents need to verify the nutritional chickens, toe clipping of turkeys unless status. For example, if an organic beef adequacy of the animals’ diet by with infra-red at hatchery, and beak cow was nursing her organic calf and assessing the body condition of organic clipping after 10 days of age. In the cow became injured, her calf could livestock during inspection. Suitable addition, the following physical continue to nurse the cow even during body condition varies between species, alterations to mammalian species are the seven-day withholding period if between breeds, and between prohibited: Tail docking of cattle, lidocaine was used to minimize pain production types; for example, a wattling of cattle, face branding of and stress during her treatment. In this suitable condition for dairy cattle may cattle, tail docking of sheep shorter than scenario, the calf would not lose organic be considered too thin in beef cattle. the distal end of the caudal fold, and status. AMS plans to publish guidance to assist mulesing of sheep. AMS revised § 205.238(c)(2) to clarify certifying agents, inspectors, and AMS added a new § 205.238(a)(7) that other veterinary biologics, in producers in assessing body condition which specifies that surgical procedures addition to vaccines, are exempt from for different species. on livestock to treat an illness must be the prohibition on administering animal AMS revised § 205.238(a)(5) to clarify done in a manner that minimizes pain, drugs in the absence of illness. The the conditions under which physical stress, and suffering. The NOSB USDA Center for Veterinary Biologics alterations may be performed on recommended that all surgical (CVB) regulates vaccines and all other livestock. Physical alterations may only procedures for livestock be done with veterinary biologics. While vaccines are be performed for an animal’s welfare, the use of anesthetics, analgesics, and commonly referred to as veterinary identification, or safety. Alterations sedatives. USDA organic regulations biologics, the CVB also categorizes must be done at a reasonably young age require that all surgical procedures for bacterins and toxoids as biologics. This with minimal pain or stress to the treatment of disease be undertaken in a change is consistent with the definition animal, and may only be performed by manner that employs best management for biologics in § 205.2 and supports a person who can competently perform practices in order to minimize pain, § 205.238(a)(6), which identifies the use the procedure. Competency in stress, and suffering, and only with the of vaccines and other veterinary performing physical alterations may be use of anesthetics, analgesics, and biologics as a required practice to demonstrated by appropriate training or sedatives as listed in §§ 205.603(a) and improve animal health. experience of the person. 205.603(b). AMS revised § 205.238(c)(3) to clarify A 2009 NOSB recommendation AMS added a new § 205.238(a)(8) that that organic livestock producers are allowed teeth clipping and tail docking requires organic producers to actively prohibited from administering synthetic in piglets, but this revision was monitor and document lameness within or nonsynthetic hormones to promote retracted in the 2011 NOSB the herd or flock. Lameness can be an growth, or for production and recommendation. In this final rule, AMS issue in various livestock species, reproductive purposes. However, added § 205.238(a)(5)(i), which restricts including broilers, sheep, and dairy hormones listed in § 205.603 (e.g., needle teeth clipping and tail docking in cattle. The requirement for producers to oxytocin) may continue to be used to pigs. These two types of physical create a plan for monitoring and treat illnesses. Stakeholders have noted alterations may not be performed on a recording instances of lameness in the that the USDA organic regulations do routine basis, but may be performed as organic system plan enables organic not mention the use of hormones to needed to improve animal welfare, as livestock producers to identify and stimulate production or for reproductive listed below. address potential problems among purposes. This addition clarifies that all Needle teeth clipping and tail docking animals before they become widespread. hormones—unless used to treat an in pigs may only be performed in In addition, documentation of lameness illness—are prohibited in organic response to documented animal welfare will provide an auditable trail for production. reasons after alternative steps to prevent certifying agents to verify that livestock AMS added a new § 205.238(c)(8) to harm fail. Teeth clipping, if performed, producers are monitoring these prohibit organic livestock producers is limited to the top third of each needle potential causes of animal suffering. from withholding treatment designed to tooth. For example, an organic swine AMS revised § 205.238(b) to state that minimize pain and suffering for injured, producer who clipped needle teeth or synthetic medications allowed under diseased, or sick animals. Injured, performed tail docking would need to § 205.603 may be administered to diseased, or sick animals may be treated document excessive needle teeth alleviate pain or suffering. In addition, with any allowed natural substance or scarring on the underline of a sow or synthetic medications allowed under synthetic medication that appears on piglets, or document tail biting on § 205.603 may be administered when the National List. However, if no piglets in the litter. Swine producers preventative practices and veterinary appropriate medication is allowed for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7051

organic production, organic livestock organic livestock producers to use any requirements. This would generally be producers are required to administer method of euthanasia except for those verified by comparing the net energy treatment even if the animals prohibited in section 205.238(e)(2). The and other nutrient requirements for the subsequently lose their organic status. list of prohibited methods could be animal with the diet provided. AMS has Furthermore, as recommended by the amended to include other techniques, if added ‘‘. . . resulting in appropriate American Veterinary Medical needed, through future rulemaking. body condition’’ as a secondary Association, some forms of euthanasia AMS added a new § 205.238(e)(3) which assessment factor within the regulations may be an acceptable practice for states that after the euthanasia for inspectors to use to gauge the minimizing pain and suffering. procedure, livestock must be examined nutritional status of an individual AMS added a new § 205.238(c)(9) that to ensure that they are dead. animal or group of animals. Because requires livestock producers to identify qualified organic inspectors should have and record treatment of sick and injured B. Discussion of Comments Received sufficient livestock experience to animals in animal health records. Early 1. Selection of Breeds evaluate the nutritional condition of identification can lead to more effective livestock as part of their qualifications (Comment) AMS received one prevention or treatment, which will to inspect an organic livestock comment requesting that we prohibit enhance the overall health of the operation, we agree that guidance on selective breeding of livestock and livestock on that operation. how to assess appropriate body poultry for characteristics that may AMS added a new § 205.238(c)(10) condition by species would be helpful that prohibits the practice of forced compromise their health and natural for training purposes. AMS will provide molting in poultry. Section behaviors. The comment stated that such guidance after publication of the 205.238(a)(2) of this final rule requires some chicken breeds that are bred for final rule. a nutritionally sufficient feed ration for increased white meat may have livestock. Forced molting, a practice in difficulty walking due to the size of 3. Physical Alterations—General, which feed is severely restricted for a their breasts relative to the strength/size Surgeries, and Pain Management period of time in order to rejuvenate egg of their legs. AMS received a number of comments production, runs counter to this (Response) Animal breeding is requesting specific changes in words provision. The new 205.238(c)(10) was frequently conducted on non-certified and phrases regarding the first part of added to be consistent with the NOSB operations, outside the scope of organic § 205.238(a)(5): Physical alterations may recommendation. certification. Day-old birds are often be performed to benefit the welfare or AMS added a new § 205.238(d) that selected and purchased by organic hygiene of the animals, for requires organic livestock operations to producers before the animals are identification purposes or safety. minimize internal parasite problems in brought into organic management. Physical alterations must be performed livestock. The plan to minimize internal Selection of species and types of on livestock at a reasonably young age, parasites must include preventative livestock with regard to suitability for with minimal stress and pain and by a measures such as pasture management, site-specific conditions and resistance to competent person. These specific fecal monitoring, and emergency prevalent diseases and parasites is a comments will be addressed one by one measures in the event of a parasite requirement under § 205.238(a). Some in the following discussion of outbreak. Livestock producers must also species or types of livestock or poultry comments. work with their certifying agents to may not be suitable for organic (Comment) AMS received many approve a parasite control plan. production. Under existing regulations, comments proposing that the word In certain cases, livestock may suffer certifying agents should verify that ‘‘hygiene’’ be removed from from an illness or injury from which producers have selected breeds that are § 205.238(a)(5). Comments believed that recovery is unlikely. AMS added a new suitable for their site-specific conditions a broad interpretation of hygiene could § 205.238(e) to address euthanasia based and that are resistant to prevalent create conflict among regulatory on the 2011 NOSB recommendations. diseases and parasites. provisions, resulting in a loophole Section 205.238(e)(1) requires livestock where farmers could seek to justify producers to maintain written plans for 2. Provision of Feed Ration Resulting in Appropriate Body Condition physical alterations even when euthanizing sick or injured livestock. prohibited under proposed Section 205.238(e)(2) prohibits the (Comment) One comment stated that § 205.238(a)(5)(ii). For example, hygiene following methods of euthanasia: the language proposed at § 205.238(a)(2) is the main reason the tails of cows are Suffocation, manual blows to the head ‘‘. . . resulting in appropriate body docked on dairy farms, and thus by blunt instrument or manual blunt condition’’ should be the sole indicator hygiene should not be a justification for force trauma, and use of equipment that of the sufficiency of feed rations. Other physical alterations. crushes the neck (e.g., killing pliers or comments, while expressing support for (Response) AMS agrees that the term Burdizzo clamps). In the event of an the inclusion of this additional hygiene could be used to justify emergency situation where a local, language, argued that ‘‘appropriate body physical alterations otherwise State, or Federal government agency condition’’ is difficult to quantify. One prohibited, and has removed hygiene requires the use of a non-organic comment requested that body condition from this section of the final rule. method of euthanasia, organic livestock standards be specified in the final rule. (Comment) AMS received comments operations will not lose organic Other comments requested that body that ‘‘reasonably young age’’ in certification or face other penalties for condition assessment guidance § 205.238(a)(5) was too vague. These the use of non-organic methods of accompany the final rule. comments requested that we provide euthanasia. The NOSB recommended (Response) Livestock body condition target ages for all physical alterations for listing the allowable methods of may vary greatly depending on the all livestock. euthanasia, however, given that new livestock breed, age, season of the year, (Response) The appropriate age of humane euthanasia methods may or stage of production. The primary animals for performing alterations may emerge, AMS does not intend to requirement under this section is to depend on several factors, such as the discourage producer adoption of these require livestock to receive a feed ration nature of the physical alteration, techniques. Therefore, AMS allows that is sufficient to meet nutritional temperature, season, species breed, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7052 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

health and condition of the animal. best way to minimize stress and pain. Many comments were supportive of the Certifying agents will need to work with While certified operations are permitted physical alterations proposed as producers on a case-by-case basis to to use pain medications to treat or prohibited, with some comments assess the specific issues, needs, and prevent pain caused by performing offering refinements or requesting justifications related to physical allowed physical alterations, pain clarification. Many comments requested alterations on their operation by species medications may not be necessary for that additional practices be prohibited, and breed for inclusion in their organic some allowed physical alterations. and other comments argued that some of system plans within the parameters Therefore, AMS has not made any the practices that were proposed as provided in the final rule. Identifying changes based on these comments. prohibited should be allowed. target ages on every species for every (Comment) AMS received one AMS received comments that the possible physical alteration would be comment requesting that we add ‘‘where opening sentence of § 205.238(a)(5)(ii), overly prescriptive and would effective non-physical methods are not ‘‘The following practices must not be unnecessarily impede operators in the available’’ to § 205.238(a)(5). performed on a certified operation,’’ humane management of their livestock. (Response) Under this final rule, creates a loophole in which practices Therefore, AMS has not made changes physical alterations may be performed can be performed during the one-year in the final rule based on this comment. to benefit the welfare of the animals, for transition of a dairy animal. (Comment) AMS received comments identification purposes, or for safety (Response) AMS has clarified the that ‘‘by a competent person’’ is too purposes. This comment suggests an regulatory text in the final rule to state: subjective to evaluate and should be additional broad requirement that a ‘‘The following practices are removed from § 205.238(a)(5). producer would need to provide prohibited . . .’’ The discussion of Comments requested further that justifications for routine, allowed comments on the specific physical ‘‘competent person’’ be replaced with physical alterations, which were not alterations proposed as prohibited is ‘‘licensed veterinarian.’’ recommended by the NOSB and were divided into avian and mammalian (Response) While AMS did not define not presented for public comment in the sections. a ‘‘competent person,’’ AMS will rely on proposed rule. Therefore, AMS has not Avian Physical Alteration Prohibitions certifying agents to assess the requisite made any changes based on this expertise of the individual. Most routine comment. (Comment) AMS received comments physical alterations, such as dehorning, identifying that we used the terms ‘‘toe castration, and beak clipping are not 4. Physical Alterations—Swine clipping’’ and ‘‘toe trimming’’ conducted by licensed veterinarians. (Comment) Many comments interchangeably and inconsistently in Livestock operators perform these requested a complete prohibition of reference to altering the toes of male operations, often on a daily basis. needle teeth clipping and tail docking in turkeys in the proposed rule. These Requiring all physical alterations to be swine. Some comments supported the comments also said that the proposed conducted by a licensed veterinarian principle that needle teeth clipping and rule incorrectly defined this physical would result in significant expense and tail docking in pigs should not be alteration practice as applying only to inconvenience to an organic livestock routinely used, but could be permitted the toes of male turkeys, rather than all operator. The proposed rule requires with documentation that alternative turkeys, in § 205.2 and that physical alterations be conducted methods to prevent harm failed, as § 205.238(a)(5)(ii) of the rule text. by a ‘‘competent person.’’ This would proposed in § 205.238(a)(5)(i). One Another comment stated that toe generally be understood to be someone comment supported the provisions trimming, toe cutting, and de-clawing who has the education, training, and regarding tail docking and needle teeth are all essentially the same toe experience necessary to conduct clipping in swine but requested treatment. AMS also received a separate physical operations quickly and easily, clarification as to whether proof was comment requesting that we prohibit toe with minimal stress and pain for the required at the operation level or on a clipping in turkeys, or only permit the animal. Certifying agents will assess the by litter basis. This comment felt that use of infra-red, rather than a hot blade competence of personnel conducting requiring proof to be provided at a by or electric cauterization. physical operations and determine if litter basis seemed excessive and (Response) The definition of ‘‘toe they have the necessary competencies potentially harmful to the welfare of the clipping’’ is addressed in this final rule based on the complexity of the sows in that operation. in the Discussion of Comments alteration to be performed. AMS has not (Response) AMS does not agree with Received for § 205.2. To be consistent made any changes in the final rule a complete prohibition of needle teeth with the changes made to the definition based on this comment. clipping and tail docking in swine due of ‘‘toe clipping’’ in § 205.2, the rule text (Comment) For § 205.238(a)(5), AMS to possible animal welfare impacts. at § 205.238(a)(5)(ii) ‘‘. . . toe clipping received many comments that the AMS is retaining this provision based of male turkeys unless with infra-red at phrase ‘‘minimal stress and pain’’ was on consideration of recommendations hatchery . . .’’ has been changed to not an explicit enough description of by the NOSB. AMS will allow certifying ‘‘. . . toe clipping of turkeys unless how physical alterations must be agents to determine whether the specific with infra-red at hatchery . . .’’ AMS performed on livestock. These need for physical alterations are received an NOSB recommendation comments requested that the use of sufficiently justified by producers on an advising the complete prohibition of toe synthetic pain medications allowed on operation, litter, or individual animal clipping for chickens. Turkeys or other § 205.603 be mandatory. Similar basis in their organic system plans. poultry were not included in this comments were made regarding the prohibition of toe clipping. Methods of language at § 205.238(a)(7). Again, 5. Physical Alterations—Specific both toe clipping and beak clipping are comments requested that USDA organic Prohibitions addressed together in a separate regulations mandate the use of synthetic (Comment) AMS received several discussion following the below pain medication rather than simply comments regarding both the proposed discussion of comments regarding beak allow them. language at § 205.238(a)(5)(ii) and the clipping. (Response) AMS agrees that, in many specific physical alterations proposed as (Comment) AMS received various situations, pain medications may be the prohibited for livestock and poultry. comments on beak trimming. Many

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7053

comments requested that all beak require all beak trimming and toe comment proposed that castration be trimming be prohibited, one requested clipping to use only the infra-red prohibited after two months of age. that we only allow infra-red beak method since AMS did not include this (Response) Dehorning and castration treatments, and another comment asked restriction in the proposed rule and of livestock are important practices for if re-trimming of beaks would be AMS does not know the availability, animal welfare and farm management. allowed. One comment suggested that cost, or impact of only allowing infra- For example, dehorned livestock are AMS limit beak trimming to no more red technology in organic production easier and less dangerous to handle and than the thickness of a dime. Some systems. AMS may request that NOSB transport; can present a lower risk of comments were opposed to the provide additional advice and interference from dominant animals at prohibition on de-beaking. recommendations on methods of feeding time; and can pose a reduced (Response) AMS is not completely poultry beak trimming, toe clipping, and risk of injury to udders, flanks, and eyes prohibiting beak trimming in poultry in toe cutting if conditions warrant in the of other animals. Castration is also an the final rule due to animal welfare and future. important practice from a safe handling economic impacts to poultry producers. (Comment) AMS received two and product quality perspective. This physical alteration is allowed at up comments requesting that the final rule Castrated male cattle (steers) are less to 10 days of age. Re-trimming of beaks exclude wattles from the definition of aggressive, are easier to handle, and is allowed at up to 10 days of age, but dubbing in § 205.2. They also asked that yield better marbled, more tender beef. is not permitted after 10 days of age. In we remove the prohibition of dubbing in Therefore, AMS is not prohibiting these addition, beak trimming cannot be § 205.238(a)(5)(ii). One comment practices in the final rule. reported that dubbing is used in limited to a specific measurement While best management practices research to mitigate comb injuries, and because of the wide variability in beaks suggest that dehorning and castration is not currently used by the layer of bird species and breeds. Therefore, should be done at the earliest age industry. This comment stated that with AMS is retaining the definition of beak practical to minimize pain and the push for outdoor access in regions trimming in § 205.2 as the removal of suffering,7 this suggestion is vague and, where cold weather is a certainty, the curved tip of the beak as as such, would be difficult to enforce. dubbing may be needed to stop frostbite recommended by the NOSB. AMS is Further, requiring alterations to be and other comb injuries that could also retaining de-beaking as defined in performed before a specific age may § 205.2, and de-beaking remains occur when birds are outdoors. (Response) AMS disagrees with the unnecessarily exclude some animals prohibited in § 205.238(a)(5)(ii) of the from further management as organic if final rule as recommended by the comment and is retaining the definition of dubbing that includes both wattles alterations were delayed for reasons NOSB. AMS received many requests beyond a certified operation’s control. about the methods of beak trimming, toe and combs in § 205.2 along with the prohibition of dubbing in Therefore, AMS did not make these clipping, and toe cutting, which are changes in the final rule. addressed immediately below. § 205.238(a)(5)(ii) of the final rule. Dubbing is the practice of cutting off the While the final rule does not mandate Methods of Beak Trimming, Toe comb, wattle and earlobes of chickens. the use of allowed synthetics to manage Clipping, and Toe Cutting The practice of dubbing, sometimes pain, it does not prohibit the use of pain medications when performing allowed (Comment) A few comments inquired carried out by poultry operators without physical alterations. The final rule about various methods of beak clipping, anaesthetic, is a cause of pain and allows operations to work with their toe trimming, and toe clipping, distress. Blood circulating from the certifying agents to agree on a physical including the use of traditional comb to the wattles helps the bird to alteration process that uses medications, mechanical devices, such as knives or regulate its body temperature during hot as needed, to meet the regulatory scissors, and more modern methods, weather. Removing either wattle or requirement to perform alterations such as electric cauterization (also comb provides no benefit to the bird. while minimizing pain and stress. called a cautery knife), the hot blade, Mammalian Physical Alteration (Comment) AMS received one and infra-red. Some comments stated Prohibitions that the use of infra-red is less invasive comment seeking to prohibit all and painful, causes less tissue damage, (Comment) AMS received various branding, and not just face branding. and results in fewer chronic pain issues comments regarding prohibiting the use This same comment offered that there compared with other methods of poultry of some physical alterations of livestock are many alternative animal beak trimming, toe trimming, and toe and mandating pain-relieving identification methods such as ear tags, clipping. One comment stated that all medications for other physical ear notches, back tags, neck chains, tail forms of beak trimming, toe trimming, alterations. Many comments requested tags, freeze brands, tattoos, paint marks, and toe clipping are inhumane. Other that the final rule prohibit or restrict de- leg bands, and electronic identification comments asked for guidance on horning, yet allow disbudding of cattle. methods (e.g., electronic ear tags, methods of beak trimming. Some comments supported the microchips, electronic collars). Another (Response) Following a review of allowance of dehorning or disbudding, comment stated that our prohibition of recent poultry periodicals and literature, but only if performed by a licensed face branding would place operations at AMS notes that infra-red is the newest veterinarian and with pain relief odds in states with regulations that technology being used for beak mandated. One comment noted that require face branding of steers from trimming, toe clipping, and toe cutting. while caponization was prohibited in Mexico. Nevada was provided as the Articles report that infra-red appears to poultry, castration of cattle, sheep, pigs, example.8 be more humane and is gradually being or other animals was not mentioned. This comment requested that castrations 7 American Veterinary Medical Association, adopted over electric cauterization and Castration and Dehorning of Cattle. https:// 6 be performed by licensed veterinarians the hot blade. The final rule does not www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Castration-and- with pain relief mandated. Another Dehorning-of-Cattle.aspx. 6 American Veterinary Medical Association, 8 Nevada State regulations, Chapter 571— Literature Review on the Welfare Implications of www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/ Diseased Animals; NAC 571.040 Cattle and bison, Beak Trimming, February 2010. https:// Documents/beak_trimming_bgnd.pdf. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7054 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

(Response) In its recommendation on data to establish the average percentage found in the discussion of comments in animal welfare, the NOSB of lameness by species and then require Avian Living Conditions at § 205.241. recommended a prohibition specific to producers to stay below that percentage. 8. Use of Milk From Animals face branding. Therefore, the scope of Some comments expressed opposition Undergoing Treatments the proposed rule submitted for public to this proposed requirement. One comment was limited to that aspect. comment reported that certifying agents (Comment) AMS received comments AMS did not make changes based on are not trained or qualified to ‘‘identify on the use of milk from animals this comment. In the future, if the NOSB a particular disease or ailment’’ and that undergoing treatment with allowed recommends a prohibition on all this requirement would violate the medications on the National List in branding, we will consider that aspect certifying agents’ prohibition on § 205.603. Some of these comments for proposed rulemaking, with consulting. Other comments stated that asked if milk from cows treated with opportunity for public comment. USDA organic regulations already synthetic parasiticides could be With consideration to the comment require livestock producers to maintain provided to a cow’s calf or other young regarding state requirements for face treatment records for sick and injured calves in the same operation. One branding of imported cattle, AMS has animals per the requirements of comment requested that the USDA considered this comment and has § 205.103, and that adding this organic regulations include amended the final rule to provide an additional record-keeping requirement nonsynthetic substances not prohibited exception for these state requirements. was too prescriptive and would do little on § 205.604 but require an FDA We have amended paragraph to ‘‘lead to effective prevention or withholding period for milk when these 205.238(a)(5)(ii) to prohibit face treatment.’’ substances are administered. A few branding, except as required by state or (Response) AMS included this new comments did not want the milk from federal law. requirement in response to an NOSB treated animals fed to any calf. recommendation, and it will be retained In addition, another comment 6. Monitoring and Recordkeeping in the final rule. AMS agrees that a requested the removal of the word Regarding Lameness and Treatment species-based system for scoring ‘‘edible’’ from § 205.238(c)(1). This (Comment) AMS received various lameness will follow the final rule as comment argued that including this comments on the proposed new section guidance. AMS agrees with comments word could allow the sale of fiber § 205.238(a)(8) that requires organic that establishing a percentage of herd or products as organic from animals that producers to actively monitor lameness flock lameness threshold connected to have been treated with antibiotics or within the herd or flock, to document species averages could be valuable, and other prohibited substances. cases and causes of lameness, and to we will consider requesting that the (Response) AMS concurs with the describe how they were managed or NOSB provide additional advice and comments on allowing milk from treated. One comment from the dairy recommendations on herd or flock animals treated with synthetic industry remarked that we do not lameness thresholds. substances that are included on the provide a definition or a consistent National List in § 205.603 to be fed to system for identifying and assessing the 7. Ammonia Levels in Poultry Houses a treated cow’s calf or to other calves in degree and severity of lameness, and as (Comment) AMS received comments the same operation. AMS also agrees a result, producer observations and that it was redundant to include with the comment indicating that the recordkeeping will not be universal or ammonia requirements in both word ‘‘edible’’ may provide a loophole consistent. For example, some § 205.238 and § 205.241, and comments in the regulations that would allow the operations may appear to have more recommended we keep the requirement sale of fiber products as organic from cases because they are addressing a in only one section. Other comments animals that have been treated with potentially worsening condition at an suggested we make the requirement in antibiotics or other prohibited earlier stage, while less observant and § 205.238 apply to all types of livestock substances. The word ‘‘edible’’ has been less aggressively managed operations production rather than limit the removed from this regulation in the may not be as effective at identifying requirement to poultry production. final rule. lameness. This comment described a (Response) AMS agrees it is not AMS does not agree with comments private industry example of a system necessary to include both sections as on restricting the sale of milk from that offers consistency with a 5-point proposed. In the final rule, we have animals treated with nonsynthetic locomotion scoring (LS) scale in which retained the requirement in § 205.241 substances that are not included on the an animal with a normal walk and no and removed the requirement in National List in § 205.604 but have an sign of lameness scores as one (1) with § 205.238. FDA-required withholding period. AMS the scale progressing to a score of five With regard to ammonia levels in is not aware of any nonsynthetic (5) as a ‘severely lame’ cow.9 other types of operations, the NOSB substance that is categorized as a drug A few comments suggested that we recommendations and subsequent with a required withholding period. The develop thresholds to assist producers proposed rule focused primarily on the USDA organic regulations, in with developing plans to reduce the ammonia levels in poultry houses. § 205.105(b), prohibit the use of incidence of lameness. As an example, While AMS recognizes that ammonia nonsynthetic substances that are on the one comment suggested that if greater levels may be relevant for other types of National List in § 205.604. Currently, than 10% of a herd or flock for more livestock production, we have not under USDA organic regulations, if a than two years experienced lameness, broadened the requirement to cover nonsynthetic substance is not listed in the producer must implement a plan to other types of operations in this final § 205.604, it may be used in organic reduce the incidence of lameness. rule. AMS may consider future livestock production, provided its use Another comment suggested we collect rulemaking to establish ammonia-level complies with all regulation action thresholds if recommended by requirements that supersede the USDA 2. (e) (1) http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC- the NOSB and supported by public organic regulations. Since USDA 571.html#NAC571Sec002. organic regulations require prohibited 9 Zinpro Performance Minerals, Locomotion comment and available evidence. Scoring of Dairy Cattle, www.zinpro.com/lameness/ The remaining discussion of nonsynthetic substances to be listed in dairy/locomotion-scoring. comments regarding ammonia can be § 205.604, AMS cannot include a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7055

prohibition of nonsynthetic substances when animals are injured or undergo should be consistent because they both not listed in § 205.604 under surgery. The requirements for the use of address circumstances in which § 205.238(c)(1). parasiticides under § 205.238(b) is not synthetic medications can and cannot Accordingly, § 205.238(c)(1) in the changed in the final rule; parasiticides be administered. final rule prohibits an operation to ‘‘sell, allowed under § 205.603 may be used (Response) AMS agrees with these label, or represent as organic any animal on: (1) breeder stock, when used prior comments and has amended the final or product derived from any animal to the last one-third of gestation but not rule by inserting changes into treated with antibiotics, any substance during lactation for progeny that are to § 205.238(b) to clarify when synthetic that contains a synthetic substance not be sold, labeled, or represented as medications can be administered in allowed under § 205.603, or any organically produced; and (2) dairy organic livestock production. AMS also substance that contains a nonsynthetic stock, when used a minimum of 90 days revised § 205.238(c)(2) to be consistent substance prohibited in § 205.604.’’ prior to the production of milk or milk with paragraph (b) in this section and to Milk from animals undergoing treatment products that are to be sold, labeled, or describe the exceptions under which the with synthetic substances allowed represented as organic. AMS does not use of synthetic medications are under § 205.603 cannot be sold as agree with comments that addressed the permitted. organic but may be fed to a treated prohibition on administering animal 10. Prohibitions on the Use of Hormones animal’s calf or to calves on the same drugs, including antibiotics, in the operation. Milk from animals absence of illness to keep animals (Comment) AMS received comments undergoing treatment with prohibited healthy and prevent illness. Under the asking if the new regulations in substances cannot be sold as organic or USDA organic regulations, a livestock § 205.238(c)(3), which prohibit the fed to organic livestock. producer must establish and maintain administration of hormones for growth preventive health care practices as promotion, production, or reproduction, 9. Administering Synthetic Medications include oxytocin, which may be used in for Disease prescribed in § 205.238(a). This requirement has been included within postparturition therapeutic applications. (Comment) AMS received comments the USDA organic regulations since Comments expressed concern that the on the rule revisions proposed for these regulations were published on addition of the terms ‘‘production’’ and § 205.238(b). Some of these comments December 21, 2000. This final rule has ‘‘reproduction’’ may cause confusion argued that the addition of not changed this requirement. When with the allowed use of oxytocin as a § 205.238(b)(3), regarding regulation preventive practices have been medical treatment in aiding cows after requirements for the use of inadequate to prevent illness, a calving. parasiticides, created confusion. Other producer may administer synthetic (Response) AMS agrees with comments addressed concerns for medications that are listed in § 205.603. comments about the potential for physical alterations and surgical The USDA organic regulations do allow confusion when producers or certifying procedures and requested that AMS synthetic medications listed in agents interpret the terms ‘‘production’’ mandate, rather than simply allow, the § 205.603 to be used during surgery for and ‘‘reproduction’’ in applications of use of pain medications to relieve pain. the animal’s welfare. oxytocin for therapeutic use following One comment requested that AMS add (Comment) One comment stated that calving. In the final rule, AMS amended the term ‘‘injury’’ to the conditions for it is inconsistent and confusing to allow § 205.238(c)(3) to provide clarification which administering synthetic other veterinary biologics, in addition to on the allowed use of oxytocin by medications is allowed in organic vaccines, to be exempt from the adding the condition, ‘‘except as livestock production under § 205.603. prohibition on administering animal provided in § 205.603.’’ The inclusion of A few comments addressed the drugs in the absence of illness. This this condition clarifies the allowed use prohibition on administering animal comment argued that many vaccines of oxytocin in organic livestock drugs in the absence of illness since the contain compounded drugs, which may production for therapeutic applications. scope of the phrase ‘‘animal drug’’ as include prohibited chemicals such as defined by the FDA includes 11. Prohibition on Withholding hormones or anti-inflammatories. Treatment To Minimize Pain and preventative procedures or products. (Response) AMS disagrees with this Suffering These comments argued that the USDA comment. The final rule does not add organic regulations prohibit producers any new substances to the National List (Comment) AMS received comments from utilizing drugs that are designed to of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. on § 205.238(c)(7) recommending that keep animals healthy and prevent Currently, vaccines are the only the USDA organic regulations require illness. One comment asked if synthetic biologic substance on the livestock producers to have a written antibiotics could be used to treat pain. National List. All other synthetic marketing plan for diverted animals that (Response) AMS agrees with the biologics are prohibited. Additionally, have been treated with antibiotics or comments that stated that the the USDA organic regulations require other prohibited substances. These amendment to § 205.238(b), as synthetic animal drugs that are allowed comments added that such marketing proposed, is confusing and should be for use in organic livestock production plans might encourage medical clarified. In the final rule, to be manufactured with excipients treatment of illness or injury. A § 205.238(b)(3) has been deleted and the (non-active drug ingredients) according comment from a certifying agent requirements for this provision have to regulation requirements described proposed that § 205.238(c)(7) be been incorporated under § 205.238(b). under § 205.603(f). amended to state that operations cannot: Producers may administer medications (Comment) AMS received comments ‘‘Withhold medical treatment designed that are allowed under § 205.603 to indicating that the requirements for use to minimize pain and suffering from an alleviate pain or suffering and when of synthetic medications allowed in ill or injured animal in an effort to preventive practices and veterinary § 205.238(c)(2) should be the same as preserve its organic status. All biologics are inadequate to prevent the requirements for use of synthetic appropriate medications must be used sickness. This amendment to medications allowed in § 205.238(b)(3). to restore an animal to health when § 205.238(b) includes allowing the These comments argued that the methods acceptable to organic administration of synthetic medications language in these regulation sections production fail. Livestock and products

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7056 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

from livestock treated with a prohibited regulation specifies that organic § 205.238(e). Some comments also substance must be clearly identified and producers must not practice forced sought more details and clarification on shall not be sold, labeled, or represented molting or withdrawal of feed to induce methods of euthanasia. The USDA as organically produced.’’ molting. Forced molting practices, organic regulations specify only three (Response) AMS disagrees with these including but not limited to the euthanasia methods as prohibited in comments and did not add the starvation of laying hens, not allowing § 205.238(e)(2) and provide no other requirement for a written marketing birds to exercise full range of motion, or parameters for selecting an appropriate plan for diverted animals to the disposal of male chicks or live euthanasia method. In their comment on § 205.238(c)(7). Under OFPA, AMS does unhatched eggs by suffocation, are the proposed rule, the American not have the authority to require this prohibited under § 205.238(c)(10). Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) type of marketing plan. AMS recognizes Because the regulation under indicated that organic livestock that a written marketing plan for § 205.238(c)(10) already includes the operations culling livestock should diverted animals treated with prohibited prohibition of forced molting or the implement euthanasia methods substances would be a beneficial withdrawal of feed to induce molting, according to the most recent edition of component of an organic system plan AMS does not agree that additional the AVMA Guidelines for the for producers and certifying agents. language is needed to clarify this Euthanasia of Animals. AVMA argued Certifying agents can encourage regulation. that the guidelines are widely accepted producers to include a component for scientific and ethical standard for marketing diverted animals in their 13. Comprehensive Parasite Management Plan euthanasia. Other comments included a organic system plan, however this is not request that the USDA organic required under USDA organic (Comment) AMS received a number of regulations prohibit the practice of regulations. Organic livestock producers comments in support of the requirement euthanizing piglets by manual blunt should clearly identify and separate any that producers have a comprehensive force trauma. Another comment asked animal that has been treated with a parasite management plan as required in that we reconsider the banning of prohibited substance. Products from § 205.238(d). A certifying agent Burdizzo devices for emergency livestock treated with a prohibited commented in support of the internal euthanasia if other methods are not substance must be clearly identified and parasite management plan, but argued available. This comment indicated that shall not be sold, labeled, or represented that requiring producers to create a properly used Burdizzo devices are as organic. In addition, AMS has separate plan would be redundant and effective as an emergency euthanasia determined that § 205.238(c)(7), as burdensome to producers. One device for larger animals. One comment described in the proposed rule, requires comment stressed that a parasite requested that we clarify whether producers to apply all appropriate management plan should be developed poultry operations who cull flocks using medications to restore an animal to in conjunction with a comprehensive onsite euthanasia must adhere to the health when methods acceptable to pest management plan. euthanasia requirements, and requested (Response) AMS agrees with organic production fail. The amendment that we consider developing guidance comments in support of a proposed by the certifying agent on culling poultry flocks. comprehensive pest management plan requiring producers to use all (Response) This final rule specifies, in livestock and poultry operations that appropriate medications to restore an under § 205.238(e)(2), that the following also addresses management of all animal to health when methods methods of euthanasia are not permitted vectors of internal parasites, illness, and acceptable to organic production fail is for use in organic livestock production: disease. Livestock producers should adequately addressed within suffocation, manual blow to the head by describe their comprehensive parasite § 205.238(c)(7). blunt instrument or manual blunt force management plan within their overall 12. Prohibition on Forced Molting trauma, and use of equipment that organic system plan. Under crushes the neck, including killing (Comment) AMS received comments § 205.238(d), livestock producers would pliers or Burdizzo clamps. Blow(s) to indicating that § 205.238(c)(10), which describe their parasite management plan the head by blunt instrument as prohibits the ‘‘practice of forced molting as an integral component of prohibited at § 205.238(e)(2) does apply or withdrawal of feed to induce comprehensive plans for mammalian to piglets. AMS disagrees with the molting,’’ is too general. Some living condition practices in § 205.239, comment to allow Burdizzo clamps and comments proposed details and or avian living condition practices in retains the prohibition of these clamps definitions about humane methods of § 205.241. molting to better manage the natural AMS disagrees with comments under § 205.238(e)(2). AMS agrees with molting behaviors of a flock. A indicating that a comprehensive plan to the AVMA comment on euthanasia certifying agent suggested that AMS add minimize internal parasites requires methods. The final rule, in the following language: ‘‘. . . or other livestock producers to create a separate § 205.238(c)(8), references the AVMA interventions’’ to § 205.238(c)(10). This plan from their organic system plan, guidelines on euthanasia. comment indicated that including this which would be redundant and 15. Out of Scope Comments phrase would clarify that the USDA burdensome. The USDA organic Disposal of Male Chicks or Live organic regulations prohibit all forms of regulations do not require producers to Unhatched Eggs by Suffocation induced or forced molting. An create a separate plan, outside of their additional comment suggested that organic system plan, for comprehensive (Comment) One comment asked if we forced molting be defined as the parasite management. could prohibit the common practice of starvation of laying hens to make them the disposal of male chicks or live enter the next laying cycle. 14. Humane Euthanasia Plan and unhatched eggs by suffocation. (Response) AMS disagrees with Prohibited Methods (Response) Under the USDA organic comments proposing that additional (Comment) AMS received comments regulations, poultry or edible poultry language is needed to indicate that all that were in support of the new products must be sourced from poultry procedures of forced molting are regulations on humane and prohibited that has been under continuous organic prohibited under § 205.238(c)(10). This methods of euthanasia described under management beginning no later than the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7057

second day of life. Male chicks or live stall design directs manure and urine farrowing and during the suckling unhatched eggs that are under into a collection system to prevent period; § 205.239(a)(8)(ii) allows for continuous organic management can mastitis and maintain low somatic cell boars to be individually housed to only be euthanized by methods counts in the milk. Mammalian reduce the likelihood of fights and described in § 205.238(e). livestock may be housed for part of the injuries; and § 205.239(a)(8)(iii) allows day in stalls as described in the organic for swine to be individually housed VIII. Mammalian Living Conditions system plan as long as they have after multiple documented instances of (§ 205.39) complete freedom of movement during aggression or to allow an individual pig A. Description of Regulations significant parts of the day for grazing, to recover from a documented illness. loafing, and exhibiting natural social AMS added two new provisions in 1. Summary of the Final Rule behavior. This allowance does not §§ 205.239(a)(9) and (10) concerning AMS separated mammalian living permit the use of gestation crates or swine housing. Section 205.239(a)(9) conditions from avian living conditions other confinement systems in which prohibits the use of flat decks or piglet due to the different physiology and swine would be housed individually in cages. This provision prohibits the husbandry practices for birds and stalls for months at a time. However, if stacking of piglets in flat decks in mammals. As a result, AMS revised the livestock are temporarily confined multiple layers. In addition, title of § 205.239 from ‘‘Livestock Living indoors as permitted in § 205.239(b), § 205.239(a)(10) requires that both Conditions’’ to ‘‘Mammalian Livestock livestock must be able to move around, indoor and outdoor areas for swine have Living Conditions.’’ By creating clear turn around, and stretch their limbs some space that permits rooting. requirements for mammalian livestock indoors for part of the day. Operations Rooting is a natural behavior that must and avian livestock, animal wellbeing will need to fully describe the use of be accommodated by organic swine can be enhanced and consumers can be any stalls, methods used in stall producers and could be done in soil, assured of the integrity of the USDA management, and how livestock are able deep packed straw, or other materials. organic seal. Information regarding to express their normal patterns of Organic swine producers must also avian living conditions are addressed in behavior. demonstrate how swine will be allowed new § 205.241. AMS added § 205.239(a)(4)(iv) to set to root during temporary confinement The final rule revised § 205.239(a)(1) requirements for an indoor space for periods. to remove the requirement that all bedding and resting that is sufficiently AMS added a new provision in ruminant livestock must be able to feed large and comfortable to keep the § 205.239(a)(11) to further clarify the use simultaneously. One method of feeding animals clean, dry, and free of lesions, of barns or other structures with stalls. livestock, including ruminants, is the with the exception of animals raised on If indoor shelter is provided by a use of a self-feeder or a creep-feeder. pasture or range. Because livestock on structure with stalls, then there must be With creep-feeding and self-feeding, pasture or range may not have access to a sufficient number of stalls that allow feed is accessible to all animals at all traditional barns or bedded areas, AMS for the natural behavior of the animals. times though they may not feed at the recognizes that while livestock do need In no case may a cage be considered a exact same time. Self-feeding and creep- to be provided with shelter (defined in stall. One exception is provided for this feeding provide organic ruminant § 205.2), livestock do not need to be provision: In the case of group-housed producers with more flexibility and provided with indoor space. These swine, more animals than feeding stalls options to manage their farm and types of operations may use windbreaks may be allowed as long as all animals livestock in farm-specific methods. or other methods to provide shelter for are fed routinely every day. AMS is AMS is maintaining the current the livestock. Additionally, not all man- aware of some enhanced swine welfare § 205.239(a)(3), which requires the use made shelters are designed to hold systems, in which animals are of appropriate, clean, dry bedding. If bedding; for example, a shelter designed robotically fed once they enter an roughages are used as bedding, they to provide shade may be portable and individual feeding stall; once finished, must be organically produced and thus incompatible with holding the animal may leave the stall and handled by certified operations, with bedding. Operations need to describe in another animal may enter for its specific the exception of transitioning dairy their OSP how they will provide shelter quantity of feed. AMS does not intend producers. to their livestock in a manner suitable to prohibit such systems, which AMS revised § 205.239(a)(4)(i) to for the species, stage of production, and enhance the wellbeing of organic specify that shelter must be designed to environment. animals. AMS also added specific accommodate natural behaviors over AMS added new requirements in allowances for a variety of cattle barns, every 24-hour period. Shelter must have § 205.239(a)(7) concerning the including tie stall barns, stanchion sufficient space for the animals to lie individual housing of dairy young stock. barns, and free stall barns. While these down, stand up, and fully stretch their Section 205.239(a)(7) allows for the barns can all be suitable for organic limbs and allow livestock to express individual housing of animals until the certification systems, the specific their normal patterns of behavior over a weaning process is complete but no procedures used by producers with 24-hour period. AMS recognizes that longer than six months, as long as the these barns may be incompatible with there are times when animals will be animals have sufficient room to turn organic production. If a producer constrained for livestock handling or around, lie down, stretch out while provides too few stalls in a free stall management purposes. An animal may lying down, get up, rest, and groom barn or leaves an animal tied up for 24 be limited in its freedom of movement themselves. In addition, the individual hours per day in a tie stall barn, these during parts of the day for a variety of housing of young stock needs to be methods would not be permitted under reasons, including milking, feeding, or designed so that animals can see, smell, USDA organic regulations. other handling purposes. Animals may and hear other animals. AMS added a new requirement for be constrained for limited amounts of AMS added three new provisions in outdoor access in § 205.239(a)(12). time to ensure hygiene and wellbeing of § 205.239(a)(8) to require the group Organic livestock are required to have the animals. Stalls for organic dairy housing of swine, with three listed unencumbered access to the outdoors cattle are often designed to limit the exceptions: § 205.239(a)(8)(i) allows for year-round, unless temporary animals from turning to the sides. This sows to be individually housed at confinement is justified under a specific

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7058 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

reason described in the regulations (e.g., change would allow the use of self- vegetation and cause the soil to wash nighttime confinement for protection feeding and creep-feeding so that the away during subsequent rain events. from predators). When the outdoor ruminants would have access to feed Comments cited that USDA NRCS space includes soil, then maximal continuously over a 24-hour period. provided funding to build hardened vegetative cover must be maintained as outdoor spaces for dairy cattle to use so B. Discussion of Comments Received appropriate for the season, climate, as to prevent damage to soil and prevent geography, species of livestock, and 1. Opposition To Changes in the nutrients in the soil being washed into stage of production. Ruminants must Mammalian Living Conditions Section/ streams and rivers. These comments have access to graze during the growing Make No Changes for Ruminants already noted that in the pasture rule season. Swine are not required to have response to comments, AMS recognized (Comment) A number of comments access to the soil or vegetation; that sacrifice areas (soil-based areas that were opposed any changes to the however, if a swine producer chooses to are designed for livestock to be held in mammalian living conditions section. allow swine to have access to the soil as during wet or winter conditions) are not Some comments indicated that current a rooting material, then the producer possible in all regions and thus cannot organic regulations were sufficient and must maintain as much vegetative cover be required. no more were needed. Other comments as possible given the natural behavior of Some comments were also concerned swine to root, the season, and local noted that the sections pertaining to about the environmental damage that environmental conditions. ruminants were sufficient and that no swine could do if the outdoor area AMS revised § 205.239(b)(7) to clarify changes needed to be made to them. included access to soil. Natural behavior the exemption for temporary (Response) AMS revised the of swine includes rooting of the soil, confinement for the purpose of breeding mammalian living conditions sections which destroys the vegetation and root livestock. Livestock may only be to clarify a number of provisions for structure of the vegetation. If swine are confined for the time required for mammals, including ruminants. These left too long on the land, the land loses natural or artificial breeding. A group of changes were recommended by the vegetation and runoff could occur. livestock may be confined before the NOSB through an open public comment Other comments called for minimum procedures and while the various process. In addition, livestock living outdoor space allowance for swine in individuals are bred; afterward, the conditions have always been a part of order to protect the soil. These group shall be returned to living spaces the USDA organic regulations. AMS comments noted that if there was that allow outdoor access. Livestock received many questions from certifying sufficient space, a minimum vegetative may not be confined indoors to observe agents and organic producers cover could be maintained, which estrus or until they are determined to be concerning livestock living conditions would minimize or prevent any pregnant. Section 205.239(c)(1) that needed clarification in the environmental damage the swine may describes the time when ruminants may regulatory text. Due to the NOSB cause. These comments suggested that be denied access to pasture, but not recommendations and the need to the NOSB evaluate how much space is access to the outdoors, before and after clarify livestock living condition required for swine outdoors and then a breeding attempt. requirements, AMS believes that the pass a recommendation that AMS could AMS revised § 205.239(b)(8) to clarify changes are needed. act upon. Other comments suggested the temporary confinement exception 2. Outdoor Area Requirements that AMS use a space allowance that the for youth livestock projects. Because NOSB livestock subcommittee had many youth livestock projects include Many comments were opposed to discussed but which had never been the sale of market animals, organic requiring soil as part of the outdoor passed by the full board. animals that were under continuous access requirement for all mammals. (Response) USDA organic regulations organic management may be sold as These comments provided many prohibit organic producers from organic animals at youth fairs, even if reasons for excluding soil from the reducing soil and water quality. The the sales facility is not certified organic. outdoor requirement, including regulations also provide for temporary Thus, the revised provision includes an environmental, soil quality, animal confinement of livestock to protect soil exemption to the § 205.239(b)(6) health, and disease transmission and water quality. AMS agrees with requirement that a livestock sales concerns. Commenters opposed soil for comments that livestock should be kept facility be certified as an organic dairy animals during the non-growing off of soil-covered areas during times of operation. As an example, if a youth season and for swine at any time, the year when livestock could damage exhibition and sale is held at a livestock though some commenters supported soil soil and vegetation. In response to sales facility that is not certified organic, for swine. Comments opposing soil as a comments and consultation with NRCS the youth may sell the organic animal as requirement of outdoor access came regarding best practices, AMS removed an organic animal, provided all other from producers, certifying agents, trade ‘‘soil’’ as part of the outdoor requirements for the organic associations, and others. requirements but requires that management of livestock are met. ruminants have access to pasture during Environmental Concerns During the youth event, the livestock the grazing season. However, outside of may be temporarily confined indoors. (Comment) Comments showed the grazing season, soil based outdoor Otherwise, non-certified sales facilities, concern that dairy cattle during the non- areas are not required. Operations must such as auction barns or fairgrounds, growing season or during times when provide year-round outdoor access, may not sell or represent livestock as the cattle could be temporarily confined using either hardened surfaces or soil organic. AMS provided this exception to during the grazing season would cause based areas unless the livestock are encourage the next generation of organic environmental damage to the soil and temporarily confined indoors. farmers. surrounding waters if dairy cattle were AMS also agrees with some comments AMS revised § 205.239(d) to reflect required to be on the soil. Comments that thought the NOSB should the similar proposed changes in cited a variety of conditions (e.g., during reevaluate swine living conditions and § 205.239(a)(1). AMS removed the winter when the ground may become determine minimum outdoor space phrase requiring that all ruminants be very muddy). Cattle walking and requirements. AMS recognizes that if able to feed simultaneously. This standing on the soil would destroy any swine are placed in too small of an area

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7059

with soil, environmental problems may comments stated that most dairy farrowing period to reduce disease and occur. AMS is including this topic area producers use a type of stall housing— maintain cleanliness of the hogs. in the list of issues that the NOSB may whether free stall, tie stall, or stanchion (Comment) Comments were split on address in a future recommendation. barns—that would not provide the the issue of a cleanliness standard. indoor space for a dairy cow to lie down Some comments supported such a Health Concerns in full lateral recumbence. Most standard if appropriate guidance was (Comment) Some comments comments wanted organic dairy issued. Other comments opposed a expressed concern regarding health producers to have the flexibility to use cleanliness standard based on the implications for swine if soil access was their existing barns and structures as rationale that during certain stages of required as part of the outdoor space part of an organic system plan approved production—such as ruminants on early requirements. These comments noted by their certifying agent. These spring pastures or swine with access to that a number of diseases that had been comments explained that cattle rarely the soil during rainy periods—animals eradicated in domestic swine, such as lie down in that manner and usually will be healthy yet also be dirty with pseudorabies, were still present in feral only do so to sun themselves in a manure or mud. Comments that swine. With outdoor space that requires pasture. Many comments preferred the opposed this standard preferred the soil access, domestic swine are more current language for natural requirement for clean, dry bedding to be likely to come in contact with feral maintenance, comfort behaviors, and an provided. One comment was concerned swine and contract one of these opportunity to exercise. about the requirement for a shelter that diseases. In the event that these diseases (Comment) Comments also showed can hold bedding. This comment noted are detected in the domestic swine herd, concern with the proposed requirements that many cattle are raised in pasture or there would be trade implications as for dairy young stock. Comments agreed range conditions that would not include countries may close their markets to with the description of the housing for access to the indoors, though may U.S. pork. dairy young stock, but these comments include shade and windbreaks for These comments also discussed differed on the timing of when dairy animal wellbeing. health concerns related to consumer young stock must be group-housed. (Response) AMS agrees with the safety. Trichinosis, a parasite in pork, Some comments wanted the dairy comments that indicated that indoor has essentially been eradicated in the young stock to be group-housed by eight space requirements to allow for full domestic swine herd. Comments weeks of age while others wanted group lateral recumbence and turning around expressed concerns that with outdoor housing to occur at six months of age. without touching the enclosure may access, swine could become infected Those preferring a lower age for group negatively affect many current with this parasite and could then infect housing cited EU organic standards, producers without enhancing animal consumers of this pork with this painful which include lower age requirements. well-being. To clarify this issue, AMS condition. The comments preferring six months of revised the standard to specifically state (Response) AMS also agrees with age discussed how weaning—the that over a 24-hour period, mammalian some comments that thought the NOSB removal of milk from the diet of a young livestock must have the opportunity to should reevaluate swine living animal—is not a good stopping point as move, turn around, and exhibit natural conditions and determine minimum calves may retain the suckling impulse. behaviors. outdoor space requirements. Therefore, Comments described how a calf can AMS also stated that tie stalls, free the final rule requires year-round ruin the udder of a heifer by suckling on stalls, stanchion barns, compost pack, outdoor access for swine but does not her in response to the suckling impulse, and bed pack barns are all suitable require access to soil-covered areas. and these comments tended to prefer six facilities for cattle and can be used as AMS recognizes that if swine are placed months as the cutoff for group housing, part of an Organic System Plan. As part in too small of an area with soil, which coincides with when dairy young of the OSP, mammalian livestock environmental problems may occur. stock must be provided with pasture or producers must describe how livestock, AMS is including this topic area in the outdoor access if outside the growing over a 24-hour period of time, will be list of issues that the NOSB may address season. able to turn around, move, lie down, in a future recommendation. As part of (Comment) Comments also addressed and exhibit natural behaviors. AMS the review process, the NOSB can take indoor housing for swine. Many recognizes that certain stall facilities into consideration the presence of comments were opposed to the use of designed for animal comfort and diseases in the soil or in feral hog farrowing crates or stalls and called for cleanliness purposefully minimize the populations, which if transmitted to AMS to specifically prohibit their use. ability of the animal to turn around. domestic swine, may cause loss of These comments wanted to ensure that Livestock cannot be confined to these foreign markets to organic and swine had the opportunity to turn stalls all day, even if the animal may be conventional pork producers. around, lie down, and move around, temporarily confined indoors. As an even during the farrowing period. Other example, if during the winter, livestock 3. Indoor Housing Requirements comments were concerned that are temporarily confined indoors in a tie Comments expressed concern with producers would individually house stall barn due to a snow storm, the several topics regarding indoor housing swine after documented cases of livestock must have the opportunity to for mammalian species, including stalls, aggression. These comments requested move around, turn around, and exhibit space for natural behaviors, space for that AMS define aggression so natural behaviors. young dairy animals, swine producers did not individually house AMS has declined to clarify confinement, the requirement that all swine unnecessarily. Comments were individual housing in response to swine mammals have access to indoors, and split on the requirement for bedding or aggression. The threshold for aggression the use of bedding. rooting materials during the farrowing to allow for individual housing may (Comment) Comments noted period. Some wanted to require rooting differ depending on the facilities, the opposition to the proposed requirement and nesting materials specifically operation, the producer, and the breeds that livestock be able to lie down in full during that time frame while others of swine involved. Swine producers lateral recumbence, turn around, and wanted to remove the requirement for must describe their response to fully stretch their limbs. These bedding or rooting materials during the aggression in their OSP, which must be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7060 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

approved by their certifying agent. AMS conditions include: Year-round access to 16 hours per day (24-hour period). chooses to provide flexibility to organic to the outdoors, soil, shade, shelter, The 16-hour period must be calculated swine producers to work with their exercise areas, fresh air, direct sunlight, as a single continuous time period. certifying agents to develop a plan for clean water for drinking, materials for Artificial light must be lowered when swine may be individually dust bathing, and adequate space to gradually to encourage hens to move to housed due to aggression. escape aggressive behaviors. The living perches or otherwise settle for the night. AMS has chosen to keep the conditions provided should be Producers must design indoor spaces requirement for rooting materials but appropriate to the species, its stage of with access to natural light so that, on has removed the requirement that life, the climate, and the environment. sunny days, inspectors can read and rooting must be available in exercise These requirements, based upon a 2009 write when the lights are turned off. areas. Rooting is a natural behavior for NOSB recommendation,10 are largely This requirement sets forth a swine and must be provided by organic identical to previously established performance-based standard that swine producers. However, AMS agreed livestock requirements at facilitates inspection, provides for with the comments that requested that § 205.239(a)(1), although AMS has enough lighting to accommodate natural bedding and rooting material not be added requirements for materials for avian behavior, and allows flexibility to required during the farrowing period dust bathing and for adequate outdoor operations in determining how to design when swine may be individually space to escape aggressive behaviors. their facilities for compliance. housed. Swine producers may choose to New § 205.241(b) specifies the indoor Section 205.241(b)(4) describes the use bedding and rooting material during space requirements for avian species. required exit areas, or doors, on shelters the farrowing period, but it is not While shelter must always be provided so that the birds can easily access both required. to birds, indoor space is not a indoor and outdoor areas. Access and AMS is clarifying that the USDA requirement. If indoor space is provided utilization of outdoor areas is a core organic regulations for livestock require to the birds, then the indoor space principle of organic production systems. outdoor space as the default living requirement must be followed. New Organic avian systems must be designed space. Indoor space may be provided as § 205.241(b)(1) requires that indoor so birds have ready access to outdoor a type of shelter, but it does not have to space be sufficiently spacious to allow areas and so birds are able to return be provided to organic livestock. If all birds to move freely, stretch their indoors to roost in the evening. indoor space is provided, then the wings, stand normally, and engage in Producers must provide exit doors and structure must include space for natural behaviors. Cages or door sizes to enable all birds to access appropriate bedding. However, in range environments that limit free movement outdoor and indoor areas. Door size and or pasture conditions where no indoor within the indoor space are prohibited. appropriate placement must provide space is required, the requirements for In addition, the indoor space must allow meaningful outdoor access to the birds. the indoor space do not apply, and birds to engage in natural behaviors Exit doors must be designed and bedding does not need to be provided. such as dust bathing, scratching, and managed in a manner that prevents This does not allow producers to deny perching. The requirements are adopted movement of wild birds, rodents, and livestock access to the indoors if from a 2009 NOSB recommendation and other animals into the poultry house. required by law or if it is necessary for modify previously established New § 205.241(b)(5) requires perches the welfare of the animals. However, requirements for organic livestock at for chicken layers at a rate of six inches AMS recognizes that in many § 205.239(a)(4) that required, ‘‘shelter per bird for all housing, with the production systems, beef cattle, sheep, designed to allow for . . . natural exception of aviary housing. Perch and some dairy animals may be maintenance, comfort behaviors, and space may include the alighting rail in routinely raised outdoors without opportunity to exercise’’. front of nest boxes. Perches are not indoor spaces. Shade and shelter must Section 205.241(b)(2) requires required for broilers, meat birds, or be provided based on what is producers to monitor ammonia levels at layers of non-Gallus gallus species. appropriate for the animal species, least monthly and implement practices Aviary housing must provide six inches season, and environmental condition. to maintain ammonia levels below 10 of perch space for 55 percent of the flock (i.e., 3.3 inches of perch for each IX. Avian Living Conditions (§ 205.241) ppm. When ammonia levels exceed 10 ppm, producers must implement bird in flock). Perch requirements for A. Description of Regulations additional practices and additional aviary housing have been adjusted, as birds in aviary housing are also able to 1. Summary of the Final Rule monitoring to reduce ammonia levels below 10 ppm. Ammonia levels above escape aggressive behavior by moving The new § 205.241, entitled ‘‘Avian 25 ppm are not in compliance with between tiers in the house. These living conditions,’’ includes organic avian living conditions. requirements are adopted from 2009 and requirements for all organic avian Ammonia is a natural breakdown 2011 NOSB recommendations. New § 205.241(b)(6) specifies indoor (‘‘bird’’ or ‘‘poultry’’) species, including product of manure from livestock and is requirements to allow for certain natural but not limited to, chickens, turkeys, harmful to birds when inhaled, behaviors. Indoor space must include geese, quail, pheasant, and any other especially at concentrations above 25 areas that allow for scratching and dust species that are raised for organic eggs, ppm. In most cases, high levels of bathing. Litter (i.e., bedding), such as organic meat, or other organic ammonia indicate that litter is damp or wood shavings or straw, must be agricultural products. litter management practices require New § 205.241(a) establishes general provided indoors. Manure excreted by modification. birds in a poultry house alone, without requirements for organic poultry New § 205.241(b)(3) clarifies the additional litter, would not be sufficient production. These general principles are lighting requirements for organic layers to meet this requirement. This section further clarified in §§ 205.241(b), (c), and fully feathered birds. Organic also requires that litter be maintained in and (d). Section 205.241(a) requires producers may use artificial light for up organic poultry operations to establish a dry manner. Wet litter can lead to a and maintain living conditions that 10 https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ variety of problems for birds, including accommodate the wellbeing and natural media/NOP%20Final%20Sunset excess ammonia, lameness, and pest behaviors of the birds. These living %20Rec%20Animal%20Welfare.pdf. problems. Litter may be topped off

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7061

when needed to maintain sufficient AMS is using pounds of bird per provided with adequate indoor space to dryness. The requirements are adopted square foot to establish space meet the space requirements at from 2009 and 2011 NOSB requirements. In other words, the §§ 205.241(b)(8) through (10). The total recommendations. minimum space that must be provided size of the indoor space is calculated by Section 205.241(b)(7) includes depends on the average weight of birds including all flat areas in a house, specific flooring requirements for indoor at that time. All weight references in excluding nest boxes. Elevated round avian housing with slatted/mesh floors. §§ 205.241(b) and (c) refer to the weight perches, for example, are not flat areas These houses must provide at least 30 of live birds and not the weight of and could not be included as indoor percent solid flooring to allow birds processed birds, for example. By stating space. These requirements match indoors to engage in natural behaviors, the requirement in pounds per square various third-party animal welfare including scratching and dust bathing, foot, the application of the space standards, which consider nest boxes to without crowding. The requirement is requirement is more consistent between be distinct from useable floor areas of adopted from a 2009 NOSB breeds, where the average weight per the house where birds can move around recommendation. bird can vary significantly. This unit of freely. They also align with the 2009 New §§ 205.241(b)(8), 205.241(b)(9), measurement (pounds per square foot) and 2011 NOSB recommendations. and 205.241(b)(10) list the required was recommended by the NOSB in 2011 New § 205.241(b)(12) clarifies that minimum indoor space requirements for for pullets and broilers, and AMS is indoor space may include enclosed different types of housing. These are extending this same unit of porches and lean-to type structures (e.g. minimum standards, and organic measurement to layers. Under this final screened in, roofed) provided that the producers may choose to provide more rule, larger breeds (i.e., heavier on a per birds always have access to the space, indoor space than required. The indoor bird basis) must be provided with more including during temporary space requirements apply to chickens indoor space than smaller birds, on a confinement events. The same porch (Gallus gallus), with layer requirements per bird basis. For example, Rhode must not be counted as indoor space if at § 205.241(b)(8), pullet requirements at Island Red birds are heavier than White the birds do not have continued access § 205.241(b)(9), and broiler Leghorns or ISA Browns, and thus to the space during temporary requirements at § 205.241(b)(10). Indoor cannot be stocked as densely, in terms confinement events. This ensures that space requirements for layers vary by of number of birds per unit area. enclosed porches that are not fully the type of housing provided. The types For example, a layer in a floor litter accessible to birds are not counted in of housing are further defined in § 205.2 housing system that is 32 weeks of age indoor space calculations. and include: Mobile housing, aviary and weighs 4.3 pounds must be Section 205.241(c) establishes the housing, slatted/mesh floor housing, provided with 1.43 square feet per bird requirements for outdoor areas for and floor litter housing. For housing (equivalent to 3.0 pounds of bird for organic avian species, including the that does not fit into any of these each one square foot); however, at 80 amount of outdoor space that must be defined types, the indoor space weeks of age and a weight of 4.5 provided to organic avian species. The requirement is no more than 2.25 pounds, each bird must be provided requirements of section 205.241(c) are pounds of hen per square foot. Pasture with 1.5 square feet per bird (3.0 pounds adopted or adapted from previously pens that are moved regularly and of bird for each one square foot). In established requirements at section provide direct access to soil and other words, for each 10,000 square feet, 205.239, 2009 and 2011 NOSB vegetation are not considered indoors a producer could stock 6,993 birds at 32 recommendations, and third-party (see definition of ‘‘outdoors’’ in § 205.2). weeks of age (bird weight of 4.3 pounds) animal welfare organization standards. These requirements are adapted from but only 6,667 birds at 80 weeks of age Section 205.241(c)(1) requires that the 2009 and 2011 NOSB recommendations, (bird weight of 4.5 pounds). Although outdoor space be designed to promote and made in consideration of third- older and heavier birds require more and encourage outdoor access for all party animal welfare standards. space, natural mortalities over time may birds. Producers are required to provide AMS has established indoor space result in compliance with the space access to the outdoors at an early age. requirements for common types of requirements over a production cycle. This section requires door spacing to be poultry housing. Less indoor space is To calculate the weight of birds, an designed to promote and encourage required per bird in houses that provide average weight may be established for outdoor access and requires outdoor more access to vertical space in the the flock by taking weights of a access to be provided on a daily basis house, as birds have more room to move representative sample of the flock. The (further described at § 205.241(b)(4)). around (e.g., aviary and slatted/mesh requirement is not specific to each Outdoor access may only be temporarily floor housing). Housing where birds individual bird in a flock. AMS restricted in accordance with have more limited access to vertical understands that many producers § 205.241(d). space (e.g., floor litter housing) must already monitor and track bird weight Section 205.241(c)(2) requires outdoor provide more indoor space per bird. closely during the production cycle to areas for poultry to have a minimum of AMS has also allowed for higher monitor bird development and health 50 percent soil and that the soil portion stocking densities in mobile housing, as and calculate feed requirements. of the outdoor area include maximal birds managed in these systems spend However, if weight is not monitored by vegetative cover. Vegetative cover must more time outdoors, and mobile housing a producer, the producer will need to be maintained in a manner that does not must be relatively small and light, as it establish the weight of birds based on provide harborage for rodents and other is moved frequently. objective criteria to determine the space pests. For example, a producer may AMS has only established indoor required indoors and outdoors. mow vegetation to ensure that tall space requirements for chickens in this Certifiers may also weigh birds at vegetation does not provide harborage final rule. AMS may propose space inspections to verify compliance with for pests. A maximum of 50 percent of requirements for other avian species in the requirements. the outdoor area may be gravel, the future. Other avian species must New § 205.241(b)(11) specifies how concrete, or surfaces other than soil or meet all other indoor requirements the area of the indoor space is soil with vegetative cover. Maximal including exit doors, ammonia levels, calculated. Indoor space must be vegetation is required, as vegetation and lighting. calculated to ensure that birds are protects soil and water quality and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7062 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

allows birds to engage in natural duration of the confinement, and the New § 205.241(d)(3) provides an behaviors, including foraging, pecking, flocks that were confined. Records allowance for temporary indoor and scratching. The amount of should be sufficient for a certifier to confinement under conditions in which vegetation present will depend on the determine if birds were confined in the health, safety, or well-being of the season, climate, geography, species, and compliance with this section. The birds could be jeopardized. Temporary the stage of production. requirements of section 205.241(d) are confinement must be recorded, and to Section 205.241(c)(3) clarifies how adopted or adapted from previously confine birds under this provision, a producers may provide shade to meet established requirements for organic producer must have sufficient the general requirements of § 205.241(a). livestock at section 205.239(b), 2009 and justification to demonstrate that an Shade may be provided in outdoor areas 2011 NOSB recommendations, and animal’s health, safety, or well-being by trees, shade structures, or other third-party animal welfare organization could be jeopardized by access to the appropriate objects. This section standards. outdoors. Certifiers will verify addresses shade in outdoor areas; it New § 205.241(d)(1) provides an compliance with this requirement. does not permit structures that do not allowance for temporary confinement in Producers and certifiers should consult meet the definition of ‘‘outdoors’’ response to inclement weather, which is with animal health officials, as (§ 205.2) to be included in calculations defined at § 205.2. In addition, this appropriate, to determine when of outdoor space. provision allows birds to be confined confinement of birds is warranted to New §§ 205.241(c)(4) through (6) indoors when the temperature does not protect the health, safety, or well-being specify minimum outdoor space exceed 40 °F. It also allows birds to be of the birds. Animal health officials are requirements for chickens (Gallus denied outdoor access or be brought also encouraged to reach out to certifiers gallus). AMS has only established inside when the daytime temperature and to AMS to discuss specific health outdoor stocking densities for chickens exceeds 90 °F. In this case, producers concerns. AMS will continue to engage in this final rule. AMS may propose have to provide outdoor access during animal health officials, including State space requirements for other species in parts of the day when temperatures are Departments of Agriculture and State the future. between 40–90 °F, unless other forms of Veterinarians, about risks to bird health Organic layer producers must provide inclement weather occur. Weather may and provide appropriate guidance to at least one square foot of outdoor space still qualify as inclement weather certifiers or producers, as necessary. for every 2.25 pounds of bird in the (§ 205.2) within the 40–90 °F New § 205.241(d)(4) provides an flock. For example, if birds average 4.5 temperature range. For example, allowance for indoor confinement to pounds, a producer must provide 2.0 excessive precipitation and very violent prevent risk to soil or water quality. square feet of outdoor space for each weather can occur when temperatures This provision allows for confinement bird in the flock. Organic pullet are within 40 °F and 90 °F. Likewise, of birds when the outdoor area is being producers must provide at least one weather may meet the definition of managed to reestablish vegetation. As square foot of outdoor space for every inclement weather within the range of outdoor areas must be maximally 3.0 pounds of bird in the flock. Organic 40 °F and 90 °F if the relative humidity vegetated, producers may need to broiler producers must provide at least is very high and the air temperature is occasionally confine birds to meet the one square foot of outdoor space for nearing 90 °F, or under extremely windy vegetation requirement at every 5.0 pounds of bird in the flock. conditions. As inclement weather is § 205.241(c)(2). Outdoor space must be provided for all defined, in part, as weather than can Section § 205.241(d)(5) provides an birds in the flock (i.e., a producer must cause physical harm to a species, a allowance for indoor confinement for assume that all birds are outdoors at producer would still be in compliance preventive health care procedures and once to calculate the outdoor space that with § 205.241(d)(1) if birds were for the treatment of illness or injury. must be provided). All weight confined at temperatures that did not Neither life stages nor egg laying are references in §§ 205.241(b) and (c) refer exceed 90 °F, if the weather could cause considered an illness for confinement to the weight of live birds and not the physical harm. purposes. For example, this provision weight of processed birds. Section 205.241(d)(2) provides an allows producers to briefly confine a New § 205.241(c)(7) clarifies that allowance for temporary confinement flock to administer a vaccine or to porches and lean-to type structures that indoors due to a bird’s stage of life. In confine an individual animal that are not enclosed (e.g. with a roof, but this section, AMS has established requires medical treatment. with screens removed) and allow birds specific requirements for confining New § 205.241(d)(6) provides an to freely access other outdoor areas can chicken broilers and chicken pullets allowance for indoor confinement for be counted as outdoor space. This due to their stage of life (‘‘stage of life’’ sorting, shipping, and poultry sales. ensures that enclosed porches are not previously defined at § 205.2). Birds must be managed organically counted as outdoor space, while Additionally, the section includes a during the entire time of confinement. providing flexibility for producers to general provision for confining other For example, any feed provided during use modified porches as outdoor space avian species until fully feathered. confinement must be organic. when they are open to larger outdoor Chicken broilers may be confined Confinement must be no longer than areas that the birds can access. through 4 weeks of age and chicken necessary to sort the birds or to catch New § 205.241(d) describes the pullets may be temporarily confined the birds, place them in shipping conditions under which organic avian indoors through 16 weeks of age. The containers, and conduct the sale. livestock producers may temporarily NOSB recommended 16 weeks of age as New § 205.241(d)(7) provides an confine birds indoors (‘‘temporary’’ and the age after which outdoor access is allowance for indoor confinement to ‘‘temporarily’’ further defined at required to provide adequate time for train pullets to lay eggs in nest boxes, § 205.2). Producers must record pullets to complete their vaccination with a maximum period of five weeks confinement, and should do so in a program before exposure to pathogens allowed for confinement. The training manner that will demonstrate outdoors. Any confinement beyond the period must not be any longer than compliance with the regulations (also time when birds are fully feathered required to establish the proper see § 205.103). Records could include must be in accordance with behavior. As soon as the behavior is the reason for the confinement, the § 205.241(d). established, birds must be provided

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7063

with access to the outdoors, except (Comment) We received comments subjective measurement is not sufficient when confined in accordance with other that it was not clear if AMS was to determine ammonia levels. We also provisions under § 205.241(d). establishing a maximum ammonia limit received comments that monthly testing Section 205.241(d)(8) provides an of 10 ppm or 25 ppm. These comments may not be adequate to verify allowance for indoor confinement for noted that the consequences of compliance with the limits proposed. youth exhibitions, such as with 4–H or exceeding 25 ppm were not clearly (Response) In the final rule, AMS has the National FFA Organization. This different than the consequences for not specified how ammonia levels are to provision also includes an exemption to exceeding 10 ppm. Other comments be measured. Producers and certifiers the requirement that a livestock sales stated that birds could be continuously may use a number of methods to facility be certified as an organic exposed to ammonia levels in excess of measure ammonia levels, including test operation. As an example, if a youth 10 ppm but below 25 ppm without any strips, continuous monitoring devices, exhibition and sale is held at a livestock consequences, limiting the benefits to or handheld meters. Given the minimal sales facility that is not certified organic, animal welfare from this requirement. cost of the simplest methods to test a youth may sell birds there as organic, (Response) The final rule is modified ammonia levels and that action is provided all other requirements for to clarify that producers must required by producers at a relatively low organic management are met. During the implement practices to maintain level (above 10 ppm), producers must youth event, the livestock may be ammonia levels below 10 ppm. The 10 use a non-subjective method to measure temporarily confined indoors. ppm level is established so that organic ammonia levels. birds live in an indoor environment AMS agrees that monthly monitoring Otherwise, non-certified sales facilities, without excessive ammonia levels, may not be sufficient when ammonia such as auction barns, may not sell or which can be harmful to bird health. If levels exceed 10 ppm. AMS has revised represent livestock as organic. AMS is required monthly monitoring indicates the final rule at § 205.241(b)(2) to adding these provisions at ammonia levels are above 10 ppm, then specify that additional monitoring is § 205.241(d)(8) to encourage the next the producer must conduct additional required when ammonia levels exceed generation of organic producers. monitoring and implement additional 10 ppm. The additional requirement is New § 205.241(e) requires organic practices to bring ammonia levels to included to ensure that the additional poultry producers to manage manure in below 10 ppm. practices implemented by the producer a manner that does not contribute to The rule also establishes a maximum lower ammonia levels below 10 ppm. A contamination of crops, soil, or water ammonia level of 25 ppm. Ammonia producer may return to monthly quality by plant nutrients, heavy metals, levels above 25 ppm would be a ammonia monitoring when ammonia or pathogenic organisms. Organic violation of the organic requirements levels fall below 10 ppm. poultry producers must manage the and lead to appropriate compliance outdoor space in a manner that does not actions, including potential loss of 2. Lighting put soil or water quality at risk. In organic certification. The ammonia (Comment) AMS received many form addition, organic poultry producers levels described in the final rule are letter comments stating that the must comply with all other consistent with the NOSB’s regulations should require 8 hours of governmental agency requirements for recommendation and the thresholds continuous darkness each day for all environmental quality. The established by a number of animal birds. The comments appear to prefer requirements of this section are adapted welfare standards. this to the language proposed at from previously established (Comment) We received some § 205.241(b)(3) that states, ‘‘artificial requirements for organic livestock at comments that a maximum ammonia light may be used to prolong the day section 205.239(e). level of 25 ppm was too high and that length up to 16 hours.’’ Comments AMS should revise the upper limit to 20 suggested the rule as proposed would B. Discussion of Comments Received ppm to better protect animal health. not ensure a period of darkness. 1. Ammonia Levels (Response) AMS has not revised the (Response) AMS has revised the final requirement in the final rule because the rule to state, ‘‘artificial light may be (Comment) AMS received several 25 ppm level limit was established used to prolong the day length, to comments noting that it was redundant based on NOSB’s recommendation. This provide up to 16 hours of continuous to include ammonia requirements in limit is also consistent with various light.’’ AMS has included the word both § 205.238 and § 205.241, and third-party animal welfare standards. ‘‘continuous’’ to ensure that layers and recommending that we keep the Furthermore, AMS notes that a producer mature birds are not subjected to requirement in only one section. Other is required to implement additional multiple periods of light and dark over comments suggested we make the practices to reduce ammonia levels the course of a 24-hour day. In most requirement in § 205.238 apply to all when levels exceed 10 ppm. With this locations, except for locations in types of livestock production rather 10 ppm action level, AMS does not extreme latitudes during summer than limit the requirement to poultry think it is necessary to reduce the upper months, this requirement ensures that production. limit to be below 25 ppm. birds are provided with an 8-hour (Response) AMS agrees it is not (Comment) We received comments period of continuous darkness per day, necessary to include both sections as related to the monitoring and as requested by comments. Producers proposed. In the final rule, we have measurement of ammonia levels. One located in extreme latitudes are not retained the requirement in comment argued that measurement of required by the final rule to provide 8 § 205.241(b)(2) and removed the ammonia with an objective tool such as hours of total darkness. requirement in § 205.238. AMS test strips or meters should not be (Comment) Several comments recognizes that ammonia levels may be required and that the rule should allow requested clarification about whether relevant for other types of livestock for subjective measures (e.g., a smell the time period for dimming artificial production, but we have not broadened test). Another comment noted that the light is to be included in the 16-hour the requirement in the final rule. AMS human nose cannot reliably or time period described in § 205.241(b)(3). may seek the NOSB’s recommendation accurately detect levels of ammonia and (Response) Artificial light may be on this topic at a later date. recommended AMS clarify that used to provide up to 16 hours of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7064 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

continuous light. The rule does not may exceed 16 hours per day. The go through the exit areas within one allow for additional use of artificial light requirement at § 205.241(b)(3) applies hour. Comments stated the one-hour outside of this continuous 16-hour time only to layers and fully feathered birds. requirement would not be easy to verify. period. If artificial lights are dimmed, (Comment) We received one comment Other comments stated that verifying the time that artificial lights are on (dim that stated that AMS should require compliance by forcing birds outdoors or not) must be included within the windows on poultry houses to be evenly would cause birds stress. Some allowed 16-hour time period. distributed to allow for natural light comments suggested that AMS establish (Comment) Several comments noted throughout the house. more specific requirements for exit that the method for evaluating the level (Response) The final rule requires that areas, such as a minimum width, height, of natural light in a poultry house natural light be provided in housing for and number of doors per house. (§ 205.241(b)(3)) was overly subjective, layers and mature birds, such that Comments argued that this would allow including a comment that different natural light indoors is sufficient for an producers to design facilities that would inspectors may require different light inspector to read and write when all absolutely meet the regulations and levels to read and write. Comments lights are turned off. As this would allow certifiers to more easily suggested that the requirement could be requirement applies to indoor space and verify compliance with specific difficult to enforce or that differences could be applied to any location requirements. between inspectors could lead to indoors, AMS has not included (Response) In the final rule, AMS has inconsistent enforcement of the additional requirements in the final rule removed the requirement, as proposed, requirement. Several comments for windows and skylights to be that exit areas be designed so that all requested we set a specific light distributed evenly in a house. Housing birds within the house can go through requirement that could be verified with where natural light is sufficient (i.e., to the exit areas within one hour. AMS a light meter. read and write) in only a few localized removed the one hour requirement, as it (Response) AMS considered places within the house would not meet is not feasible for certifying agents to alternatives to the requirement as the requirement. Natural light must be verify compliance with this requirement proposed, including a requirement to sufficient for an inspector to read and or take enforcement actions. AMS measure light quantitatively. This write throughout the house when all considered specifying the number and alternative would have required artificial lights are off in the house. dimensions of exit doors, but decided producers and organic inspectors to use (Comment) Several comments asked that setting a clear performance light meters to monitor and verify the why AMS only discussed ‘‘layers and standard for ready access to the amount of light in a poultry house. mature birds’’ in the section on use of outdoors is preferable to specific While a specific minimum light level artificial light. Comments requested number and size requirements. In the could be established, AMS does not clarification on the use of artificial light final rule, AMS is establishing a clear believe it is necessary to meet the for production of meat birds (e.g., performance standard so organic poultry objective of providing natural light and broilers, turkeys) and for immature producers will have the flexibility to would impose an additional cost on layers (e.g., pullets). Comments stated design exit doors that provide ready producers or certifiers. AMS decided that continuous light has negative access to the outdoors for birds, based that a qualitative assessment of natural effects on all birds and that AMS should on the design of the poultry house and light by inspectors, as specified in the not limit the requirement to layers and the outdoor space. In any case, exit proposed rule, is adequate to ensure mature birds only. Similarly, several areas must: (1) Be sized to allow all poultry houses include sufficient comments noted that it was unclear if birds to exit and enter the house, (2) be natural light. The final rule, therefore, is the requirements for natural light distributed to ensure birds have ready unchanged. indoors applied only to layers and access to the outdoors, and (3) be (Comment) AMS received some mature birds, or if the natural light designed and managed in a manner that comments that the requirement to dim requirement applied to all poultry prevents movement of wild birds, artificial light intensity gradually was houses. rodents, and other animals into the not necessary and could require (Response) AMS has clarified that poultry house. Appropriate distribution producers to install new equipment. layers and fully feathered birds, ensures that all birds are close enough One comment suggested we do not including fully feathered broilers and to a door to be able to readily gain require that lights be dimmed but only fully feathered turkeys, are subject to access to the outdoors. recommend it, by changing the wording the artificial light requirement (Comment) AMS received comments from, ‘‘must be lowered gradually,’’ to (§ 205.241(b)(3). on the distribution of exit areas on ‘‘should be lowered gradually.’’ Other poultry houses. Some comments comments stated that continuous dim 3. Exit Areas recommended AMS specify that exit lighting be prohibited. (Comment) Comments suggested AMS areas must be provided on every side of (Response) To protect bird welfare by simplify the final rule by describing all the poultry house, while others ensuring that birds are provided with a requirements about exit areas (i.e., suggested AMS clarify that exit areas are period of time to move to perches or doors) in a single section. As proposed, only required on sides of the house settle for the night, AMS has retained AMS described requirements for exit adjacent to the outdoor area. Other the requirement that artificial light be areas in §§ 205.241(b)(5) and comments recommended that AMS lowered gradually at night. AMS notes 205.241(c)(2). specify a maximum distance between a that producers may turn off artificial (Response) AMS agrees with these bird inside and the nearest exit area. light before the end of the natural day comments. In the final rule, all (Response) To clarify the requirement, to allow natural light in the house to requirements for exit areas appear at AMS has revised the phrase, lower gradually. In this case, the total § 205.241(b)(5). All requirements ‘‘distributed around the building.’’ The length of the day, including any use of proposed at § 205.241(c)(2) have been final rule requires, ‘‘Poultry houses artificial light, would not exceed 16 moved to § 205.241(b)(5). must have sufficient exit areas that are hours for layers and mature birds except (Comment) AMS received several appropriately distributed to ensure that for operations located in extreme comments to eliminate the requirement all birds have ready access to the latitudes, where natural day lengths that all birds within the house be able outdoors . . .’’ This requirement is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7065

reinforced at § 205.241(c)(1) which but that not all layers will be perching requirements for different types of requires, ‘‘door spacing must be at the same time. production or housing systems (e.g., designed to promote and encourage (Comment) We received many pasture housing, aviary housing, slatted/ outside access for all birds on a daily comments that AMS’s terms ‘‘perch’’ mesh floor housing, floor litter housing). basis.’’ For some producers, it may be and ‘‘roost’’ are confusing, as the terms These comments suggested a single necessary to provide exit areas on all can be used interchangeably by requirement for all housing systems. sides of a house to provide ‘‘ready producers and industry. Other (Response) In this final rule, AMS has access to the outdoors’’ and to ‘‘promote comments stated that the definition of included indoor space requirements that and encourage outside access,’’ as ‘‘roost’’ in § 205.2 was too narrowly are based on pounds per square feet required under § 205.241(c)(1). stated, as roosts are not always found rather than square feet per layer. These However, other producers may be able over manure pits. One comment stated requirements are equivalent to (for a 4.5 to provide exit areas to meet the that the proposed requirement at pound layer): 1.5 square feet per bird for requirements without providing exit § 205.241(b)(6) was too narrowly stated, floor litter housing; 1.2 square feet per areas on every side of a house. The as roosts in poultry houses can be flat, bird for slatted/mesh floor housing; and appropriate size, design, and round, or oval. The comment suggested 1 square foot per bird for mobile and distribution of exit areas on a building that AMS revise the requirement to aviary housing. The requirements were will be different for different types of simply state that roosts must allow birds developed by considering the NOSB’s buildings. Exit areas will need to be to grip with their feet. Another comment recommendations, commonly-used managed and maintained in a manner suggested AMS change the term ‘‘roost’’ third-party animal welfare standards, that complies with the FDA Egg Safety to ‘‘slats’’ in § 205.2 and maintain the and current practices of certified organic Rule (74 FR 33030, July 9, 2009). same definition. producers. They were designed to (Response) AMS recognizes that using balance the need for clear guidance that 4. Perches and Roosts both terms ‘‘perch’’ and ‘‘roost’’ could could be applied across different breeds (Comment) AMS received many be confusing, as the terms can be used and types of bird, the goal of comments related to how the interchangeably by producers and safeguarding the value of the organic requirement for perches applies to industry. In the final rule, AMS has seal, and the cost of diverging broilers. Additionally, AMS received removed the term ‘‘roost’’ but retained significantly from common practice several comments about the perch the term ‘‘perch’’ in § 205.2. As defined, among organic operations certified to requirement for turkeys, as well as this term is intended to refer to various third-party animal welfare standards. comments about how the requirement features in poultry housing, such as AMS also determined that the indoor will be determined for different species rods, branch type structures, and flat space requirements differ based on or breeds. We also received comments roost slats that accommodate roosting housing design. Less indoor space is that noted that some types of poultry, and are elevated to allow birds to stay required per bird in houses that provide including meat type chickens, will use off the floor of the house. Perches may more access to vertical space in the perches when young but then stop using be over a manure pit but this is not a house, as birds have more room to move perches as their weight increases, requirement. around (e.g., aviary and slatted/mesh (Comment) AMS received a comment preferring to spend time on flat surfaces floor housing). Housing where birds that questioned why the perch at that time. Other comments noted that have more limited access to vertical requirement is different for multi-tiered meat type chickens can sustain leg space (e.g., floor litter housing) must facilities than for other facilities. provide more indoor space per bird. We injuries moving between perches or (Response) We have included a perch have also allowed for higher stocking roosts and the ground, especially if requirement in multi-tiered facilities densities in mobile housing, as birds perches or roosts are too high off the that is different from single-level managed in these systems spend more ground. facilities because multi-tiered facilities time outdoors, and mobile housing must (Response) In the final rule, AMS has are designed to allow birds to utilize be relatively small and light because it not included a requirement for perch vertical space. Since birds in these is moved frequently. space for broilers or turkeys. The final facilities may move between levels to (Comment) We received numerous rule specifies that six inches of perch escape aggressive behaviors and engage comments that the indoor space space per bird is required for layers of in natural behaviors, less perch space requirement for turkeys was too large species Gallus gallus. AMS may per bird provides the same benefit. undertake further work on this topic, and did not align with current practices with the assistance of the NOSB, as 5. Indoor Space Requirements of organic turkey producers, including a appropriate. (Comment) AMS received many comment that AMS did not take into (Comment) Some comments stated comments that AMS did not require account that houses are designed to that the requirement of six inches of enough indoor space. These comments ensure all turkeys have easy access to perch space per bird is excessive and argued that the requirements are similar feed and water. that, at this rate, some perch space to current space allowances used in the (Response) AMS proposed a would be unused by birds. Other organic poultry industry and the rule maximum indoor stocking rate for comments stated that all birds in a flock would therefore not improve consumer turkeys of 5.0 pounds per square foot. may not perch simultaneously and confidence in the organic seal. Many AMS established the proposed space therefore six inches per bird is not comments recommended birds be requirements for turkeys based on a necessary. provided with at least 1.5 square feet preliminary recommendation included (Response) AMS recognizes that all per bird, regardless of size. Other in a ‘‘Proposed Discussion Document’’ birds in a house may not perch comments noted the requirements by the NOSB, which was presented at 11 simultaneously. However, we have kept proposed by AMS fell short of the 2.0 the NOSB’s spring 2012 meeting. The a requirement for six inches per layer in square feet of indoor space 11 recommended by the NOSB. Some U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural the final requirement. This requirement Marketing Service. ‘‘NOSB Meetings.’’ https:// recognizes that each layer likely comments stated AMS should not www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/ requires more than six inches per layer include different indoor space meetings.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7066 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

NOSB never issued a final (Response) AMS recognizes that a presented at their spring 2012 recommendation to AMS on space larger outdoor area requirement than meeting.12 In the absence of a final requirements for turkeys. In the final proposed could have benefits as NOSB recommendation on space rule, AMS has removed the specific described by comments. AMS, however, requirements for turkeys and in light of space requirements for turkeys and retained the proposed outdoor space the numerous comments AMS received other avian species in light of: (1) requirement in the final rule. The on the topic, AMS has removed the Numerous comments from turkey requirement aligns with the specific space requirements for turkeys producers that the proposed stocking recommendation by the NOSB and is in the final rule. AMS intends to density requirements would have a established to meet consumer address space requirements for turkeys major impact due to current industry expectations while recognizing the land in future rulemaking, once we have practices; (2) the absence of an NOSB constraints that were raised by many received additional input from the recommendation; and (3) information other commenters (see below). AMS NOSB. Producers of organic turkey are that the proposed requirements were emphasizes that the regulations still subject to all other requirements of more stringent than other third-party established here do not limit producers the final rule, including all other animal welfare standards. AMS intends from providing a larger outdoor area for outdoor space requirements at to address space requirements for birds. § 205.241(c), indoor space requirements turkeys in future rulemaking. Producers (Comment) Some comments stated the at § 205.241(b), and the general of organic turkey and other avian outdoor space required for poultry was requirements at § 205.241(a). Certifiers species are still subject to all other too large. Specifically, some comments should verify that producers are in requirements of the final rule, including from producers noted that all birds in a compliance with these requirements. all other indoor space requirements at house do not go outdoors at any one For example, producers that do not § 205.241(b), outdoor space time and requested that AMS reduce the provide turkeys with outdoor access are requirements at § 205.241(c), and the outdoor area requirement to recognize not in compliance with the regulations, general requirements at § 205.241(a). this observation. Several comments unless birds are temporarily confined in This includes the requirement at noted that producers may not have the compliance with § 205.241(d). § 205.241(b)(1) that, ‘‘Poultry housing amount of land required for outdoor (Comment) AMS received several must be sufficiently spacious to allow space, or that the land available may not comments that the general requirement all birds to move freely, stretch their be near the barns, and that these for ‘‘adequate space to escape from wings, stand normally, and engage in producers would be forced to cease predators and aggressive behaviors’’ natural behaviors.’’ Certifiers should organic production. proposed in § 205.241(a) should be verify that producers are in compliance (Response) AMS recognizes that an revised. These comments stated that with these requirements. For example, entire flock may not occupy the outdoor space outdoors does not necessarily area at the same time, as a percentage of producers that do not provide birds help poultry escape from predators and the flock may choose to remain inside, with outdoor access are not in recommended that AMS remove the even when presented with the compliance with the regulations, unless language ‘‘escape from predators.’’ opportunity to go outdoors. However, birds are temporarily confined in (Response) In the final rule, AMS has AMS has not revised the outdoor space compliance with § 205.241(d). revised the wording in this section to requirements in the final rule. The remove the requirement for adequate 6. Outdoor Space Requirements outdoor space requirements in the final space to escape predators. This should (Comment) AMS received many rule ensure birds have adequate space not be interpreted to mean that AMS comments that the outdoor space outdoors if all birds in the flock do go does not recognize the importance of required for birds was not large enough. outdoors. When all birds do not use the Comments noted that additional outdoor area simultaneously, the birds birds having a place to escape from outdoor space would be required to that are outdoors will effectively have predators, but simply that outdoor space ensure vegetation would not be removed more space per bird. This space may not meet this goal. The section entirely from the outdoor area. Some requirement aligns with the continues to require ‘‘adequate outdoor comments stated the size of the outdoor recommendation by the NOSB. NOSB space to escape aggressive behaviors area was insufficient to prevent buildup recommendations were guided by . . .’’ (§ 205.241(a)), as outdoor space of manure, which could lead to public comment that highlighted may allow birds to escape from the contamination of nearby surface water consumer expectations, or that sought to aggressive behaviors of other birds in and of the soil in the outdoor area. preserve the value of the organic seal to the flock. Additionally, some comments stated consumers. For further discussion of (Comment) Some comments requested that more outdoor area was required to land availability and costs to producers, that we clarify calculations for birds ensure birds could be rotated around the see discussion of comments below in kept in mobile housing units that outdoor areas since rotation serves section titled ‘‘Assumption about Two provide direct contact with the ground. important functions, including Barn Footprints’’. Comments asked whether birds in these vegetation regrowth, parasite and (Comment) AMS received comments production systems also require disease reduction, and nutrient that stated the outdoor area required for additional outdoor space. management. Further, AMS also turkeys was too large. Comments from (Response) See ‘‘Pasture pens vs. received comments claiming that this some organic producers said they would other mobile housing’’ comment and rule would not protect small farmers need to increase the size of the outdoor response. and was more advantageous to larger area by 80 percent to meet the proposed 7. Space Calculations—General producers. These comments remarked requirement. that the indoor and outdoor stocking (Response) AMS proposed a (Comment) AMS received many density requirements for layers are weak maximum outdoor stocking rate for comments requesting that we describe which threatens consumer confidence turkeys of 5 pounds per square foot 12 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural in the organic label and continues the based on a preliminary recommendation Marketing Service. ‘‘NOSB Meetings.’’ https:// economic disadvantage for farmers included in a ‘‘Proposed Discussion www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/ using more stringent practices. Document’’ by the NOSB, which was meetings.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7067

the requirements for indoor and outdoor be included in the calculation of monitor bird development and health space using square feet per bird instead outdoor space. and calculate feed requirements. of setting a maximum pounds of bird (Comment) Several comments However, if weight is not monitored by per square foot, as AMS proposed. requested that AMS clarify what was a producer, the producer and/or certifier Comments stated that using square feet meant by ‘‘at any time’’ when referring will need to establish the weight of per bird would be more intuitive or to indoor and outdoor space birds based on objective criteria to easier to use when verifying compliance requirements in §§ 205.241(b) and (c). determine the space required indoors with the regulations. Some comments thought that this and outdoors. (Response) AMS understands that it is section could be interpreted to mean simpler to think about space that space requirements apply only to 8. Space Calculations—Indoors requirements on a per bird basis rather the birds in the outdoor area at a (Comment) Some comments requested than as a number of pounds per square specific moment rather than to all birds clarification about whether the area feet. However, AMS has not revised the in the flock. Comments noted that occupied by nest boxes in poultry description of the space requirements in different interpretations of the phrase houses could be included in the the final rule, as pounds per square foot could influence the amount of space calculation of the available indoor most fairly addresses differences provided, as all birds in a house may space. between species and breeds. From not be outdoors at the same time. (Response) In the final rule, AMS has comments received, AMS identified (Response) In the final rule, AMS has clarified in § 205.241(b)(11) how indoor approximately half a dozen layer breeds revised the wording in §§ 205.241(b) space is to be calculated and that nest commonly used for organic production, and (c) to remove the phrase ‘‘at any boxes may not be included in the not including heritage breeds used by time’’ and to clarify that space must be calculation of indoor space. This some organic producers. Each breed has provided at the established rates for all clarification aligns with the NOSB’s slightly different characteristics, birds in the flock. In § 205.241(c), we December 2011 recommendation on including the average weight per bird. specified that outdoor space must be indoor space, as well as with the By retaining the space requirements provided for all birds in the flock. We methods for calculating indoor space expressed as maximum pounds per have not specified that indoor space is used by animal welfare groups and square foot, AMS believes the to be calculated for every bird in the third-party production standards. The requirement will be most equitable flock, as all birds in a flock are regularly total size of the indoor space is across species and breeds. indoors at the same time and the calculated by including all flat areas in (Comment) Many comments method of calculating is clear. a house, excluding nest boxes. Elevated discussed whether a porch could be (Comment) Some comments requested round perches, for example, are not flat calculated as either indoor or outdoor clarification about when birds should be areas and could not be included as space. Some comments questioned weighed to calculate the indoor and indoor space. when a porch could be included in outdoor space requirements. Other (Comment) We received some calculations as either indoor or outdoor comments asked if the rule requires that comments that asked what types of space (i.e., whether access to the porch birds be weighed to determine space housing would be subject to the indoor must be available at all times). Other requirements. requirement of 2.25 pounds of hen per comments opposed allowing porches as (Response) AMS notes that the space square foot. Another comment stated either indoor or outdoor space, stating requirements are not linked to any that AMS could hinder innovation by that counting porches as indoor space specific age. At any time in a production implementing a stricter requirement would be a loophole that would result cycle, producers must meet the (i.e., more indoor space per bird) than in less indoor space. requirements. For example, a layer in a for other types of housing defined in (Response) AMS disagrees with floor litter housing system that is 32 § 205.2. comments that space within a porch weeks of age and weighs 4.3 pounds (Response) AMS is not aware of should never be allowed to count as must be provided with 1.43 square feet housing that does not fit within one of space for birds. If a porch is always per bird (equivalent to 3.0 pounds of our housing definitions included in available to birds when inside, the bird for each one square foot); however, § 205.2, and disagrees that the porch space could be utilized by birds at 80-weeks of age and a weight of 4.5 requirement would disadvantage any and the space should have the same pounds, each bird must be provided type or size production system. In the benefits as other indoor space. However, with 1.5 square feet per bird (3.0 pounds final rule, AMS continues to include an if a porch is not accessible to birds at of bird for each one square foot). In indoor space requirement at all times, it may not be included as other words, for each 10,000 square feet, § 205.241(b)(8)(v) for housing that does indoor space. Space in porches may not a producer could stock 6,993 birds at 32 not fit within one of the types defined be included in the calculation for indoor weeks of age (bird weight of 4.3 pounds) in § 205.2 as ‘‘indoors’’ or ‘‘outdoors.’’ space if birds cannot access the porch but only 6,667 birds at 80 weeks of age AMS also notes that requirements for for any reason, for example, if doors are (bird weight of 4.5 pounds). Although new housing types could be included in closed due to inclement weather or older and heavier birds require more the requirements at a later date, at the threat of diseases. When calculating the space, natural mortalities over time may recommendation of the NOSB, as space available to birds outdoors, only result in compliance with the space appropriate. If housing does not fit space that is outside an enclosed requirements over a production cycle. within one of the types described in building or housing structure (see To calculate the weight of birds, an § 205.2 and included at definition of ‘‘outdoors’’ at § 205.2), may average weight may be established for §§ 205.241(b)(8)(i) to (iv), producers be included as part of the outdoor area. the flock by taking weights of a must provide an indoor stocking density However, in response to comments, representative sample of the flock. The of no more than 2.25 pounds of hen per AMS has added § 205.241(c)(7) to clarify requirement is not specific to each square foot. that unenclosed porches and lean-to individual bird in a flock. AMS type structures (e.g. with roof, but with understands that many producers 9. Space Calculations—Outdoors screens removed) that allow birds to already monitor and track bird weight (Comment) Some comments requested access the rest of the outdoor area can closely during the production cycle to that AMS clarify how to calculate the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7068 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

outdoor stocking density. Comments must have outdoor areas if they only that provide porches as the only outdoor asked whether producers could rotate raise pullets and the pullets are sold or space for birds are allowed to be birds around the outdoor area when this moved to another location prior to 16 certified organic. Generally, these would result in a higher stocking weeks of age. comments expressed that birds should density, as long as the stocking density (Response) Section 205.241(d) be outside as much as possible on soil as calculated over the entire outdoor includes requirements for temporarily or on pasture with sunshine, fresh air, area met the requirement. confining birds from the outdoors. and adequate space in order to (Response) The outdoor area When birds are temporarily confined maximize opportunities for birds to requirement is to be calculated as the from the outdoors in compliance with exhibit natural behavior as recognized outdoor area available to all birds in the the requirements at § 205.241(d), by animal welfare experts, consume a flock at any given time. For example, if outdoor space is not required. To diverse diet, and meet consumer a producer rotates birds between two establish if confinement from the expectations for birds raised organically. outdoor areas, each area must be large outdoors is in compliance with the Many stated that shoppers pay more for enough to meet the stocking density requirements, a producer must, as organic food and that animals should be requirement. Performing the calculation required by § 205.201, ‘‘develop an raised in a manner that is more in line in this way ensures that birds are organic . . . system plan that is agreed with consumer expectations, including provided with the outdoor space to by the producer . . . and an access to soil and vegetated areas. required at all times. AMS has not accredited certifying agent.’’ Beyond 16 (Response) In the final rule, AMS has revised the final rule in response to this weeks of age, all layer producers must retained a requirement for outdoor comment. have land available for outdoor access at access, and AMS has defined the (Comment) AMS received several the maximum stocking rate of 2.25 outdoors (§ 205.2) to clarify that birds comments about how the area of the pounds per square foot, unless birds are must be in the open air, outside an outdoor space is to be calculated. temporarily confined in accordance enclosed building or housing structure, Comments stated that AMS’s intent to with § 205.241(d). Producers may not to be considered outdoors. AMS prohibit porches as outdoors was clear confine birds in an indefinite manner to disagrees with comments that argued but that the proposed prohibition for avoid or bypass outdoor space that consumers are satisfied with the including outdoor areas under a solid requirements. use of porches, or that demand for roof if attached to the structure was organic eggs is evidence of their 10. Porches either confusing or overly restrictive. satisfaction. AMS received a vast Some comments stated that large (Comment) AMS received many number of comments that indicate that overhangs or other covered areas can comments that stated that porches consumers are unaware that porches actually encourage birds to go outdoors, should be considered as outdoor space have been used for outdoor access in as these areas provide a degree of safety in organic poultry production. organic production. The comments for birds (i.e., safety from aerial Comments received in favor of porches received indicate that there is a gap predators). Other comments mentioned as outdoor space argued that they allow between how consumers think birds are that producers may create shade producers to better protect bird health raised on organic farms and the actual structures by leaning lumber against the by reducing contact between organic practices of some—but not all—organic side of building. Comments requested birds and other animals that can carry producers. One of the key objectives in that AMS clarify that these areas are disease (e.g., wild birds, rodents, implementing this final rule is to assure outdoors and can be included in insects, cats, other animals); reducing consumers that the practices used to outdoor space calculations. contact between organic birds and produce organic products meet a (Response) AMS recognizes that pathogens in soil (e.g., parasites, consistent standard, including outdoor overhangs, eaves, or other covered areas bacteria, viruses); and limiting access for poultry. This objective is may encourage use of outdoor areas by predation. Additionally, many guided by the NOSB recommendations providing overhead protection. In the comments argued that production costs and public and expert comment final rule, AMS has removed the and, in turn, retail costs would increase received during those deliberations that requirement as proposed at if porches were prohibited. Some of the indicated a risk to the integrity and § 205.241(c)(6). comments in favor of porches as value of the organic seal from the gap Additionally, AMS has revised the outdoor space noted that porches also between consumer expectation and definition of ‘‘outdoors’’ to, ‘‘Any area provide conditions similar to the current industry practice. in the open air, outside a building or outdoors (e.g., sunlight, fresh air), and For further discussion of porches, housing structure.’’ AMS also revised others stated that porches do in fact including comments and cost impacts, the definition of ‘‘indoors’’ to, ‘‘the meet consumer expectations, as see section XII, ‘‘Porches as Outdoor space inside of an enclosed building or demonstrated by demand for organic Areas.’’ housing structure.’’ Any outdoor space eggs, many of which are produced in that meets the definition may be porch-based systems. Some comments 11. Biosecurity included in outdoor space calculations. in favor of porches recommended they (Comment) A number of comments AMS has also added § 205.241(c)(7), be considered outdoor space for stated that the proposed rule would which clarifies that porches and lean-to currently certified organic producers compromise biosecurity measures and type structures that are not enclosed, indefinitely. Another comment increase exposure of birds to disease but allow free access to other outdoor recommended that AMS allow porches and infection by requiring access to the areas can be counted in outdoor space as outdoor space but require outdoors. Comments stated that there calculations. These changes do not enrichments on the porch to encourage would be increased exposure of organic affect the decision that an enclosed birds to use porches. birds to wild birds and the feces of wild porch cannot be counted as outdoor AMS also received many comments birds, which could harbor and transmit space. See AMS’s response to comments that were opposed to any use of porches diseases. Additionally, comments noted on Definitions for further discussion. as outdoor space in organic production, the requirements would expose organic (Comment) Some comments requested including many comments stating they birds to more contact with soil, other that AMS clarify whether producers were unaware that currently, operations animals (e.g., rodents, cats), or insects

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7069

(e.g., flies, ticks, mites, lice) that can provision has been included to protect outdoor space requirements at harbor and transmit disease to domestic animal health. AMS also recognizes that §§ 205.241(c)(4) through (6); poultry. Comments stated that increased specific disease risks may require specifically, space for chickens must be exposure to disease vectors, including temporary confinement to protect bird provided at a rate of no less than one viruses, parasites, and bacteria, would health, in the absence of a documented square foot for every 2.25 pounds of increase bird morbidity and mortality, occurrence of disease. In response to layer, 3.0 pounds of pullet, or 5.0 negatively affect production, put other comments, AMS has removed a pounds of broiler in the flock. Species farms at risk, or force producers to provision from this section that would other than chickens must be provided decide between protecting bird health have required a documented occurrence with outdoor space to meet the and maintaining organic certification. of disease in the region or migratory requirements of §§ 205.241(c)(1) through Comments noted that soil cannot be pathway to temporarily confine animals. (3). AMS has determined that this type disinfected in the same way a house can By revising the requirement, AMS is of production, which provides animals be disinfected, which could lead to an providing producers with additional with constant access to pasture, also increase in disease and mortality over options to address disease risks. This meets consumer expectations of time. Many comments stated that provision to temporarily confine birds organically produced birds, and expects rearing birds in the controlled must be part of an Organic System Plan that the outdoor space requirement environment of a poultry house is best approved by the producer’s accredited ensures birds in these systems have for bird health. certifying agent. Additional requests for sufficient space to express natural However, several comments also temporary confinement, outside of the behaviors and meet the requirements of noted that confinement of poultry to the approved Organic System Plan, must be § 205.241(a). indoors is not a guarantee that birds will approved by the certifying agent. AMS 13. FDA Regulations and Food Safety be protected from disease. A comment encourages state departments of noted that in the 2015 outbreak of agriculture to coordinate with NOP and (Comment) AMS received numerous highly pathogenic avian influenza certifiers on occasions where temporary comments stating that the proposed rule (HPAI) in the United States, the affected confinement may be necessary to would compromise egg producers’ poultry farms were non-organic protect animal health. See AMS’s efforts to prevent Salmonella enterica operations that permanently confine discussion of comments on ‘‘Temporary serotype Enteritidis (SE) from birds from the outdoors. Commenters confinement—disease’’ for further contaminating eggs, as required by FDA urged AMS to consider that outdoor discussion of confining animals under regulations (21 CFR part 118). FDA access is only one component of a this provision. requirements include: preventing stray comprehensive biosecurity plan and poultry, wild birds, cats, and other that factors other than outdoor access 12. Pasture Pens vs. Other Mobile animals from entering poultry houses; have been implicated in confirmed Housing using appropriate methods to control cases of HPAI (e.g., cross-contamination (Comment) Several comments rodents and flies (when monitoring due to persons or equipment moving requested that AMS clarify how the indicates unacceptable activity); and between poultry houses or between regulations apply to poultry producers removing vegetation and debris outside farms). that use certain types of mobile pasture- a poultry house that may provide (Response) In the final rule, AMS has based systems. The comments described harborage for pests (21 CFR 118.4). retained the requirement for outdoor these systems as providing direct access Comments stated the AMS requirements access for organic birds, but the Agency to soil and vegetation; having walls and for outdoor access and for enrichments engaged in extensive deliberations to roofs made of mesh, plastic, wood, and in outdoor areas would conflict with align these requirements with the best other materials; and having mobility. current FDA requirements to prevent practices of federal agencies focused on Birds in these systems are on pasture, SE. biosecurity and food safety. Outdoor however, roofing on all or part of the (Response) AMS engaged in extensive space requirements have also been structure provides shade and protection. deliberations to reduce the likelihood retained for layers, pullets, and broilers These comments argued that these that requirements under this rule would of species Gallus gallus. AMS systems should meet the definition of jeopardize or impact practices that recognizes that certain conditions may outdoors because they provide access to poultry producers have implemented to require the temporary confinement of soil and vegetation and allow for natural meet FDA requirements to prevent SE birds to protect bird health and prevent behaviors (scratching, pecking, foraging, (21 CFR part 118) published on July 9, disease and has preserved the ability of etc.). 2009 (74 FR 33030). Under the FDA producers to take these precautionary (Response) For further discussion, see requirements, producers must have and measures, in consultation with their AMS’s response to comments in the implement a written SE prevention plan certifiers. AMS believes that outdoor Definitions section. AMS made several and take measures to prevent access should be provided when revisions in the final rule in response to introduction or transfer of SE into or conditions do not jeopardize bird comments requesting more clarity among poultry houses (21 CFR 118.4). health, safety, or well-being and that around the definitions of indoors and Under FDA regulations, the minimum outdoor access requirements can be outdoors as they apply to pasture-based requirements to prevent SE include, but factored into comprehensive biosecurity systems. We revised the definition of are not limited to: preventing stray plans. Finally this rule does not obviate outdoors in § 205.2 to clarify that poultry, wild birds, cats, and other the necessity to comply with all other pasture pens are outdoors. Additionally, animals from entering poultry houses; applicable laws and regulations, we use the term ‘‘mobile housing’’ in and removing debris within a poultry including animal health regulations of § 205.241(b)(8)(1) of the final rule to house and vegetation and debris outside APHIS. distinguish pasture pens from mobile a poultry house that may provide The final rule continues to allow housing. Mobile housing provides harborage for pests. Enrichments in the producers to temporarily confine birds indoor space while pasture pens are outdoor area could provide harborage because of conditions under which the considered outdoors. for rodents, and thus, could conflict health, safety, or well-being of the Birds raised in pasture pen systems with FDA requirements at 21 CFR animal could be jeopardized. This must be provided with space to meet 118.4(c)(3).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7070 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

In the final rule, AMS has removed access to feed indoors by managing 100 percent vegetative cover in outdoor the proposed requirement, ‘‘outdoor spilled feed; or design exit areas on areas. areas must have suitable enrichment to housing to prevent wild birds from (Response) AMS agrees that entice birds to go outside.’’ This entering the house. vegetation in outdoor areas has benefits requirement has been removed in the (Comment) Several comments noted that warrant this requirement. We have final rule to remove conflict with FDA that soil can be contaminated with revised the final rule at § 205.241(c)(2) rules to prevent SE contamination. persistent synthetic chemicals, as follows: ‘‘at least 50 percent of Section 205.241(c)(1) requires that including dioxins, and specifically, outdoor space must be soil. Outdoor ‘‘outside access and door spacing must polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins space with soil must include maximal be designed to promote and encourage (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans vegetative cover appropriate for the outside access for all birds on a daily (PCDFs), and polychlorinated biphenyls season, climate, geography, species of basis. Producers must provide access to (PCBs). The comments noted that the livestock, and stage of production . . .’’ the outdoors at an early age to requirement for birds to be outdoors on This requirement recognizes the encourage (i.e., train) birds to go soil would result in elevated levels of important function and role of outdoors.’’ these substances in organic eggs— vegetation in the outdoor space, Additionally, AMS has amended the through ingestion of soil or vegetation including its benefits to soil health and rule at § 205.241(c)(2) to require at least by birds—and subsequently pose health to birds by allowing for the expression half of the outdoor area to be soil with risks to humans that ingest organic eggs. of natural behaviors. Vegetation in vegetative cover, which encourages Comments noted that dioxins are outdoor areas must be maintained to birds to come outdoors and widespread and persistent in the ensure it does not provide harborage for accommodates natural behaviors. environment, and comments cited rodents and other pests. For example, Organic producers must ensure that studies that found that eggs from free vegetation in outdoor areas must be kept vegetation does not provide harborage to range hens contain higher levels of at a short enough height to ensure it pests, as required under FDA dioxins. Additionally, comments noted does not harbor pests. FDA draft requirements (21 CFR 118.4(c)(3)). For risks of bioaccumulation into eggs of guidance recommends that vegetation example, vegetation in outdoor areas heavy metals such as lead and mercury, should be maintained to less than 6 must be kept at a short enough height as well as DDT, when birds are outdoors inches in height.15 to ensure it does not harbor pests. FDA on soil. Additionally, AMS has included at draft guidance 13 recommends that (Response) No provision under this § 205.241(d)(4) an allowance to vegetation should be maintained to less rule allows for the sale of eggs that temporarily confine birds for ‘‘risk to than 6 inches in height. contain substances—including dioxins, soil or water quality, including to (Comment) Comments also stated that heavy metals, and PCBs—in excess of establish vegetation by reseeding the doors, as required by AMS, would levels established by the FDA or other outdoor space.’’ Birds may not be directly conflict with the FDA agencies. This rule does not change the confined any longer than required to requirement to prevent stray poultry, requirement that producers, regardless seed the area and allow for the wild birds, cats, and other animals into of whether or not they are organic, must vegetation to establish itself. This poultry houses. Comments stated that comply with FDA requirements. allowance for temporary confinement any door to allow organic birds to move Additionally, organic regulations at was included by AMS to acknowledge between the indoors and outdoors § 205.671 address unavoidable residual that some producers may need to reseed would inevitably lead to the movement environmental contamination (further outdoor areas to meet the vegetation of other animals between the outdoors defined at § 205.2) and do not allow for requirement included in § 205.241(c)(2) and indoors, and that failure to prevent the sale of contaminated agricultural and that birds may need to be kept off this movement would conflict with the products as organic. For more the area to allow seeds to germinate and FDA requirements. information on action levels published establish. The minimum outdoor space (Response) The FDA SE rule includes by the FDA, see FDA’s Guidance for requirements do not apply when birds required measures to prevent SE Industry: Action Levels for Poisonous or are temporarily confined under this contamination, including biosecurity Deleterious Substances in Human Food provision, and a producer may still and pest control measures (21 CFR part and Animal Feed.14 allow birds outdoors. For example, if 50 118). Under this final rule, organic 14. Vegetation in Outdoor Areas percent of the outdoor area is covered producers must provide access to the by gravel, birds may be allowed into this outdoors (§§ 205.241(a), 205.241(c)(1)). (Comment) AMS received many portion of the outdoor area. Providing a To also comply with FDA requirements, comments stating that vegetation should smaller outdoor area when confining organic producers need to take measures be required in outdoor areas for birds. animals to reseed the outdoor area and to prevent wild animals and pests from Comments noted that vegetation is establish vegetation would be in moving freely between the outdoors and important for birds to engage in the compliance with the provision at indoors. For example, producers could: natural behavior of foraging and that § 205.241(d)(4). use visual deterrents to discourage wild denuded soil increases health risks for (Comment) AMS received a number of birds in or around housing; set traps for flocks. Additionally, comments noted comments that contact with gravel or pests outdoors and indoors; use that vegetated soil benefits soil and pavement does not allow chickens to perimeter fences to keep stray or wild water quality compared to bare soil by exhibit their natural instinctive animals out of outdoor areas; reduce reducing water runoff, preventing behaviors. Many comments requested erosion, and taking up nutrients. Most we reduce the amount of outdoor area 13 U.S. FDA. Draft Guidance for Industry: comments recommended the outdoor that can be anything but soil (including Questions and Answers Regarding the Final Rule, area be covered with at least 50 percent soil with vegetative cover) from 50 Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs vegetation, while some comments During Production, Storage, and Transportation percent to 25 percent or less. (Layers with Outdoor Access). Available at http:// recommended AMS require up to 90 or www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/ 15 http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/ GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ 14 http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/ GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ ucm360028.htm. ucm077969.htm. ucm360028.htm.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7071

(Response) AMS has retained the any other organic crop. The § 205.241(b)(1), which requires that requirement as proposed that outdoor implementation period for this final rule birds be able to engage in natural areas be at least 50 percent soil, but we takes into account the possibility that behaviors indoors. Producers should have also revised the requirement to add producers may need to transition land work with their certifier to determine if a requirement for maximal vegetative to meet outdoor space requirements. birds are able to engage in natural cover in the outdoor soil area. We think behaviors indoors. 15. Enrichments and Bird Training this revision communicates the (Comment) Several comments noted importance of contact with the ground (Comment) AMS received many the benefits of covered areas in the yet still provides an allowance for comments that the requirement for outdoor space for birds and producers to use other surfaces as ‘‘suitable enrichment’’ in outdoor areas recommended AMS require these necessary. For example, gravel surfaces was too subjective. Some comments features in outdoor areas. Comments may be necessary to ensure adequate recommended AMS remove this part of noted that birds will be encouraged to drainage adjacent to a house. A the requirement, while other comments go outdoors if they can seek and find producer could still provide a surface or recommended AMS specify the number safety from overhead predators under materials in this outdoor area that and types of enrichments required. trees, roofs, or other structures. would accommodate the natural Many other comments noted that (Response) AMS agrees that behavior of birds, including scratching enrichments outdoors would attract protection from predators could be and dust bathing. other animals and violate FDA important to encourage birds to use (Comment) AMS received many requirements for shell egg producers to outdoor areas. Furthermore, overhead comments about whether vegetation prevent SE contamination of eggs. Some protection could reduce mortality by would be permitted in outdoor areas, comments requested AMS clarify how reducing predation. However, in the since the proposed rule stated at section the requirement for suitable enrichment final rule, AMS has not included a 205.241(c)(8), ‘‘At least 50 percent of outdoors applies to broiler production. specific requirement to provide covered outdoor access space must be soil’’. (Response) In response to comments, areas outdoors. Producers are required Comments stated that bare soil could AMS has removed the requirement that to promote and encourage outside lead to degradation of soil and the outdoor areas must have suitable access in the final rule (§ 205.241(c)(1)), runoff from bare soil could contaminate enrichment to entice birds to go outside and overhead protection may be used to nearby water resources. in the final rule. See AMS’s response to meet this requirement. However, AMS (Response) AMS understands from comments about FDA regulations in the has not specified exactly how producers comments received that there was section above on FDA regulations and must promote and encourage outside confusion about whether outdoor areas food safety. AMS has, however, access. We believe this flexibility is could be vegetated or if AMS would amended the rule at § 205.241(c)(2) to important to allow producers to require outdoor areas to be cleared of require at least half of the outdoor area implement practices that are best suited vegetation. In the final rule, AMS has to be soil with vegetative cover, which to their operations, while still revised the outdoor space requirement provides an environment that establishing a clear standard for to clarify that outdoor soil areas must be encourages birds to come outdoors. producers to promote and encourage covered with vegetation given site- Additionally, we have retained the outdoor access and while protecting specific conditions. requirement in the final rule that birds from disease and predation. (Comment) AMS received a few outside access and door spacing be comments about whether land used for designed to promote and encourage 16. Temporary Confinement—Weather outdoor access for poultry must be outside access for all birds on a daily (Comment) AMS received many certified organic and meet the same basis. Producers must still meet the comments about temporary confinement requirements as land used in the general requirements of § 205.241(a) and for air temperatures that are under 40 °F production of organic crops or pasture. provide living conditions that or above 90 °F. One comment stated that One comment recommended that accommodate the health and natural allowing birds to go outdoors at 40 °F producers not be allowed to remove the behavior of birds, including: year-round would cool down the barn quickly and top soil from the outdoor area and access to outdoors; shade; shelter; create moisture issues. Other comments replace it with another fill material to exercise areas; fresh air; direct sunlight; noted that additional fuel would be forego the land transition period clean water for drinking; materials for required to maintain indoor requirement (i.e., a three-year period dust bathing; and adequate outdoor temperatures if doors were opened without prohibited synthetic space to escape aggressive behaviors. during cool weather and that birds substances). (Comment) Several comments noted would require more feed to compensate (Response) AMS agrees that land used that suitable enrichments should be for the energy required to maintain their to provide outdoor access to poultry required indoors for broilers. A body temperature. Comments on the must be certified as part of an organic comment stated that perches are of upper limit proposed by AMS noted system plan. The USDA organic questionable benefit to broiler-type that cooling systems in poultry houses regulations require that organic birds and that a general requirement for would not work as designed with doors agricultural products fed to livestock be indoor enrichment for broilers would be open, and that birds would be subjected organically produced. Additionally, the beneficial. A comment recommended to additional stress that could result in regulations require that crops be that beneficial indoor features might higher incidence of illness or death. produced from land to which no include straw bales, string, deep litter, Some alternate recommendations for the prohibited substances, including and dust baths. temperature range were 55–90, 50–90, synthetic chemicals, have been applied (Response) In the final rule, AMS has 60–90, and 50–85 °F. Meanwhile, some during the three years immediately not included a perch or indoor comments supported removing any preceding the harvest of the agricultural enrichment requirement for broilers. lower or upper limits and instead product. As birds may consume AMS may undertake further work on defining inclement weather. vegetation from land used to provide this topic, with the assistance of the Additionally, several comments outdoor access, this land must meet the NOSB, as appropriate. However, broiler requested AMS clarify if producers are same requirements as used to produce producers must meet the requirement at required to provide birds with access to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7072 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

the outdoors if the temperature is only these comments also requested 18. Temporary Confinement—Disease within the range of 40 °F and 90 °F for additional time to allow for confinement a short period of time in the day. until pullets are moved to layer houses. (Comment) AMS received many Comments stated that such a One comment cited that the allowance comments about temporary confinement requirement could be impractical for for 16 weeks of temporary confinement for bird health, safety, or well-being at producers that may not be available to conflicts with AMS’s proposed § 205.241(d)(3). Specifically, comments open doors at any time on a given day. requirement at § 205.241(c) that showed concern that the requirement (Response) Organic regulations producers, ‘‘provide access to the for a documented disease in the region already include a definition of the term outdoors at an early age to encourage or relevant migratory pathway would ‘‘inclement weather’’ at § 205.2 In the (i.e., train) birds to go outdoors.’’ compromise a producer’s ability to proposed rule, AMS did not suggest Comments noted at least one study that proactively confine animals to prevent changes to this definition, but we did found birds used outdoor areas more exposure of a flock to disease. One propose to include a specific when allowed outdoor access earlier in comment suggested that AMS allow temperature range, outside of which life. Some comments noted that layers birds to be kept inside when there is a producers could temporarily confine are fully feathered around 8 weeks of reasonable expectation of disease that birds. The temperature range was age and should therefore be provided can rapidly spread through poultry. proposed to ensure consistent practices Another comment suggested that between producers for temporarily with access to the outdoors at 8 weeks confining birds due to weather. of age. detection of a disease, rather than However, as noted by comments, (Response) The final rule allows occurrence of a disease, should be temperature alone is not necessarily an producers to temporarily confine layers sufficient grounds to confine birds. indicator of inclement weather. For for up to 16 weeks of age. AMS agrees Other comments urged AMS to allow example, humidity can amplify the that 16 weeks of confinement from the confinement when recommended by a effect of high temperatures. Information outdoors is not always required. In fact, State or Federal animal health official. from one poultry breeding company many organic producers already provide Additionally, comments stated that the indicates birds experience extreme heat outdoor access for layers prior to 16 terms ‘‘region,’’ ‘‘migratory pathway,’’ stress at a temperature of 82 °F when the weeks of age. AMS also recognizes, and ‘‘documented occurrence’’ were not relative humidity exceeds 75 percent. however, that many layer operations use clear and could lead to varying However, at 20% relative humidity, vaccination programs to protect bird interpretations, including extended birds experience a similar degree of heat health and prevent disease, and in many periods of confinement for birds in the stress once the temperature reaches 100 cases, birds receive vaccines during the absence of real risk. One comment °F.16 first 16 weeks of life. Requiring outdoor suggested that AMS remove references The final rule allows for temporary access before this age could compromise to ‘‘region’’ and ‘‘migratory pathway’’ confinement of birds for, ‘‘inclement bird health. Birds that are over 16 weeks and allow confinement only in the case weather, including when air of age may not be confined under the of a current local occurrence of a ° temperatures are under 40 F or above provision at § 205.241(d)(2(ii). Any disease. 90 °F.’’ AMS notes that weather may confinement of birds beyond 16 weeks (Response) The organic livestock and still qualify as inclement weather of age must be done only in accordance (§ 205.2) even within this temperature poultry standards allow temporary with other provisions at § 205.241(d). In confinement of poultry for ‘‘conditions range. For example, excessive any case, producers must describe their precipitation and very violent weather under which the health, safety, or well- practices for confining birds in their being of the animal could be can occur when temperatures are within Organic System Plan, and certifiers 40 °F and 90 °F. Likewise, weather may jeopardized.’’ In the case of risks posed must approve these plans. meet the definition of inclement by highly contagious and rapidly weather within the range of 40 °F and (Comment) AMS received several spreading disease, AMS recognizes that 90 °F if the relative humidity is very comments that turkeys are not ready to it is complicated to precisely assess high and the air temperature is nearing go outdoors by four weeks of age, as disease threats, and AMS recognizes 90 °F, or under extremely windy proposed by AMS, because full feather that various animal health experts, conditions. As inclement weather is plumage is not complete until including State and Federal officials, defined as weather than can cause approximately seven weeks of age. The serve important roles in monitoring physical harm to a species, a producer comments requested turkeys be disease threats and communicating would still be in compliance with addressed specifically in the those threats to producers. In response § 205.241(d)(1) if birds were confined at regulations, as turkeys have different to comments, AMS has revised the final temperatures that did not exceed 90 °F requirements than chickens or other rule to provide additional flexibility for but when the weather could cause bird species. confining animals to prevent the spread physical harm. (Response) AMS recognizes that of disease and protect bird health. To 17. Temporary Confinement—Stage of turkeys may require a longer period of temporarily confine birds under this Life time than chickens for feather provision, producers must be able to demonstrate that the birds’ health, (Comment) AMS received comments development. In response to comments, safety, or well-being are jeopardized by that layers should be required to go AMS has revised the final rule at access to the outdoors. Plans to outdoors before 16 weeks of age. Other § 205.241(d)(2)(iii) to allow temporary comments noted that pullets can be confinement of turkeys and other temporarily confine birds must be part moved from dedicated pullet rearing species until fully feathered. The of the producer’s organic system plan facilities to dedicated layer houses requirement for chickens (Gallus gallus) approved by the certifying agent. when pullets are older than 16 weeks; remains unchanged from the proposed Producers must keep records of rule and allows temporary confinement confinement and records to justify 16 http://www.hyline.com/userdocs/pages/TB_ for the first 4 weeks of life for broilers confinement (see §§ 205.103 and HEAT_ENG.pdf. and the first 16 weeks of life for pullets. 205.241(d)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7073

19. Temporary Confinement—Nest Box record every single instance of require as a corrective measure that the Training confinement, such as every time birds producer modify their standard (Comment) AMS received several were put inside at night. Some operation procedure or keep records comments that the allowed period (2 comments noted that producers have that will be sufficient to demonstrate weeks) for confining birds for nest box written standard operating procedures animals are provided with outdoor training (i.e., to train birds to lay eggs in that describe when birds are confined access in compliance with the designated nest areas) was inadequately and this would serve as a sufficient regulations. record of confinement. (Comment) AMS received a comment short. Comments stated that additional (Response) AMS agrees that the value that producers should be required to time was required to ensure birds would of requiring producers to record each provide additional indoor space if lay eggs in nest boxes. Comments stated instance of confinement may be limited, poultry are confined for more than one that more time than proposed would especially when the confinement is week. The comment suggested that AMS reduce the number of eggs laid outside routine, such as confinement of birds require indoor space equivalent to the of nest boxes and the time required to inside a poultry house at night for the total combined indoor and outdoor collect these eggs. Comments also noted birds’ safety. However, AMS thinks it is space that is otherwise required when that eggs laid outside of nest boxes also important that certifiers be able to birds are not temporarily confined. could be more at risk of Salmonella readily assess a producer’s compliance (Response) AMS recognizes that the contamination through direct contact with the regulations. By requiring total space per bird is reduced when with manure and dirt. Some comments producers to record each instance of birds are temporarily confined. suggested that AMS modify the confinement, certifiers can easily However, producers are not able to requirement to allow as much time as identify instances of confinement, predict events that require temporary required for birds to reach a certain including the reason for confinement. confinement, such as disease outbreaks. percentage of the total expected egg These records can then be reviewed If it were necessary to confine animals production. For example, a comment with third-party information to verify for more than one week, a producer may suggested we allow birds to be confined the reason for confinement. For need to cull perhaps half of the entire for nest box training until at least 80 example, a certifier can check weather flock in order to meet the requirement percent of the expected daily egg information for the area to confirm there proposed by the commenter. In cases production could be documented. Other was inclement weather on the dates where birds could not be sold as comments recommended increasing the when animals were confined or confirm organic, the financial loss to producers allowed time period to three or four the occurrence of a disease in the region would be great, or a producer could be weeks, while others recommended a for that time. Meanwhile, AMS has been forced to destroy a large portion of the period of six to eight weeks for nest box promoting recordkeeping requirements flock. AMS does not think this is training. for organic producers (i.e. Sound and warranted for circumstances that are (Response) AMS recognizes that nest Sensible 17 initiative), aimed at making beyond a producer’s control. box training is important, as it reduces organic certification more accessible, (Comment) AMS received a comment eggs laid outside of nests; simplifies attainable, and affordable while that the period for temporary management; and reduces contact maintaining high standards, ensuring confinement for youth projects between eggs and manure, dirt, and compliance, and protecting organic following the conclusion of a fair or other substances. AMS understands that integrity. AMS agrees that the proposed demonstration should be extended from different species and breeds may require requirement at § 205.241(d) to record 24 hours to one week, to ensure that different amounts of time for nest box each instance of confinement may not birds are healthy and will not pass any training. In response to comments, AMS result in records that would help sickness or disease acquired at these has revised the final rule to align with certifiers ensure compliance. In the final events to other birds. the NOSB’s recommendation. Birds may rule, AMS has revised § 205.241(d) to (Response) The final rule maintains be confined to train birds to use nests, clarify that confinement must be an allowance to confine birds up to 24 but the period must not exceed five recorded. Producers do not need to hours after the birds have arrived home weeks. record each instance of confinement if at the conclusion of a youth event. However, AMS notes that birds may be 20. Temporary Confinement—Other the producer has described the reasons for routine temporary confinement (i.e., temporarily confined for a longer period (Comment) One comment a standard operating procedure) in their of time in accordance with recommended AMS add the word Organic System Plan. For example, a § 205.241(d)(3), which allows for ‘‘temporarily’’ to the last sentence of producer may describe that birds are temporary confinement because of § 205.241(d) to be clear that confined nightly, or that pullets are conditions under which the health, confinement cannot be permanent or confined until 8 weeks of age, in their safety, or well-being of animals could be lasting (see definition of ‘‘temporary and OSP instead of recording these instances jeopardized. Producers must describe temporarily’’ in § 205.2). of confinement on a daily basis. AMS their practices in their organic system (Response) AMS agrees with the notes that producers must also comply plan and work with their certifier to comment, and we have revised with § 205.103, including ensure that temporary confinement § 205.241(d) to clarify, ‘‘Operations may § 205.103(b)(4) which requires records practices meet the requirements. temporarily confine birds’’ for reasons at be sufficient to demonstrate compliance 21. Soil and Water Quality § 205.241(d). with the regulations. If a certifier (Comment) AMS received several determines that the description of (Comment) AMS received comments comments that the proposed practices in the producer’s standard that increased outdoor access could requirement ‘‘each instance of operation procedure, for example, are contaminate water systems, as a result confinement must be recorded’’ was not sufficient to demonstrate when birds of birds being outside on soil. unnecessary. Comments cited the are actually confined, the certifier may Comments stated that water runoff from existing requirement for recordkeeping outdoor areas containing manure would and did not think it was practical or 17 https://www.ams.usda.gov/report-presentation/ need to be managed to comply with U.S. reasonable to require producers to sound-sensible. Environmental Protection Agency

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7074 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

(EPA), state, or local requirements. the USDA’s Natural Resources must be provided and maintained in a Comments stated that compliance could Conservation Service (NRCS).18 dry condition,’’ proposed at require landscape modifications, such § 205.241(b)(4)(iii) is more appropriately 22. Other Comments—Avian Living as installation of berms or drainage placed as a standalone requirement. In Conditions systems around poultry barns. These the final rule, this requirement has been modifications could be expensive and (Comment) AMS received several moved to § 205.241(b)(6). burdensome, as they can require federal recommendations to include (Comment) A comment noted that and state permits. requirements for slow-growing poultry proposed § 205.241(b)(4)(i), which (Response) An overarching breeds or for breeds that are suited to allows, ‘‘mesh or slatted flooring under requirement of organic production is free-range conditions. Some comments drinking areas to provide drainage,’’ was that soil and water quality be recommended that AMS set a minimum unnecessary and did not actually maintained or improved (7 CFR age at slaughter or a maximum daily impose a requirement since the section 205.200). To minimize potential impacts growth rate requirement to ensure only states this type of flooring ‘‘may’’ to soil or water quality from livestock sustainable weight gain and animal be used. with outdoor access, AMS has included health. (Response) AMS agrees that the a requirement in the final rule for (Response) AMS has not included a allowance for mesh or slatted flooring vegetation in outdoor areas requirement for slow-growing breeds or under drinking areas is not necessary, as (§ 205.241(c)(2)). Vegetation acts to hold minimum age requirements for nothing else in the requirements soil, reduce water runoff, and take up slaughter in the final rule. AMS agrees prohibits use of mesh or slatted flooring nutrients deposited in animal feces. that this topic may deserve further under drinking areas. We have included Clean Water Act National Pollutant attention and input from stakeholders, a separate requirement to maintain litter Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and we may ask the NOSB to explore in a dry condition. In the final rule, permit requirements for concentrated this topic. AMS has removed § 205.241(b)(4)(i) as animal feeding operations do not (Comment) AMS received comments proposed. Additionally, AMS has encompass outdoor areas that have that current organic regulations require removed § 205.241(b)(4) of the proposed vegetation in the normal growing access to the outdoors and that these rule, and moved the requirement season. (See 40 CFR 122.23(1)(ii)). new rules are not necessary for AMS to proposed at § 205.241(b)(4)(ii) to Therefore, AMS does not expect this require outside access or for AMS to § 205.241(b)(7). The requirements on rule would adversely alter an organic prohibit porches as outside access. The scratch areas, dust baths, and litter now operation’s status or costs of compliance comments cited existing regulations at appear at §§ 205.241(b)(6) and (7). with respect to EPA regulations for § 205.239(a)(1), which include a (Comment) Some comments asked for concentrated animal feeding operations, requirement that producers establish clarification on the meaning of the term nor does it expect the rule to subject and maintain ‘‘year-round access for all ‘‘litter’’ as used in the avian living operations to additional requirements. animals to the outdoors . . . Continuous section. Comments stated that it was not This rule does not affect NPDES total confinement of any animal indoors clear if producers are required to add compliance requirements for other is prohibited.’’ litter material for birds or if dehydrated aspects of the poultry growing areas. (Response) AMS acknowledges that manure would suffice without any Other federal, state, or local regulatory current organic regulations require additional litter. Another comment requirements may apply to the facilities outdoor access for poultry, but we recommended AMS use the term as well. disagree with the argument that current ‘‘bedding’’ in place of litter, as this term (Comment) AMS received comments regulations could achieve the same is used elsewhere in the regulations. that requiring birds to be outside on soil results as the regulations revised by this (Response) AMS has used the term would lead to contamination of soil due final rule. As recommended by the ‘‘litter’’ in § 205.241, as this term is to excess nutrients from manure. NOSB, AMS is implementing this final commonly used by avian producers. Comments requested that AMS not rule to establish specific regulations for The term has not been further defined require outdoor access. the care of livestock, as authorized in § 205.2. Litter includes substrates (Response) AMS recognizes concerns under OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(2)). used to absorb moisture and dilute about impacts to soil quality, and the (Comment) Some comments stated manure. Litter also provides birds with final rule includes provisions to protect that the requirements in § 205.241(b)(1) the opportunity to dust bathe and to soil quality. However, AMS disagrees and § 205.241(b)(11) were duplicative express foraging and scratching with comments that soil quality should and that the sections should be behaviors. Common types of litter be addressed by removing the combined in a single requirement to include wood shavings or chips, straw, requirement for outside access streamline the requirements. rice hulls, and sand. The final rule at altogether. In the final rule, § 205.241(e) (Response) AMS agrees with these § 205.241(b)(6) requires that litter be requires producers to manage manure in comments and has moved the text from provided and maintained in a dry a manner that does not contribute to § 205.241(b)(11) as proposed to condition. AMS has not specified the contamination of crops, soil, or water. § 205.241(b)(1). We have removed the amount of litter that must be provided. Section 205.241(d)(4) allows for originally proposed text at However, the rule does require that temporary confinement of birds because § 205.241(b)(1) in the final rule. litter be provided. An absence of litter of risk to soil quality. Each producer (Comment) A comment suggested would not be in compliance with this will need to manage soil quality as moving the requirement on litter at requirement. Litter should be provided appropriate to their climate, soil type, § 205.241(b)(4)(iii) to clarify that the in amounts required to absorb moisture, and size of outdoor area. AMS notes that requirement applies to all types of dilute manure, and to allow birds to managing soil in outdoor areas may also poultry houses and not just houses with express natural behaviors such as dust include feed management, as excess slatted or mesh floors. bathing, foraging, and scratching. nutrients provided in feed are excreted (Response) AMS agrees with the (Comment) Some comments stated by birds. Producers may attain resources comment that the requirement, ‘‘litter AMS’s requirements were not based on and assistance with feed management scientific evidence and appeared to be and manure management by contacting 18 http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app. made by AMS arbitrarily, including the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7075

specific indoor and outdoor space exceeds 12 hours. The 12-hour time transport to buyers, auction, and requirements for birds. period includes all times during which slaughter facilities. (Response) The provision on indoor the animals are on the trailer, truck, or 2. Fit for Transport and outdoor space requirements in this shipping container, even if these modes rule are based on nine separate NOSB of transportation are not moving. In (Comment) Several comments pointed recommendations submitted to the cases such as poultry slaughter in which out that the term ‘sick’ in Secretary. In developing these requirements do not allow feed 24 hours § 205.242(a)(2)(ii) should be defined to recommendations at their public before slaughter, producers and reduce the possibility that animals are meetings, the NOSB considered slaughter facilities need to ensure that withheld from slaughter due to a minor technical information and public transport time does not exceed 12 hours. ailment that does not impact the quality comments, including comments from After 12 hours of transport, the birds of slaughter products. The comments organic livestock producers, animal would need to be fed, which may suggested that the language, ‘‘sick, welfare experts and the scientific prolong the time to slaughter. The injured, weak, disabled, blind, and community. AMS is establishing these certified operation must present lame’’ in this section be replaced with requirements, in consideration of the records—which verify that transport ‘‘non-ambulatory,’’ which is consistent NOSB’s recommendations, to assure times meet the 12 hour requirement—to with humane slaughter practices and consumers that organically produced the certifying agent during inspections readily verified. Several comments also products meet a consistent standard. or upon request. requested that § 205.242(a)(2) be changed to specify that livestock must X. Transport (§ 205.242(a)) New § 205.242(a)(6) requires that operations that transport livestock to be ambulatory to be fit for transport to A. Description of the Final Rule sales or slaughter have emergency plans buyers, auctions, or slaughter facilities. (Response) AMS agrees that animals 1. Summary of the Final Rule in place that adequately address problems reasonably possible during should not be withheld from slaughter New § 205.242(a)(1) requires that transport. Such emergency plans could due to a minor ailment that does not animals are clearly identified during include how to provide feed and water impact the quality of slaughter products transport. AMS’s approach requires that if transport time exceeds 12 hours, what and has made the suggested change in animals are clearly identified but to do if livestock escape during § 205.242(a)(2)(ii). In the final rule, the provides flexibility on how the identity transport, or how to euthanize an terms ‘‘Sick, injured, weak, disabled, is maintained during transport. blind, and lame,’’ have been replaced animal injured during transport. New § 205.242(a)(2) sets minimum with ‘‘non-ambulatory.’’ As defined in Shipping and/or receiving operations fitness requirements for livestock to be defined at 9 CFR 309.2(b), non- need to include these plans in their transported. Section 205.242(a)(2)(i) ambulatory is a condition recognized OSPs. requires that calves have a dry navel within the industry and provides a more cord and the ability to stand and walk B. Discussion of Comments Received standardized criterion to evaluate.19 without assistance, if they are to be AMS points out that the definition at 9 1. General Transport, Transport to transported. This provision would apply CFR 309.2(b) lists examples of Slaughter, and Identification of Organic to transport to buyers, auction facilities, conditions that may make livestock non- Livestock or slaughter facilities. Beef cattle and ambulatory. However, some of these dairy cattle producers may transport (Comment) One comment asked AMS animals may still be able to ambulate. calves on the farm before the navel is to clarify whether § 205.242(a)(1), which Every situation is case-specific and dried and the calves can walk. Section regulates transportation of organic needs to be evaluated by the certified 205.242(a)(2)(ii) prohibits transport of livestock, applies to transport in general operator. non-ambulatory animals to buyers, or only transportation to slaughter. auction facilities, or slaughter facilities. Other comments expressed concern over 3. Transport of Calves These animals may either be given the requirement that organic livestock (Comment) Two comments were medical treatments and cared for until must be transported in designated pens. concerned with the requirement in the their health conditions improve, so that The comments noted that while proposed rule that calves must not be they are able to walk, or they may be identification of organic livestock transported to auction or slaughter euthanized. during transport is essential, requiring facilities until their navel cords are New §§ 205.242(a)(3) and (4) set designated pens would be burdensome. dried and they have the ability to stand minimum standards for the trailer, In practice, identification is generally and walk on their own. Both comments truck, or shipping container used for done through ear tags or other methods, suggested changes to the rule to allow transporting organic livestock. The and that requiring designated pens is for more flexibility around when calves mode of transportation is required to burdensome. could be transported. One comment provide seasonal-appropriate ventilation (Response) Section 205.242(a)(1) requested changes to the rule to allow to protect animals against cold or heat applies to transport of organic livestock calves with a dry, clean, and disinfected stress. This provision requires that air to buyers, auction, and slaughter navel cord to be transported, and the flow be adjusted depending on the facilities. AMS agrees that requiring other suggested that the rule be revised season and temperature. In addition, identification of pens during transport to set a minimum age for calf transport bedding is required to be provided on for organic livestock may not be trailer floors as needed to keep livestock necessary to maintain an audit trail and 19 9 CFR 309.2(b): All seriously crippled animals clean, dry, and comfortable. If roughage organic integrity. AMS has amended the and non-ambulatory disabled livestock shall be language in § 205.242(a)(1) to remove identified as U.S. Suspects and disposed of as is used as bedding, the bedding needs provided in § 311.1 of this subchapter unless they to be organically produced and handled. the requirement for designating and are required to be classed as condemned under Bedding is not required for poultry identifying organic pens during § 309.3. Non-ambulatory disabled livestock are crates. transport, changing the text to read: livestock that cannot rise from a recumbent position Certified organic livestock must be or that cannot walk, including, but not limited to, Section 205.242(a)(5) requires that all those with broken appendages, severed tendons or livestock be provided with organic feed clearly identified as organic, and the ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral and clean water if transport time identity must be traceable during column, or metabolic conditions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7076 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

instead of specific navel characteristics. not feel that the use of nonorganic with several animal welfare AMS also received comments from bedding should be allowed, they organization positions. With regard to organizations that represent hundreds of suggested that if it were used transporting poultry, one animal welfare organic dairy operations. These unintentionally, the stated sanction is organization has a 10-hour limit for organizations supported the proposed impractical and harsh since bedding in broilers, and another has no specific requirement in § 205.242(a)(2)(i). trailers and temporary pens would be in time limit for broilers but recommends (Response) AMS reviewed and contact with animals for only a short that animals are taken without delay to considered comments from all period of time. their destination. With regard to organizations that reviewed and (Response) Certifiers are responsible whether this time frame includes lairage analyzed the proposed rule. Based on for taking appropriate enforcement at the slaughter facility, once livestock the widespread support of this actions depending on the nature of the arrive at the slaughter facility, they must subsection, AMS did not feel that a violation. AMS agrees that stating be handled in compliance with change to the regulation was warranted. specific sanctions for non-compliant § 205.242(b)(1) for mammalian species practices is not appropriate. Compliance 4. Bedding or § 205.242(c)(1) for avian species. procedures under the USDA organic (Comment) Several comments regulations are specified under 7 CFR 6. Twenty-Eight Hour Law expressed opposition to the use of 205.660–668. (Comment) Several comments bedding for transport of livestock over received stated that the Twenty-Eight long distances because of the risk of 5. Transport Exceeding 12 Hours Hour Law provides minimal protection animal injury due to certain types of (Comment) Opposing comments were for animals, excludes poultry, and is bedding or the need to discourage laying received on the topic of transport under-enforced by APHIS. Some down in trailers where crowding may be exceeding 12 hours. Several comments comments stated that the law is out of an issue. One comment asked for indicated that 12 hours was too long for date and inhumane, and they clarification on whether rubber mats livestock to go without feed and water recommended that the proposed rule be would be an acceptable form of bedding because animals may have been without amended to limit transport of during transport. Several comments feed and water prior to loading for organically raised animals (including from stakeholders recommended that transport. These comments stated that it poultry) without food, water, and rest to bedding also be a requirement for is cruel not to provide feed and water no more than eight hours. These poultry crates, stating that poultry either continuously or at least every 6 to comments further recommended that should also be kept clean, dry, and 8 hours. Conversely, several comments the USDA develop a specific inspection comfortable during transport. stated that livestock are rarely trucked program to adequately ensure (Response) Section 205.242(a)(4) for longer than 12 hours but that, if they compliance with these transportation includes the phrase ‘‘as needed,’’ which are, they can go without feed and water standards. One comment recommended allows for the discretion of the certified for longer than 12 hours. One comment that the Twenty-Eight Hour Law and the operation and their certifier when stated that if livestock are to be trucked requirement regarding noncompliance determining if the use of bedding is for longer than 12 hours to slaughter or records also apply to poultry. Even appropriate based on risk of injury to auction, it is likely that the though this regulation currently the livestock and other welfare transportation load will be larger and excludes poultry, this comment noted concerns. AMS believes that this may not be exclusively organic. This that the NOP definition of livestock language describes the requirements comment stated that if the 12-hour rule includes poultry and that the consumer with sufficient clarity, while not being is to be implemented, it will decrease expectation of meat carrying the organic overly prescriptive. Certified operations the availability of transport for organic label is that all livestock is subject to the should describe in their organic system livestock and increase transport cost, same requirements. Another comment plan how they will determine whether especially for small- to mid-size requested that the final rule provide a or not bedding is necessary during operations. It was recommended that transport limit for poultry since it is not transport. Certifying agents should AMS rely on the federally mandated covered under any federal regulation. assess this information when reviewing Twenty Eight Hour Law and remove the Certifying agents and other industry the certified operators’ organic system requirement for access to feed and water groups commented that plan for compliance. In some cases, after 12 hours of transport. Another § 205.242(a)(5)(i) does not clearly bedding may not be required because of comment stated that the 12-hour specify the regulation for which the other animal welfare considerations. requirement may be a hardship to the noncompliance records and subsequent Regarding the acceptability of rubber industry and is not important to birds in corrective actions must be provided. mats during transport, there is nothing transit or waiting for slaughter. The They suggested that this section, in the proposed rule that prohibits the comment stated that birds in strange specifically § 205.242(a)(5)(ii), directly use of rubber mats. The bedding cages or transport racks are not reference the Federal Twenty-Eight exemption for poultry crates is concerned about food. Several Hour Law (4 U.S.C. 80502) and the consistent with the 2011 NOSB comments requested clarification on regulations at 9 CFR 89.1–89.5. In recommendation, and AMS is not whether the 12-hour time period addition, one comment suggested that a making changes to require bedding for included lairage at the slaughter facility. ‘‘Memorandum of Interview (MOI)’’ be these livestock. However, a minor (Response) The 12-hour time period added for incidents related to the change has been made to § 205.242(a)(4) was recommended by the NOSB in their transport of poultry; noncompliance to clarify that bedding is not required 2011 NOSB recommendation on Animal records are currently not issued for for poultry crates. Handling and Transport to Slaughter. incidents involving poultry since the (Comment) One certifying agent AMS has determined that the NOSB transport and slaughter of birds are not addressed a position AMS made in the recommendation, which states that covered by any federal regulation. preamble to the proposed rule regarding water and organic feed must be (Response) The intention of the use of nonorganic bedding in available if transport time exceeds 12 §§ 205.242(a)(5)(i) and 205.242(a)(5)(ii) transport, which would render animals hours, is practical and humane. AMS’s in the proposed rule was to clarify the nonorganic. While the commenter does decision on transport time also aligns authority of the NOP, certifying agents,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7077

and State organic programs to initiate responsibility for compliance of New § 205.242(b) regarding compliance action if certified transportation would fall back solely on mammalian slaughter clarifies the operations, or the transport operation the producer and that often it is the authority of the NOP, certifying agents, that has been contracted by the certified purchaser of the livestock (a broker or and State organic programs to review operation to transport organic livestock, slaughter company for example) that records related to humane handling and are found to have violated the Twenty- would be paying for the transportation. slaughter issued by the controlling Eight Hour Law (49 U.S.C. 80502) and This comment states that the entity who national, federal, or state authority, and its regulations at 9 CFR 89.1–89.5. pays is the one with the most leverage records of any required corrective However, after consultation with to set requirements for transportation actions if certified operations are found APHIS, AMS has decided to remove and obtain records that will verify to have violated FSIS regulations reference to the Twenty-Eight Hour Law practices. There is concern that the new governing the humane handling of in the final rule. This is based upon the requirements cannot be verified mammalian livestock in connection fact that common carriers are already adequately without direct observation. with slaughter (note that AMS has subject to this law under APHIS. In The commenter suggested that separated mammalian from avian addition, § 205.242(a)(5) provides that § 205.242(a)(5)(ii) and 205.242(a)(6) be slaughter requirements due to the animals may not be transported for more changed to specify that the operation differences in how mammalian and than 12 consecutive hours without responsible for documenting that avian livestock are handled and feeding and watering. This requirement transportation adequately meets the slaughtered). This new section, titled is more stringent than the Twenty-Eight requirements is the certified operation ‘‘Mammalian Slaughter,’’ governs Hour Law. The USDA Animal and Plant that arranged the transport. Health Inspection Service (APHIS) can mammals defined as ‘‘livestock’’ or (Response) The criteria for who is ‘‘exotic animals’’ under the FSIS already take enforcement action based responsible for maintaining organic regulations. Under the FSIS regulations, on the Twenty-Eight Hour Law and has integrity and who has to be certified are ‘‘livestock’’ are cattle, sheep, swine, standards for in-transit feed, water, and provided in NOP 5031: Certification goat, horse, mule, or other equine. rest stations. Animals should be Requirements for Handling Unpackaged ‘‘Exotic animals’’ include antelope, transported to the final destination in a Organic Products Guidance and the bison, buffalo, cattalo, deer, elk, manner that is not detrimental to the NOP Instruction 4009: Who Needs to be reindeer, and water buffalo. These welfare of the animals. The role of Certified? Both documents can be found regulations govern the handling and Accredited Certifying Agents is to on the AMS Web site: https:// slaughter of the majority of mammalian review transport times to verify that www.ams.usda.gov/. An operation that certified operations are in compliance handles bulk, unpackaged organic animals used for food in the United with the 12 hour requirement and that products (such as cattle, milk, or grain) States and apply to all operations that the transport is not detrimental to the must be certified organic. If animals are slaughter these animals. animal’s welfare. off-loaded, the site or facility must be New § 205.242(b)(1) requires certified Accordingly, after consultation with certified organic. Operations that are organic slaughter facilities to be in full APHIS, AMS has decided to remove only transporting livestock, and whose compliance with the Humane Methods reference to the Twenty-Eight Hour Law handling practices are supervised and of Slaughter Act (HMSA) of 1978 (7 in the final rule. The final rule has been approved by the certified operation and U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and its amended accordingly. their certifying agent, are not required to implementing FSIS regulations, as 7. Responsibility and Organic Integrity be certified. In this case, organic determined by FSIS. The HMSA During Transport and/or at Auction compliance is the responsibility of the requires that humane methods be used Facilities certified operator who is responsible for for handling and slaughtering livestock (Comment) Several comments the transportation and is verified by and defines humane methods of expressed concern over whose their certifier. AMS has changed slaughter. In the HMSA, Congress found responsibility it is to maintain organic §§ 205.242(a)(5)(i) and 205.242(a)(6) to ‘‘that the use of humane methods in the integrity/compliance with standards specify that the certified operation slaughter of livestock prevents needless during transport. Some comments responsible for overseeing the transport suffering; results in safer and better asserted that non-certified truckers of organic livestock is responsible for working conditions for persons engaged would be responsible for compliance keeping verification records that in the slaughtering industry; brings with bedding and feed requirements. demonstrate organic compliance during about improvement of products and One comment suggested adding transport. economies in slaughtering operations; language to the final rule to clarify that XI. Slaughter (§ 205.242(b) and (c)) and produces other benefits for if animals are off-loaded during producers, processors, and consumers transport, the location must be certified A. Description of Regulations which tend to expedite an orderly flow if the animal is to retain organic status. 1. Summary of the Final Rule of livestock and livestock products in One comment asked whether it is interstate and foreign commerce.’’ The possible for organic livestock to Slaughter and the Handling of Livestock HMSA is referenced in the FMIA at 21 maintain their organic status when they in Connection With Slaughter U.S.C. 603 and is implemented by FSIS are kept at non-certified auction The requirements with regard to humane handling and slaughter facilities while they are marketed and slaughter and handling of livestock in regulations found at 9 CFR part 309 and sold. The same comment asked whether connection with slaughter are governed 9 CFR part 313. The FMIA provides the length of time the animal is at the by separate authority applicable to both that, for the purposes of preventing facility or away from the original certified organic and non-organic inhumane slaughter of livestock, the operation of origin and out of oversight livestock products. The final rule Secretary of Agriculture will assign of organic certification inspections reiterates that compliance with these inspectors to examine and inspect the impacts the organic status of the animal. regulations, as determined by FSIS, is methods by which livestock are One comment indicated that the required for certified organic livestock slaughtered and handled in connection proposed rule implies that the operations. with slaughter in slaughtering

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7078 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

establishments subject to inspection (21 provides, upon request, voluntary These species constitute the majority of U.S.C. 603(b)). inspection of certain exotic animal avian species slaughtered for human All establishments that slaughter species on a fee-for-service basis under food in the U.S. However, the organic livestock, which include any certified the authority of the Agricultural standards for avian slaughter apply to organic operations that slaughter Marketing Act of 1946. FSIS regulates all species biologically considered avian livestock, must meet the humane the humane handling of the slaughter of or birds. The NOSB did not directly handling and slaughter requirements the exotic animals under the regulations at address avian slaughter requirements. entire time they hold livestock in 9 CFR part 352.10, which require that However, AMS added avian slaughter connection with slaughter. FSIS exotic animals be slaughtered and requirements for consistency with the provides for continuous inspection in handled in connection with slaughter in new mammalian slaughter requirements livestock slaughter establishments, and accordance with the requirements for and to provide consistent slaughter inspection program personnel verify livestock at 9 CFR part 309 and 9 CFR requirements for certified organic compliance with the humane handling part 313. Violation of these regulations operations. regulations during each shift that can result in a denial of service by FSIS. While the HMSA does not apply to animals are slaughtered, or when New § 205.242(b)(3) requires that all poultry, under the PPIA at 21 U.S.C. animals are on site, even during a certified organic slaughter facilities 453(g)(5) a poultry product is processing-only shift. The regulations at provide any FSIS noncompliance considered adulterated if it is in whole, 9 CFR part 313 govern the maintenance records or corrective action records or in part, the product of any poultry of pens, driveways, and ramps; the relating to humane handling and which has died by other means than handling of livestock, focusing on their slaughter to certifying agents during slaughter. FSIS regulations, in turn, movement from pens to slaughter; and inspections or upon request. Not all require that poultry be slaughtered in the use of different stunning and violations of FSIS regulations result in accordance with good commercial slaughter methods. Notably, FSIS a suspension of FSIS inspection practices in a manner that will result in inspection program personnel verify services. In some cases, FSIS will issue thorough bleeding of the poultry carcass compliance with the regulations at 9 a noncompliance record and the and will ensure that breathing has CFR part 313 through the monitoring of slaughter facility must perform stopped before scalding (9 CFR 381.65 many of the same parameters proposed corrective actions to bring the slaughter (b)). Compliance with FSIS Directives by the NOSB in 2011, including prod facility back into compliance. These 6100.3 and 6910.1, as determined by use, slips and falls, stunning records must be provided to certifying FSIS is required under the final rule. effectiveness, and incidents of egregious agents during inspection or upon In a 2005 Federal Register Notice, inhumane handling.20 The regulations request to verify that the slaughter FSIS reminded all poultry slaughter at 9 CFR part 309 govern ante-mortem facility is in full compliance and has establishments that live poultry: inspection and ensure that only healthy taken all corrective actions. In addition, ambulatory animals are slaughtered and AMS recognizes that in the U.S. some . . . must be handled in a manner that is that non-ambulatory are euthanized and slaughter facilities are regulated by the consistent with good commercial practices, which means they should be treated disposed of promptly. FSIS has a range State for intra-state meat sales. In humanely. Although there is no specific of enforcement actions available foreign countries, foreign governments federal humane handling and slaughter regarding violations of the humane may be the appropriate regulatory statute for poultry, under the PPIA, poultry slaughter requirements for livestock, authority for humane slaughter products are more likely to be adulterated if, including noncompliance records, inspections. In all cases, the relevant among other circumstances, they are regulatory control actions, and humane slaughter noncompliance produced from birds that have not been suspensions of inspection. records and corrective action records treated humanely, because such birds are Further, FSIS encourages livestock must be provided to certifying agents more likely to be bruised or to die other than 22 slaughter establishments to use a during the inspections or upon request. by slaughter. systematic approach to humane Also in this Notice, FSIS suggested that Slaughter and the Handling of Poultry handling and slaughter to best ensure poultry slaughter establishments in Connection With Slaughter that they meet the requirements of the consider a systematic approach to HMSA, FMIA, and implementing AMS added a new § 205.242(c) handling poultry in connection with regulations.21 With a systematic regarding avian slaughter facilities. slaughter. FSIS defined a systematic approach, establishments focus on Section 202.242(c)(1) clarifies the approach as one in which treating livestock in such a manner as to authority of the NOP, certifying agents, establishments focus on treating poultry minimize excitement, discomfort, and and State organic programs to review in such a manner as to minimize accidental injury the entire time they noncompliance records related to the excitement, discomfort, and accidental hold livestock in connection with use of good manufacturing practices in injury the entire time that live poultry slaughter. Establishments may develop connection with slaughter issued by the is held in connection with slaughter. written animal handling plans and share controlling national, federal, or state Although the adoption of such an them with FSIS inspection program authority and records of subsequent approach is voluntary, it would likely personnel. corrective action if certified operations better ensure that poultry carcasses are AMS added a new § 205.242(b)(2) for are found to have violated the Poultry unadulterated. those certified organic facilities that Products Inspection Act (PPIA) FSIS inspection program personnel slaughter exotic animals and voluntarily requirements regarding poultry verify that poultry slaughter is request FSIS inspection. FSIS also slaughter, violated the FSIS regulations conducted in accordance with good regarding the slaughter of poultry, or commercial practices in the pre-scald 20 FSIS Directive 6900.2, Revision 2, Humane failed to use good commercial practices area of slaughter establishments, where Handling and the Slaughter of Livestock, August 15, in the slaughter of poultry, as they observe whether establishment 2011. determined by FSIS. Under the PPIA 21 Humane Handling and Slaughter Requirements employees are mistreating birds or and the Merits of a Systematic Approach to Meet and the FSIS regulations, poultry are Such Requirements, FSIS, 69 FR 54625, September defined as chickens, turkeys, ducks, 22 Treatment of Live Poultry before Slaughter, 9, 2004. geese, guineas, ratites, and squabs. FSIS, 70 FR 56624, September 28, 2005.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7079

handling them in a way that will cause euthanized or made insensible before (Response) The USDA organic death or injury, prevent thorough being shackled. regulations provide for enforcement bleeding, or result in excessive bruising. New § 205.242(c)(3)(i) through (iii) options that are implemented by the Examples of noncompliant mistreatment require poultry slaughter operations that certifying agent when there are repeated could include breaking the legs of birds are either exempt or not covered by the violations of humane handling and to hold the birds in the shackle, birds requirements of the PPIA to meet the slaughter regulations. AMS is not suffering or dying from heat exhaustion, standards that non-exempt slaughter ranking allowed methods of slaughter for preference based on humane and breathing birds entering the operations must meet. AMS included a scalder.23 Also, in 2015, FSIS issued considerations as that would be requirement that no lame birds be hung specific instructions to inspection challenging to enforce. AMS agrees with on shackles by their feet. AMS also program personnel for recording the suggestion to add reference to 9 CFR included a requirement that all birds noncompliance with the requirement for part 309 in the final rule in that were hung or shackled on a chain the use of good commercial practices in §§ 205.242(b)(1) and 205.242(b)(2), or automated slaughter system be poultry slaughter.24 which cover the requirements for the New § 205.242(c)(2) requires that all stunned prior to exsanguination. This humane and prompt euthanizing and certified organic slaughter facilities requirement does not apply to small- disposing of non-ambulatory animals at provide, during the annual organic scale producers who do not shackle the the slaughter facility. Additionally, inspection, any FSIS noncompliance birds or use an automated system but AMS has determined that the FSIS records and corrective action records who instead place the birds in killing regulations are sufficient for protecting related to the use of good manufacturing cones before exsanguinating them animal welfare because they include practices in the handling and slaughter without stunning. This requirement many of the provisions recommended of poultry in order to determine that would not apply to ritual slaughter by the NOSB for livestock slaughter. slaughter facilities have addressed any establishments (e.g., Kosher or Halal Adding requirements beyond the FSIS outstanding FSIS noncompliances and slaughter facilities), who are required to regulations may be overly prescriptive are in good standing with FSIS. Not all meet all the humane handling for organic production. AMS will violations of FSIS regulations result in regulatory requirements except stunning provide trainings on this regulation, a suspension of inspection services. In prior to shackling, hoisting, throwing, which will be available to all interested some cases, FSIS will issue a cutting, or casting. New parties, including certifying agents, noncompliance record and the slaughter § 205.242(c)(3)(iii) requires that all birds organic producers, and handlers who facility must perform corrective actions be irreversibly insensible prior to being would like further clarification on these to bring the slaughter facility back into placed in the scalding tank. requirements. compliance. These records must be B. Discussion of Comments Received provided to the certifying agent at 2. Inspectors Not Trained in FSIS inspection or upon request to verify that 1. Special Animal Welfare Requirements Requirements the slaughter facility is operating in for Certified Organic Slaughter Facilities (Comment) Several comments compliance with FSIS regulations and is expressed concern over the requirement addressing/has addressed all corrective (Comment) Several comments stated for organic inspectors to verify the actions. In addition, AMS recognizes that the organic standards should mitigation of noncompliances found that some poultry slaughter facilities in require that only organic animals are during FSIS inspections. The comments the U.S. are regulated by the State for handled at a certified organic slaughter stated that inspectors do not have the intra-state poultry sales. In foreign facility and that the organic standards expertise to determine if corrective countries, foreign governments may be should go above and beyond the FSIS actions to FSIS noncompliances are the appropriate regulatory authority for requirements for humane slaughter. For sufficient. Comments stated that poultry slaughter inspections. In all example, comments recommended that verifying FSIS regulatory requirements cases, the relevant noncompliance there should be more severe sanctions if is beyond the scope of organic records and corrective action records noncompliances related to animal certification and that this would place must be provided to the certifying agent welfare are repeated, that the NOP an unnecessary burden on inspectors during inspections or upon request. should train slaughter facility staff on and certifying agents. Other comments Unlike the requirements for livestock the USDA organic regulations, that the stated that FSIS personnel are slaughter inspection, exemptions from organic standards should be as explicit specifically trained in identifying and poultry slaughter inspection exist for as NOSB recommendations on responding to the PPIA and good some poultry that is going to be sold to slaughter, and that the standards commercial practice regulations, the public. AMS added handling and include a recommended hierarchy whereas certifying agents are not. They slaughter standards for such poultry that identifying the most humane methods of expressed concern that the new is either exempt from or not covered by slaughter for each species. Comments requirements for transporting livestock the inspection requirement of the PPIA. also requested that the organic and poultry to sale or slaughter are Section 205.242(c)(3) would prohibit requirements include more detailed redundant and unnecessary since FSIS hanging, carrying, or shackling any lame language regarding humane and already has regulations in place for birds by their legs. Birds with broken prohibited forms of euthanasia of non- slaughter. They assert that the duty of legs or injured feet may suffer ambulatory animals upon arrival at the identifying and responding to needlessly if carried or hung by their slaughter facility. Several comments noncompliance events remains legs. Such birds must either be recommended adding to 205.242(b)(1): 9 exclusively under the oversight of CFR part 309 regarding ante-mortem trained FSIS personnel in order to 23 FSIS Directive 6100.3, Revision 1, Ante-Mortem inspection to ensure that only healthy protect the welfare of poultry during and Post-Mortem Poultry Inspection, April 30, ambulatory animals are slaughtered and slaughter. In addition, several certifying 2009. that non-ambulatory animals are agents were concerned that 24 FSIS Notice 07–15, Instructions for Writing Poultry Good Commercial Practices Noncompliance euthanized and disposed of promptly. cross-references to external statutes may Records and Memorandum of Interview Letters for This regulation has recently been render the organic standards obsolete Poultry Mistreatment, January 21, 2015. updated to include veal calves. and in need of future revision should

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7080 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

the external statutes significantly significant risk as stated in the established regulations in some foreign change. Comments cited the USDA comments. The FSIS regulation may be countries. Some of the comments organic standards cross-referencing of amended over time, but it is less likely questioned whether existing the EPA’s List 4 of Inerts as an example. to become obsolete. Furthermore, AMS equivalency agreements would require Comments recommended that AMS will ensure updates and trainings are renegotiation when the final rule determine the specific elements of the provided when FSIS regulations or becomes effective. cited laws they wish to incorporate into procedures change. (Response) When the USDA organic the standards and include generic regulations are amended, the USDA 3. Vocalization Thresholds language that reflect those requirements. follows a set of steps with respect to Several comments recommended that (Comment) One comment suggested international trade agreements. Under there be trained inspectors dedicated that specific vocalization thresholds be equivalency arrangements, the USDA exclusively to observing compliance included in the regulation, as provided notifies the foreign country of any (ideally daily or at least on a weekly in the 2011 NOSB recommendation and amended USDA organic regulation that rotating basis) with animal welfare the Certified Humane Slaughter may affect the terms of the existing conditions on site at all organic Standards. Vocalizations of livestock in equivalency determination. The foreign slaughter facilities, with particular slaughter facilities can be associated country reviews the information and attention at the point of slaughter. with animal distress and welfare may initiate discussion to determine (Response) Through this final rule, problems in the plant. The NOSB whether renegotiation is needed. With AMS has established requirements that recommended that: (1) No more than recognition agreements, the certification govern mammalian and avian species 3% of cattle vocalize as they move bodies in the foreign country are that are slaughtered by organic through the restrainer, stunning box, accredited by the recognized foreign operations. Because these requirements and stunning area; (2) no more than 5% government authority to certify are consistent with existing federal of hogs squeal in the restrainer due to operations under the USDA organic regulations for livestock slaughter, AMS human provocation; (3) no more than regulations. As a result, the USDA expects that the organic producers and 5% of livestock vocalize when a head notifies the foreign government of the handlers will comply with these holder is used during stunning or amended USDA organic regulation, and requirements. FSIS standards apply to slaughter; and (4) no more than 1% of the foreign government authority organic and non-organic livestock, and hogs vocalize due to hot wanding. informs its accredited certification FSIS is already carrying out inspections Vocalization scoring, as suggested by bodies of the amended regulation. to this regulation. The role of the the NOSB recommendation, could be (Comment) Comments were received organic certifier/inspector is to verify used as an objective method for regarding meat and poultry imports and whether FSIS has issued noncompliance detecting welfare problems during how AMS will regulate livestock records and if so, to verify that the slaughter since cattle and hogs will slaughter by certified organic operations certified operation has resolved or is vocalize during handling if stressed, in foreign countries. One comment working to revolve any FSIS injured, or scared but they will not provided country-specific noncompliances and is in good standing vocalize if calm. The percentages recommendations regarding cattle with FSIS. If not, the organic certifier is provided in the NOSB recommendation transport and slaughter requirements. required to take appropriate would indicate well-managed slaughter This comment recommended a enforcement action of organic rules plants; skilled, careful handlers; modification of the new rules to under the USDA organic regulations. adequate equipment design and stipulate that while cattle are in other For example, if FSIS noncompliances condition, and calm animals. countries that must adhere to state and/ have not been resolved, the certifying (Response) Facilities that meet the or federal animal welfare standards, agent may issue a noncompliance to the FSIS humane handling and slaughter these countries must abide by the certified facility to request verification requirements will ensure that animal standards and guidelines prescribed in that FSIS noncompliances have been distress during handling/slaughter is their domestic animal welfare standards resolved with FSIS as a condition for minimized, achieving the same impact for the transport and slaughter of ongoing organic certification. as using vocalization threshold scoring. livestock. Additionally, one comment Otherwise, this regulation would not FSIS inspection program personnel indicated that U.S. certifiers are change the current scope of the organic verify compliance with the regulations currently unequipped to verify inspection of certified slaughter at 9 CFR part 313 through the compliance with these other rules/laws facilities. Organic inspectors are not monitoring of many of the parameters for producers outside of the U.S. required to know how to inspect recommended by the NOSB in 2011, (Response) Many facilities in other slaughter facilities according to FSIS including prod use, slips and falls, countries are already producing meat regulatory requirements and are not stunning effectiveness, and incidents of and poultry for the U.S. market that required to determine if corrective egregious inhumane handling. AMS did complies with FSIS export program actions mitigate FSIS noncompliances. not feel that a change to the rule to requirements, regardless of whether the However, as with any inspection, include vocalization thresholds was facility is certified organic. Certifying inspectors need to be highly qualified in warranted. agents operating in countries outside of the type of operation they are the U.S. are accredited by the USDA and inspecting. AMS conducts annual 4. International Animal Welfare will need to incorporate this final rule trainings for certifying agents and will Requirements into their NOP certification programs. ensure that FSIS issues are also covered (Comment) Several comments asked Foreign certifying agents will need to during those trainings. AMS will how an established final rule would verify that livestock are being provide guidance to certifiers (agents) impact existing organic trade transported and handled according to and inspectors on issues that may need agreements, such as equivalency the requirements of the final rule as well further clarification once this rule is in agreements and recognition agreements. as FSIS equivalent programs. effect. Regarding cross-referencing other For example, some comments Noncompliance records related to these federal regulations, AMS has highlighted specific provisions in the equivalent programs will be reviewed determined that this does not pose a proposed rule that differ from during annual organic certification

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7081

assessments and verified through exempt from or not covered by the connection with slaughter. FSIS defined annual organic inspections or upon requirements of the PPIA—which a systematic approach as one in which request by the certifier. When provide that no lame birds may be establishments focus on treating poultry noncompliances are observed by the shackled, hung, or carried by their legs; in such a manner as to minimize appropriate authority under the FSIS that birds must be stunned prior to excitement, discomfort, and accidental equivalency program, the certifying exsanguination; and that all birds must injury the entire time that live poultry agent will implement the necessary be irreversibly insensible prior to is held in connection with slaughter. enforcement actions under the organic scalding—should apply to all organic FSIS inspection program personnel program, as applicable. poultry slaughter, and that it is not clear verify that poultry slaughter is conducted in accordance with good 5. Humane Methods of Slaughter Act from the language of the proposed rule that these same requirements apply to commercial practices in the pre-scald (Comments) Some comments received slaughter plants exempt from or not area of slaughter establishments, where expressed concern that the proposed covered by the PPIA. Comments also they observe whether employees are rule § 205.242(b)(1) contains no stated that FSIS has not codified the mistreating birds or handling them in a reference to the Humane Methods of contents of the ‘‘good manufacturing way that will cause death or injury, Slaughter Act (HMSA). Instead, it refers practices’’ Directives 6100.3 and 6910.1. prevent thorough bleeding, or result in to the Federal Meat Inspection Act These comments argued that the avian excessive bruising. AMS agrees with the (which itself references the HMSA) and slaughter section, as proposed, creates a suggestion to include reference to the parenthetically to the FSIS regulations discrepancy in which slaughter plants FSIS Directives 6100.3 and 6910.1 in at 9 CFR part 313. Comments covered by the PPIA would implement 205.242(c)(1) and has made this change recommended that this omission be less stringent requirements than those in the final rule. corrected to include a direct reference to proposed for exempt/non-covered (Comment) Some comments the HMSA by name and citation and to plants under § 205.242(c)(3). Several expressed concern that learning and clarify that the HMSA provides comments provided additional enforcing FSIS rules could present an minimum standards. The same conditions for humane avian slaughter undue/unreasonable burden for comments recommended that that should be incorporated into the certifiers and producers, especially for provisions from the National Organic final rule. on-farm poultry processing. They Standards Board (NOSB) request information on how a processor recommendations on transport and (Response) Section 202.242(c)(1) can prove they are in compliance with slaughter be added. clarifies the authority of the NOP, FSIS requirements and on how an (Response) The final rule requires certifying agents, and State organic operation slaughtering poultry on-farm certified organic slaughter facilities to programs to initiate compliance action if under exemption can prove compliance be in full compliance with the Humane certified operations are found to have with FSIS requirements. Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) of violated the Poultry Products Inspection (Response) A certified organic 1978 (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and its Act (PPIA) requirements regarding operation must meet the requirements of implementing FSIS regulations, as poultry slaughter, as well as the FSIS the USDA organic regulation. determined by FSIS. The HMSA regulations regarding the slaughter of Operations must be compliant with all requires that humane methods be used poultry and the use of good commercial regulations that impact products they for handling and slaughtering livestock practices in the slaughter of poultry. produce. Certifying agents are not and defines humane methods of The NOSB did not directly address assessing compliance with other slaughter. The HMSA is referenced in avian slaughter requirements. However, regulations but only verifying the FMIA at 21 U.S.C. 603 and is AMS is implementing avian slaughter compliance through review and implemented by FSIS humane handling requirements for consistency with the inspection of a certified operation’s and slaughter regulations found at 9 mammalian slaughter requirements and noncompliance records issued by the CFR part 313. The FMIA provides that, to better ensure the welfare of all regulatory authority. This final rule for the purposes of preventing animals slaughtered by certified recognizes that some operations are inhumane slaughter of livestock, FSIS operations. While the HMSA does not exempt from poultry slaughter assigns inspectors to examine and apply to poultry, under the PPIA at 21 inspection and proposed handling and inspect the methods by which livestock U.S.C. 453(g)(5), a poultry product is slaughter standards for such poultry that are slaughtered and handled in considered adulterated if it is in whole, is either exempt from or not covered by connection with slaughter in or in part, the product of any poultry the inspection requirement of the PPIA. slaughtering establishments subject to which has died otherwise than by Section 205.242(c)(3) prohibits hanging, inspection (21 U.S.C. 603(b)). The final slaughter. FSIS regulations require that carrying, or shackling any lame birds by rule references the FSIS regulation 9 poultry be slaughtered in accordance their legs. Birds with broken legs or CFR part 313 because the regulation with good commercial practices, in a injured feet may suffer needlessly if clearly conveys how operators must manner that will result in thorough carried or hung by their legs. Such birds comply with the HMSA Act. bleeding of the poultry carcass and that must either be euthanized or made will ensure that breathing has stopped insensible before being shackled. 6. Avian Slaughter before scalding (9 CFR 381.65 (b)). In a In addition, the final rule includes (Comment) Several comments 2005 Federal Register Notice, FSIS §§ 205.242(c)(3)(i) through (iii) to expressed concern that the proposed reminded all poultry slaughter require poultry slaughter operations that rule addresses avian slaughter, which is establishments that live poultry: ‘‘. . . are either exempt or not covered by the not covered by the Humane Methods of must be handled in a manner that is requirements of the PPIA to meet animal Slaughter Act (HMSA) and therefore is consistent with good commercial welfare standards that non-exempt not currently governed by clearly practices, which means they should be slaughter operations must meet. This defined humane standards. Other treated humanely.’’ Also in this Notice, final rule requires that no lame birds be comments received state that the FSIS suggested that poultry slaughter hung on shackles by their feet and that requirements of § 205.242(c)(3) for establishments consider a systematic all birds that were hung or shackled on organic poultry slaughter operations approach to handling poultry in a chain or automated slaughter system

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7082 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

be stunned prior to exsanguination. This who are required to meet all the humane effects, distributive impacts, and requirement would not apply to small- handling regulatory requirements except equity). Executive Order 13563 scale producers who do not shackle the stunning prior to shackling, hoisting, emphasizes the importance of birds or use an automated system but throwing, cutting, or casting. Non- quantifying both costs and benefits, who instead place the birds in killing exempt operations must meet the reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and cones before exsanguinating them requirements of PPIA. promoting flexibility. This rulemaking without stunning. This requirement has been designated as an would also not apply to ritual slaughter 8. Records ‘‘economically significant regulatory establishments (e.g., Kosher or Halal (Comment) Several comments were action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive slaughter facilities), who are required to received that suggested amending the Order 12866, and, therefore, has been meet all the humane handling term ‘‘noncompliant records’’ to reviewed by the Office of Management regulatory requirements except stunning ‘‘noncompliance records’’ in all relevant and Budget (OMB). prior to shackling, hoisting, throwing, sections of 202.242 as this is the typical AMS is conducting this rulemaking to cutting, or casting. Additionally, title of enforcement documents issued maintain consumer confidence in the § 205.242(c)(3)(iii) requires that all birds by the USDA Food Safety and USDA organic seal. This action is be irreversibly insensible prior to being Inspection Service (FSIS), as well as necessary to augment the USDA organic placed in the scalding tank. state departments of agriculture. livestock production regulations with (Response) AMS agrees that reference clear provisions to fulfill one purpose of 7. Religious Slaughter and Avian to ‘‘noncompliant records’’ should be the Organic Foods Production Act Slaughter by Exempt Operations ‘‘noncompliance records’’ and has made (OFPA) (7 U.S.C. 6501–6522): To assure (Comment) Several comments the necessary changes to all relevant consumers that organically-produced expressed concern that the rule may sections of the final rule. products meet a consistent and uniform require that Kosher or Halal slaughter standard. OFPA mandates that detailed facilities use a stunning step prior to 9. Scope of Inspection livestock regulations be developed exsanguination. These comments (Comment) One comment stated that, through notice and comment indicated that the rule is not clear on while the proposed rule proposes that rulemaking and intends for the whether the stunning requirement is sick, injured, weak, disabled, blind, and involvement of the National Organic mandatory for operations that are lame animals must not be transported Standards Board (NOSB) in that process exempt from or not covered by the for sale or slaughter, an organic (7 U.S.C. 6508(g)). In 2010, AMS requirements of the Poultry Products producer can withdraw livestock from published a final rule (75 FR 7154, Inspection Act. While this requirement certification. Once this certification is February 17, 2010) clarifying the pasture is directed at processors operating under withdrawn, certification agencies have and grazing requirements for organic state inspection who do not fall under limited authority to document a ruminant livestock, which partially the USDA FSIS inspection noncompliance. The comment addressed OFPA’s objective for more requirements, designated religious requested clarification regarding the detailed livestock standards. This rule slaughter facilities are exempt from enforcement of this scenario. extends that level of detail and clarity certain aspects of the Poultry Products (Response) Only animals certified to all organic livestock and poultry, and Inspection Act, necessitating additional organic and identified/traceable as such would ensure that organic standards clarity. One comment recommended during transport are subject to the cover their entire lifecycle, consistent that slaughter not be limited to stunning requirements of this rule. with recommendations provided by prior to exsanguination and include USDA’s Office of Inspector General and 10. OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code other methods, such as the hand nine separate recommendations from slaughter of birds in killing cones by (Comment) One comment proposed the NOSB. way of exsanguination. The comment that the organic animal welfare rule This rule adds requirements for the suggested that this should apply to both should be more consistent with the OIE production, transport, and slaughter of small/exempt and large/non-exempt Terrestrial Animal Health Code as it organic livestock and poultry. The producers. applies to transport and slaughter of provisions for outdoor access and space (Response) Sections 205.242(c)(3)(i) organic livestock. for organic poultry production are the through (iii) of the final rule requires (Response) The NOSB reviewed many focal areas of this rule. Currently, that poultry slaughter operations that regulatory references when developing organic poultry are required to have are either exempt or not covered by the its organic transport and slaughter outdoor access, but this varies widely in requirements of the PPIA meet animal recommendations. AMS considered OIE practice. Some organic poultry welfare standards that non-exempt Terrestrial Animal Health Code but is operations provide large, open-air slaughter operations must meet. Except not making changes based on the OIE outdoor areas, while other operations as described below, the final rule Terrestrial Animal Health Code at this provide minimal outdoor space or use requires that all birds that are hung or time. However, AMS may provide these screened and covered enclosures shackled on a chain or automated standards to the NOSB for their commonly called ‘‘porches’’ to meet slaughter system be stunned prior to consideration in the future. outdoor access requirements. This exsanguination. This requirement variability perpetuates an uneven would not apply to handling operations, XII. Executive Orders 12866 and playing field among producers and sows including small-scale exempt producers, 13563—Executive Summary consumer confusion about the meaning that do not shackle the birds or use an Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 of the USDA organic label. This final automated system but that instead place direct agencies to assess all costs and rule will resolve the current ambiguity the birds in killing cones, or use other benefits of available regulatory about outdoor access for poultry and methods, before exsanguinating the alternatives, and, if regulation is address the wide disparities in birds without stunning. This necessary, to select regulatory production practices among the organic requirement would also not apply to approaches that maximize net benefits poultry sector. Greater clarity about the ritual slaughter establishments (e.g., (including potential economic, significance of the USDA organic seal in Kosher or Halal slaughter facilities), environmental, public health and safety the marketplace will help to maintain

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7083

consumer confidence in the organic until this rule is fully implemented, i.e., reflects costs to build additional label, which drives the $43 billion in three years after publication for broiler housing for more space per bird to meet sales of organic products, and support a producers and five years after the indoor stocking density fair, viable market for producers who publication for layer producers. requirement. chose to pursue organic certification. In summary, AMS estimates that This rule will have broad, important The economic impact analysis production costs will range between benefits for the organic sector as a whole describes the potential impacts for $8.2 million to $31 million annually. which are difficult to quantify. Clear organic egg and broiler producers, This range spans three producer and consistent standards, which more because these types of operations will response scenarios, which are closely align to consumer expectations, face additional production costs as a summarized in the table below. are essential to sustaining demand and • result of this rule, and the potential We estimate that the annualized supporting the growth of the $43 billion benefits of greater clarity in the costs for organic broiler and egg U.S. organic market. Clear parameters requirements for organic poultry. The producers are $28.7 to $31 million (over for production practices will ensure fair following provisions will require 15 years), if all certified organic egg competition among producers by producers to incur costs to provide: production in 2022 complies with this facilitating equitable certification and • Additional indoor space for rule and all certified organic broiler enforcement decisions. broilers; production in 2020 complies with this To monetize the benefits of this rule, • Additional outdoor space for layers; rule. The timeframe corresponds to the AMS used research that has measured To project costs, AMS assessed end of the implementation period for current, or baseline, conditions and consumers’ willingness to pay for the outdoor access requirements for outdoor access between $0.21 and $0.49 considered how producers might layers and indoor space requirements respond to the above requirements. per dozen eggs. Based on this, AMS for broilers. In this scenario, the estimates that the annualized benefits Based on public comment, NOSB potential reduced feed efficiency and deliberations and surveys of organic would range between $4.1 million to increased mortality from greater outdoor $49.5 million annually. The range in poultry producers, we determined that access are the key variables that impact the indoor stocking density benefits accounts for several producer costs for layers. response scenarios, which correspond to requirements for broilers and the • We estimate the annualized costs those described above for the cost outdoor access/stocking density for organic broiler and organic egg estimates. requirements for layers drive the costs production is $11.7 to $12.0 million if of this rule. For organic layers, the key 50 percent of organic egg production in In the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, factor affecting compliance is the 2022 transitions to the cage-free egg we report that large poultry operations availability of land to accommodate all market. Under the latter scenario, the would have significantly higher birds at the required stocking density. shift would also result in foregone compliance costs than small operations We considered two potential scenarios profits of nearly $80 to $86 million on average. Larger organic layer of how producers would respond: (1) (annualized) for production that moves operations, in particular, will have All affected organic egg producers make from organic to cage-free egg demand greater land areas for outdoor operational changes to comply with the production. (Because foregone revenues access. rule and maintain current levels of are not a direct cost of compliance with AMS estimates that business revenues production; or, (2), 50 percent of organic the rule, they are totaled separately from for small organic layer operations are egg operations move to the cage-free estimated compliance costs). In this $736 million, or about $1.03 million per market because they choose to leave the scenario, the difference in price between firm. For small egg producers, business organic market. Based on public organic and cage-free eggs accounts for revenues would need to be less than comment, AMS assumed that organic the transfer impact. $867,000 to $967,000 per firm for the broiler producers would build new • We estimate the annualized costs rule to cost more than 3% of revenue. facilities to maintain their current for organic broiler and organic egg The estimated business revenue is production level and remain in the production is $8.2 million if 50 percent calculated from the projected organic organic market. In this analysis, AMS of organic egg production in 2022 egg production from small producers accounts for costs that accrue to legacy transitions to the cage-free egg market using AMS Market News data on the producers and new entrants; the full and producers who cannot comply with U.S. organic layer population, estimated compliance costs recur annually and are the rule do not enter organic production lay rate of 308 eggs/hen/year and the included in the total. Legacy producers during the implementation timeframe. wholesale price for organic eggs $2.83/ are producers who decided to go into • In the above scenarios, we estimate dozen (AMS Market News). the organic business with no knowledge the annualized costs for organic broiler A summary of the estimated costs and of the costs that would be imposed by production account for $3.5 million to benefits associated with this rule is this rulemaking. Costs do not accrue $4.0 million of the above totals. This provided in Table A.

TABLE A—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS, COSTS, AND DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF FINAL RULE

Assumed conditions Affected population Costs, Benefits, Transfers, millions a millions millions

All producers remain in organic market; Or- Organic layer and organic broiler production $28.7–$31.0 $16.3–$49.5 N/A ganic layer and broiler populations con- at full implementation of rule, i.e., 2022 for tinue historical growth rates after rule. layers; 2020 for broilers. 50% of organic layer production in year 6 Organic layer and organic broiler production $11.7–$12.0 $4.5–$13.8 $79.5–$86.3 (2022), moves to the cage-free market. Or- at full implementation of rule, i.e., 2022 ganic layer and broiler populations con- for layers; 2020 for broilers. tinue historical growth rates after rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7084 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE A—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS, COSTS, AND DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF FINAL RULE—Continued

Assumed conditions Affected population Costs, Benefits, Transfers, millions a millions millions

50% of current organic layer production Current organic layer production; organic $8.2 $4.1–$12.4 $45.6–$49.5 moves to the cage-free market in year 6 broiler production at full implementation of (2022). There are no new entrants after rule in 2020. publication of this rule that cannot comply.

Other impacts: Estimated paperwork burden: $3.9 million. a All values in the costs, benefits and transfers columns of this table are annualized and discounted at 3% and 7% rates.

XIII. Retrospective Analysis requirements for the production and have tribal implications, including Within 3–5 years of full handling of organically produced regulations, legislative comments or implementation, the Administrator shall agricultural products that are produced proposed legislation, and other policy conduct and make publicly available a in the State and for the certification of statements or actions that have retrospective analysis of the impacts of organic farm and handling operations substantial direct effects on one or more this rulemaking. This analysis will located within the State under certain Indian tribes, on the relationship include a retrospective evaluation of the circumstances. Such additional between the Federal Government and benefits, costs and transfers of the rule, requirements must: (a) Further the Indian tribes or on the distribution of along with a comparison of these purposes of the OFPA, (b) not be power and responsibilities between the impacts to the prospective estimates inconsistent with the OFPA, (c) not be Federal Government and Indian tribes. contained in this final regulatory impact discriminatory toward agricultural AMS assessed the impact of this rule analysis. The retrospective analysis commodities organically produced in on Indian tribes and determined that should include consideration of factors other States, and (d) not be effective this rule does not, to our knowledge, such as: The impacts on exit and entry until approved by the Secretary. have tribal implications that require of affected entities; market shares of Pursuant to section 6519(f) of the tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If affected entities, as well as market OFPA, this final rule would not alter the a Tribe requests consultation, AMS will competition and concentration; the authority of the Secretary under the work with the Office of Tribal Relations impacts on the number of producers Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. to ensure meaningful consultation is participating in the organic program; 601–624), the Poultry Products provided where changes, additions and impacts on organic egg production Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451–471), or modifications identified herein are not volume, impacts on secondary (e.g., the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 expressly mandated by Congress. feed/grain) markets; impacts on supply U.S.C. 1031–1056), concerning meat, XVI. Paperwork Reduction Act and price of eggs; and impacts on poultry, and egg products, nor any of consumer understanding. An the authorities of the Secretary of Health A. Summary opportunity for public comment on this and Human Services under the Federal In accordance with the Paperwork analysis will be provided. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 301–399), nor the authority of the 3520) (PRA), AMS is requesting OMB XIV. Executive Order 12988 Administrator of the EPA under the approval for a new information Executive Order 12988 instructs each Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and collection totaling 131,683 hours for the executive agency to adhere to certain Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136–136(y)). reporting and recordkeeping requirements in the development of new Section 6520 of the OFPA provides requirements contained in this final and revised regulations in order to avoid for the Secretary to establish an rule. OMB previously approved unduly burdening the court system. expedited administrative appeals information collection requirements This final rule cannot be applied procedure under which persons may associated with the NOP and assigned retroactively. appeal an action of the Secretary, the OMB control number 0581–0191. AMS States and local jurisdictions are applicable governing State official, or a intends to merge this new information preempted under the OFPA from certifying agent under this title that collection, upon OMB approval, into the creating programs of accreditation for adversely affects such person or is approved 0581–0191 collection. Below, private persons or State officials who inconsistent with the organic AMS has described and estimated the want to become certifying agents of certification program established under annual burden, i.e., the amount of time organic farms or handling operations. A this title. The OFPA also provides that and cost of labor, for entities to prepare governing State official would have to the U.S. District Court for the district in and maintain information to participate apply to USDA to be accredited as a which a person is located has in this voluntary labeling program. The certifying agent, as described in section jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s OFPA, as amended, provides authority 6514(b) of the OFPA. States are also decision. for this action. preempted under sections 6503 and XV. Executive Order 13175 Title: National Organic Program: 6507 of the OFPA from creating Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. certification programs to certify organic This final rule has been reviewed in OMB Control Number: 0581–0293. farms or handling operations unless the accordance with the requirements of Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years State programs have been submitted to, Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation from OMB date of approval. and approved by, the Secretary as and Coordination with Indian Tribal Type of Request: New collection. meeting the requirements of the OFPA. Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175 Abstract: Information collection and Pursuant to section 6507(b)(2) of the requires Federal agencies to consult and recordkeeping is necessary to OFPA, a State organic certification coordinate with tribes on a government- implement reporting and recordkeeping program may contain additional to-government basis on policies that necessitated by amendments to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7085

§§ 205.238, 205.239, 205.241, 205.242 and the USDA organic regulations. The assessment to determine whether to and 205.290 for additional animal information collected supports the AMS continue accreditation for the scope of welfare standards for organic livestock mission, program objectives, and livestock. Certifying agents will need to production under the USDA organic management needs by enabling us to annually update the above information regulations. OFPA authorizes the further assess the efficiency and effectiveness of and provide results of personnel development of livestock production the NOP. The information also affects performance evaluations and the standards (7 U.S.C. 6513(c)). This action decisions because it is the basis for internal review of its certification is necessary to address multiple evaluating compliance with OFPA and activities (§ 205.510). recommendations provided to USDA by USDA organic regulations, AMS projects that the additional the NOSB to add specificity about administering the NOP, establishing the components of organic system plans for animal welfare practices with the cost of the program, and facilitating livestock may entail longer review times purpose of ensuring consumers that management decisions and planning. It than those for other types of production conditions and practices for livestock also supports administrative and systems. AMS estimates the annual products labeled as organic encourage regulatory actions to address collection cost per certifying agent will and accommodate natural behaviors and noncompliance with OFPA and USDA be $3,053.27. This estimate is based on utilize preventive health care slaughter organic regulations. an estimated 91.8 labor hours per year practices. This information collection is only at $33.26 per hour for a total salary All certified organic operations must used by the certifying agent and component of $3,053.27 per year. This develop and maintain an organic system authorized representatives of USDA, value is assumed to be an underestimate plan for certification (§ 205.201). The including AMS and NOP staff. as the certifying agent bears a portion of OSP must include a description of Certifying agents, including any the burden of the inspector and practices and procedures to be affiliated organic inspectors, and USDA certifying agents employ varying performed and maintained, including are the primary users of the information. numbers of inspectors. The source of the the frequency with which they will be hourly rate is the May 2015 National Respondents performed; under this final rule, organic Occupational Employment and Wage livestock operations are subject to AMS identified three types of entities Estimates, United States, published additional reporting requirements. The (respondents) that will need to submit annually by the Bureau of Labor amendments to §§ 205.238, 205.239, and maintain information in order to Statistics. The rate is the mean hourly 205.241, 205.242, and 205.290 require participate in organic livestock wage for compliance officers livestock operations to provide specific certification. For each type of (occupation code 13–1041). This documentation as part of an organic respondent, we describe the general classification was selected as an system plan to include conditions on paperwork submission and occupation with similar duties and livestock living conditions to permit recordkeeping activities and estimate: (i) responsibilities to that of a certifying natural behavior, including minimum the number of respondents; (ii) the agent.25 space requirements, outdoor access, and hours they spend, annually, completing 2. Organic inspectors. Inspectors utilization of preventive health care the paperwork requirements of this conduct on-site inspections of certified practices (e.g. physical alterations, labeling program; and, (iii) the costs of operations and operations applying for euthanasia). those activities. certification and report the findings to The PRA also requires AMS to 1. Certifying agents. Certifying agents the certifying agent. Inspectors may be measure the recordkeeping burden. are State, private, or foreign entities the agents themselves, employees of the Under the USDA organic regulations accredited by USDA to certify domestic agents, or individual contractors. The each producer is required to maintain and foreign livestock producers and USDA organic regulations call for and make available upon request, for 5 handlers as organic in accordance with certified operations to be inspected years, such records as are necessary to OFPA and USDA organic regulations. annually; a certifying agent may call for verify compliance (§ 205.103). Certifying Certifying agents determine if a additional inspections on an as needed agents are required to maintain records producer or handler meets organic basis (§ 205.403(a)). Any individual who for 5 to 10 years, depending on the type requirements, using detailed applies to conduct inspections of of record (§ 205.510(b)), and make these information from the operation about its livestock operations will need to submit records available for inspection upon specific practices and on-site inspection information documenting their request (§ 205.501(a)(9)). The new reports from organic inspectors. qualifications to the certifying agent information that livestock operations Currently, there are 79 certifying agents (§ 205.504(a)(3)). Inspectors will need to must provide for certification will assist accredited under NOP; many of which provide an inspection report to the certifying agents and inspectors in the certify operations based in the U.S. and certifying agent for each operation efficient and comprehensive evaluation abroad. AMS assumes all currently inspected (§ 205.403(e)). AMS projects of these operations and will impose an accredited certifying agents evaluate that on average, inspectors will spend 3 additional recordkeeping burden for livestock operations for compliance hours longer than their current livestock operations. Certifying agents with the USDA organic regulations and timeframe (10 hours) to complete an currently involved in livestock will therefore be subject to the inspection report for livestock certification are required to observe the amendments at §§ 205.238, 205.239, operations. This estimate is due to the same recordkeeping requirements to 205.241, 205.242, and 205.290. additional components of the organic Each entity seeking to continue USDA maintain accreditation, therefore AMS system plan that will need to be expects that this final rule does not accreditation for livestock will need to significantly increase the recordkeeping submit information documenting its 25 Compliance officers examine, evaluate, and burden on certifying agents. business practices including investigate eligibility for or conformity with laws Reporting and recordkeeping are certification, enforcement and and regulations governing contract compliance of essential to the integrity of the organic recordkeeping procedures and licenses and permits, and perform other compliance and enforcement inspection and analysis activities certification system. A clear paper trail personnel qualifications (§ 205.504). not classified elsewhere. Bureau of Labor Statistics, is a critical tool for verifying that AMS will review that information Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2015, practices meet the mandate of OFPA during its next scheduled on-site 13–1041 Compliance Officers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7086 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

inspected. Inspectors do not have livestock operations that would be Estimate of Burden: Public recordkeeping obligations; certifying affected by this action.27 According to recordkeeping burden is estimated to be agents maintain records of inspection that source, AMS estimates that 4,844 an annual total of 5.18 hours per reports. currently certified foreign and domestic respondent. According to the International livestock operations will be subject to Respondents: Livestock operations Organic Inspectors Association (IOIA), the amendments at §§ 205.238, 205.239, (including exempt operations). there are approximately 250 inspectors 205.240, 205.241, 205.242, and 205.290. Estimated Number of Respondents: currently inspecting crop, livestock, To estimate the number of livestock 5,396. handling, and/or wild crop operations operations that will apply for and Estimated Total Annual Burden on that are certified or have applied for become certified on an annual basis, Respondents: 27,954 hours. certification. AMS assumes that AMS assumed that this would be Total Cost: $939,240. Grand Total of Reporting, Training & approximately half (125) of these proportional to the estimated annual Recordkeeping Costs: $3,932,134 inspectors inspect livestock operations. increase in certified operations (350). AMS estimates the annual collection Comments: For the proposed rule, Therefore, AMS estimates that there will AMS invited comments from all cost per inspector to be $6,760. This be 69 new certified organic livestock estimate is based on an estimated 321 interested parties concerning the operations annually. information collection and additional labor hours per year at $21.06 AMS estimates the annual collection per hour for a total salary component of recordkeeping required as a result of the and recordkeeping costs per organic proposed amendments to 7 CFR part $6,760 per year. The source of the livestock producer to be $559.45. This hourly rate is the May 2015 National 205. Comments were invited on: (1) estimate is based on an estimated 16.65 Whether the proposed collection of Occupational Employment and Wage labor hours per year at $33.60 per hour Estimates, United States, published information is necessary for the proper for a total salary component of $559.45 performance of the functions of the annually by the Bureau of Labor per year. AMS estimates that as Statistics. The rate is the mean hourly agency, including whether the producers adapt to the requirements information will have practical utility; wage for agricultural inspectors introduced by the amendments at (occupation code 45–2011).26 (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate §§ 205.238, 205.239, 205.241, 205.242, of the burden of the proposed collection 3. Producers and handlers. Domestic and 205.290, the number of labor hours and foreign livestock producers and of information including the validity of per year for currently certified operators the methodology and assumptions used; handlers will submit the following will decrease. The source of the hourly information to certifying agents: An (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, rate is the May 2015 National and clarity of the information to be application for certification, detailed Occupational Employment and Wage descriptions of specific practices, collected; and (4) ways to minimize the Estimates, United States, published burden of the collection of information annual updates to continue certification, annually by the Bureau of Labor and changes in their practices. Handlers on those who are to respond, including Statistics. The rate is the mean hourly the use of appropriate automated, include those who produce or transport wage for farmers, ranchers and other livestock and may include bulk electronic, mechanical, or other agricultural managers (occupation code technological collection techniques or distributors, food and feed 28 11–9013). Administrative costs for other forms of information technology. manufacturers, processors, or packers. reporting and recordkeeping will vary Some handlers may be part of a retail among certified operators. Factors B. Discussion of Comments Received operation that processes organic affecting costs include the type and size products in a location other than the AMS received a total of 6,675 written of operation, and the type of systems comments on the proposed rule, which premises of the retail outlet. maintained. In order to obtain and maintain addressed the proposed requirements certification, livestock producers and Reporting Burden for organic livestock production handlers will need to develop and practices. AMS received 12 comments Estimate of Burden: Public reporting that addressed the information maintain an organic system plan. This is burden for the collection of information a requirement for all organic operations collection and recordkeeping burden is estimated to be 20.3 hours per year. estimates; two of these comments were and the USDA organic regulations Respondents: Certifying agents, describe what information must be duplicative. AMS did not make changes inspectors, and certified livestock based on comments for several reasons. included in an organic system plan operations. (§ 205.201). This final rule describes the AMS received eight comments Estimated Number of Respondents: specifically objecting to the additional information (§§ 205.238, 5,117. 205.239, 205.241, 205.242, and 295.290) recordkeeping requirements, relative to Estimated Number of Responses: the population of respondents. AMS that will need to be included in a 42,522. livestock operation’s organic system expects that this is because this rule Estimated Total Annual Burden on plan in order to assess compliance. refers to specific, narrow documentation Respondents: 104,124 hours. Certified operations are required to keep requirements that are already within the Total Cost: $2,992,895. records about their organic production scope of the general recordkeeping Recordkeeping Burden and/or handling for five years requirements for organic producers and (§ 205.103(b)(3)). the components of an organic system AMS used the Organic Integrity 27 NOP 2016 List of certified USDA organic plan. Specifically, such records fully operations. Available at the USDA National Organic disclose all activities in sufficient detail Database to estimate the number of Program Organic Integrity Database, http://apps. ams.usda.gov/nop/. to be readily understood and audited 26 Agricultural Inspectors inspect agricultural 28 Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Agricultural and be sufficient to demonstrate commodities, processing equipment, and facilities, Managers plan, direct, or coordinate the compliance with the USDA organic and fish and logging operations, to ensure management or operation of farms, ranches, regulations (7 CFR 205.103); and that an compliance with regulations and laws governing greenhouses, aquacultural operations, nurseries, health, quality, and safety. Bureau of Labor timber tracts, or other agricultural establishments. organic system plan must contain a Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, Excludes ‘‘First-Line Supervisors of Farming, description of practices and procedures May 2015, 45–2011 Agricultural Inspectors. Fishing, and Forestry Workers’’ (45–1011). to be performed, and monitoring

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7087

practices to ensure the plan We believe that the requirements which portion expected to spend more than 40 implemented (7 CFR 205.201). AMS specify specific documentation are hours per year maintaining records. In believes, and some comments support minimal and are essential for verifying conclusion, the certifying agent this conclusion, that many organic the rule is being implemented acknowledged the difficulties with producers already maintain the records successfully. accurately estimating the labor hours that are specified in this rule as part of that will be needed to establish and 2. The Accuracy of the Agency’s their organic system plans. In addition, maintain the records, and affirmed that Estimate of the Burden of the Proposed AMS understands that numerous some requirements will be met through Collection of Information Including the organic livestock producers also the current records already kept. Validity of the Methodology and participate in third-party animal welfare (Response) The estimates of total Assumptions Used certification programs and would likely recordkeeping and reporting burden are maintain records concerning animal (Comment) Two of the ten comments average per-operation estimates based health/condition to participate in those questioned the validity of the $3000.94 on the number of operations and programs. The comments to the estimate of their annual costs, stating animals across the whole industry. A questions posed in the proposed rule that it underestimated the direct labor certifying agent with a large number of concerning reporting and recordkeeping hours that will be necessary to livestock and poultry operation clients requirements and AMS’s responses are implement the new requirements. These will have larger annual respective costs. described below. comments spoke to the need for new Describing the illness and injury forms, extensive training for personnel prevention and treatment strategies in 1. Whether the Proposed Collection of and certified operations, and processing writing with useful monitoring and Information Is Necessary for the Proper additional compliance-related recordkeeping systems unique to the Performance of the Functions of the correspondence after the rule takes needs, species, and breeds of each Agency, Including Whether the effect. operation in an organic system plan will Information Will Have Practical Utility One comment estimated that each require an initial investment of labor (Comment) While stating their livestock file would require an that may need to be absorbed. In support for more specific standards additional 1-hour review which would actuality, these prevention strategies regarding the care of poultry and amount to about 900 direct labor hours and monitoring systems should already livestock in organic operations, four out annually for this entity; this estimate is be in place at least informally. of the ten comments expressed concerns higher than the proposed rule estimate Based on one certifying agent’s query, about the specific records that would be of 91.8 hours as an average for all 75 percent of their client operations are required to document how animal certifying agents. Consequently, the already keeping the necessary records. illness and injury would be prevented comment stated that the additional The majority of the operations that and treated. In particular, these annual labor costs would be $27,000 at reported the need for more comments stated that body condition $30 per hour. Alternatively, this recordkeeping reported that they see scoring and monitoring the causes and comment expects most of their livestock them as necessary, and one hour per treatments of lameness as well as having operation inspections to require only week (greater than 40 hours annually) a parasite management strategy and a one additional hour to inspect rather was the most direct labor hours reported written plan for the use of euthanasia than the AMS estimate of three hours of by a small percentage of the certified was too prescriptive. One comment additional inspection time per operation operations queried. The query did not indicated that providing written in the proposed rule. Whether the ask certified operations whether or not justification for the use of teeth inspection takes one or three hours to they perceived the necessary records as trimming and tail docking in pigs on a verify these new requirements, the a burden. These recordkeeping systems per litter basis would be burdensome comments acknowledged that it is the should become routine over time and while another comment was concerned client operations that will ultimately help operations become more efficient, about needing to document every absorb the increased costs of thus reducing their management instance of indoor confinement of inspections, and they will need time to burden. The regulation provides poultry. prepare. marketplace assurance through One comment indicated that One comment from a certifying agent verification. quantifiable measures in the 2012 included a survey of its certified pasture rule had not necessarily operations to determine if the records 3. Ways To Enhance the Quality, Utility, increased consistency in interpretation described in the proposed rule are and Clarity of the Information To Be or implementation by certifying agents necessary to enforce compliance with Collected or producers. This comment also noted the standards. Overall, their clients (Comment) One certifying agent that the prescriptive requirements and (74.5 percent) reported that additional affirmed that assessing the condition of quantifiable measures in this new records are not needed with the largest the animals as well as the dietary regulation would burden producers and group (40.1 percent) responding that rations provided is needed. This certifying agents. The comment they already keep more records than comment noted that a broad, integrated contends that this recordkeeping burden would be needed to enforce compliance. approach that observed the overall would lessen time for producers to While a smaller proportion (25 percent) wellness of the animals was more perfect solutions on their operation and of their clients said that the records are appropriate. Indicators of poor health increase certifying agent and inspector needed to enforce compliance, the could be flagged without requiring the focus on paper trail rather than largest portion of that group of systemized use of body condition assessing the livestock system as a responders (21.8 percent) feel more scoring. whole. records will be needed. The certifying A Land Grant College that works with (Response) Recordkeeping is a core agent also asked their clients to estimate smaller scale farmers through their principle of the organic program and an how much additional time would be extension services expressed general important tool for producers to spent maintaining records with 89.3 concern that some small farmers may no demonstrate, and certifying agents to percent stating somewhere between 1– longer choose to be certified organic due verify, compliance with the regulations. 40 hours annually. A much smaller to the costs and burdens of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7088 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

recordkeeping. The organization temperature fluctuations within the to file an appeal to the AMS perceived a duplication in reporting ranges specified in the rule. Administrator in accordance with requirements being imposed on organic (Response) AMS is considering § 205.681. livestock operations. The comment also developing tools to assist producers and These regulations provide protections noted that the recordkeeping required to certifying agents, especially for body against discrimination, thereby document food safety, labor, and condition scoring. These optional permitting all producers, regardless of environmental compliance has been resources will be available on the NOP race, color, national origin, gender, increasing exponentially in recent Web-site. AMS also plans to offer four religion, age, disability, political beliefs, decades as well, and is exacerbating the regional trainings for producers and sexual orientation, or marital or family recordkeeping burden of farmers of all certifying agents—most likely in status, who voluntarily choose to adhere scales. Pennsylvania, Iowa, California, and to the rule and qualify, to be certified as (Response) We agree that a broad Texas. Other agricultural extension meeting NOP requirements by an integrated approach which observes the services and agents, the Natural accredited certifying agent. This action overall wellness of the animals, flags Resources Conservation Service, and in no way changes any of these indicators of poor health, and scores other Federal, state, and nonprofit protections against discrimination. organizations have tools and resources body condition is important. Using a List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205 consistent recordkeeping system within for monitoring animal health and living an operation is more important than all conditions that can be adapted. Administrative practice and operations using the same system, XVII. Civil Rights Impact Analysis procedure, Agriculture, Animals, although it may be more efficient for Archives and records, Imports, Labeling, AMS has reviewed this final rule in inspectors if all certifying agents Organically produced products, Plants, accordance with the Department voluntarily select the same system. Reporting and recordkeeping Regulation 4300–4, Civil Rights Impact AMS is not seeking to collect and requirements, Seals and insignia, Soil Analysis (CRIA), to address any major conservation. compare data from one operation to civil rights impacts the rule might have For the reasons set forth in the another, or from one certifying agent to on minorities, women, and persons with preamble, 7 CFR part 205 is amended as another. Body condition scoring is disabilities. After a careful review of the follows: considered a low-cost, hands-on, rule’s intent and provisions, AMS internally consistent method to assess determined that this rule would only and monitor the condition of individual PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC impact the organic practices of organic PROGRAM animals, herds, or flocks. Using a body producers and that this rule has no scoring system is more accurate and potential for affecting producers in ■ 1. The authority citation for part 205 efficient than relying on memory about protected groups differently than the continues to read as follows: animals’ respective conditions, and general population of producers. This Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522. helps producers identify the need for rulemaking was initiated to clarify a ■ treatment or intervention. In addition, regulatory requirement and enable 2. Section 205.2 is amended by adding certifying agents should make every consistent implementation and definitions for ‘‘Beak trimming’’, effort to be sure their recordkeeping enforcement. ‘‘Caponization’’, ‘‘Cattle wattling’’, ‘‘De- requirements are not duplicative and Protected individuals have the same beaking’’, ‘‘De-snooding’’, ‘‘Dubbing’’, coordinate with the requirements of opportunity to participate in the NOP as ‘‘Indoors or indoor space’’, ‘‘Mulesing’’, other standards, where possible, that are non-protected individuals. The USDA ‘‘Non-ambulatory’’, ‘‘Outdoors or outside of the direct scope of AMS. organic regulations prohibit outdoor space’’, ‘‘Perch’’, ‘‘Pullets’’, discrimination by certifying agents. ‘‘Religious slaughter’’, ‘‘Soil’’, ‘‘Stocking 4. Ways To Minimize the Burden of the density’’, ‘‘Toe clipping’’, and Collection of Information on Those Who Specifically, § 205.501(d) of the current regulations for accreditation of ‘‘Vegetation’’ in alphabetical order to Are To Respond, Including the Use of read as follows: Appropriate Automated, Electronic, certifying agents provides that ‘‘No private or governmental entity Mechanical, or Other Technological § 205.2 Terms defined. Collection Techniques or Other Forms accredited as a certifying agent under this subpart shall exclude from * * * * * of Information Technology participation in or deny the benefits of Beak trimming. The removal of not (Comment) Three commenters the NOP to any person due to more than one-quarter to one-third of requested that AMS provide monitoring discrimination because of race, color, the upper beak or the removal of one- form templates, training, and other national origin, gender, religion, age, quarter to one-third of both the upper resources in producer-friendly language disability, political beliefs, sexual and lower beaks of a bird in order to and format, especially for body orientation, or marital or family status.’’ control injurious pecking and condition scoring. One certifying agent Section 205.501(a)(2) requires cannibalism. requested that we provide the tables that ‘‘certifying agents to demonstrate the * * * * * show the original rule language side-by- ability to fully comply with the Caponization. Castration of chickens, side with the final rule changes as a requirements for accreditation set forth turkeys, pheasants, and other avian separate document for use in outreach in this subpart’’ including the species. materials and training. prohibition on discrimination. The Cattle wattling. The surgical A Land Grant College offered that granting of accreditation to certifying separation of two layers of the skin from they were likely to prepare new tools agents under § 205.506 requires the the connective tissue for along a 2 to 4 and templates to assist organic farmers review of information submitted by the inch path on the dewlap, neck, or with monitoring and recording lameness certifying agent and an on-site review of shoulders used for ownership in individual animals. This comment the certifying agent’s client operation. identification. also noted that new records would be Further, if certification is denied, * * * * * needed to document when animals are § 205.405(d) requires that the certifying De-beaking. The removal of more than restricted from outdoor access due to agent notify the applicant of their right one-third of the upper beak or removal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7089

of more than one-third of both the upper loss of consciousness by anemia of the chickens, toe clipping of turkeys unless and lower beaks of a bird. brain caused by the simultaneous and with infra-red at hatchery, beak De-snooding. The removal of the instantaneous severance of the carotid trimming after 10 days of age, tail turkey snood (a fleshy protuberance on arteries with a sharp instrument and docking of cattle, wattling of cattle, face the forehead of male turkeys). handling in connection with such branding of cattle, tail docking of sheep * * * * * slaughtering. shorter than the distal end of the caudal Dubbing. The removal of poultry * * * * * fold, and mulesing of sheep. combs and wattles. Soil. The outermost layer of the earth (6) Administration of vaccines and * * * * * comprised of minerals, water, air, other veterinary biologics. Indoors or indoor space. The space organic matter, fungi, and bacteria in (7) All surgical procedures necessary inside of an enclosed building or which plants may grow roots. to treat an illness shall be undertaken in a manner that employs best housing structure available to livestock. * * * * * Indoor space for avian species includes, Stocking density. The weight of management practices in order to but is not limited to: animals on a given area or unit of land. minimize pain, stress, and suffering, with the use of appropriate and allowed (1) Mobile housing. A mobile * * * * * structure for avian species with solid or anesthetics, analgesics, and sedatives. Toe clipping. The removal of the nail (8) Monitoring of lameness and perforated flooring that is moved and distal joint of the back two toes of keeping records of the percent of the regularly during the grazing season. a bird. herd or flock suffering from lameness (2) Aviary housing. A fixed structure * * * * * for avian species that has multiple tiers and the causes. Certified operations may Vegetation. Living plant matter that is monitor lameness in a manner or levels. anchored in the soil by roots and (3) Slatted/mesh floor housing. A prescribed by the NOP. provides ground cover. (b) Producers may administer fixed structure for avian species that has * * * * * medications that are allowed under both: (1) A slatted floor where perches, ■ 205.603 to alleviate pain or suffering, feed, and water are provided over a pit 3. Section 205.238 is revised to read and when preventive practices and or belt for manure collection; and as follows: (ii) Litter covering the remaining solid veterinary biologics are inadequate to § 205.238 Livestock care and production prevent sickness. Parasiticides allowed floor. practices standard. (4) Floor litter housing. A fixed under § 205.603 may be used on: (a) The producer must establish and (1) Breeder stock, when used prior to structure for avian species that has maintain preventive health care the last third of gestation but not during absorbent litter covering the entire floor. practices, including: lactation for progeny that are to be sold, * * * * * (1) Selection of species and types of labeled, or represented as organically Mulesing. The removal of skin from livestock with regard to suitability for produced; and the buttocks of sheep, approximately 2 site-specific conditions and resistance to (2) Dairy stock, when used a to 4 inches wide and running away from prevalent diseases and parasites. minimum of 90 days prior to the the anus to the hock to prevent fly (2) Provision of a feed ration sufficient production of milk or milk products that strike. to meet nutritional requirements, are to be sold, labeled, or represented as * * * * * including vitamins, minerals, proteins organic. Non-ambulatory. As defined in 9 CFR and/or amino acids, fatty acids, energy (c) An organic livestock operation 309.2(b). sources, and fiber (ruminants), resulting must not: * * * * * in appropriate body condition. (1) Sell, label, or represent as organic Outdoors or outdoor space. Any area (3) Establishment of appropriate any animal or product derived from any outside an enclosed building or housing, pasture conditions, and animal treated with antibiotics, any enclosed housing structure, including sanitation practices to minimize the substance that contains a synthetic roofed areas that are not enclosed. occurrence and spread of diseases and substance not allowed under § 205.603, Outdoor space for avian species parasites. or any substance that contains a includes, but is not limited to: (4) Provision of conditions which nonsynthetic substance prohibited in (1) Pasture pens. Floorless pens, with allow for exercise, freedom of § 205.604. Milk from animals full or partial roofing, that are moved movement, and reduction of stress undergoing treatment with synthetic regularly and provide direct access to appropriate to the species. substances allowed under § 205.603 soil and vegetation. (5) Physical alterations may be cannot be sold as organic but may be fed (2) [Reserved] performed to benefit the welfare of the to calves on the same operation. Milk animals, for identification purposes, or from animals undergoing treatment with * * * * * for safety purposes. Physical alterations Perch. A rod or branch type structure prohibited substances cannot be sold as must be performed on livestock at a above the floor of the house that organic or fed to organic livestock. reasonably young age, with minimal accommodates roosting, allowing birds (2) Administer synthetic medications stress and pain and by a competent to utilize vertical space in the house unless: person. (i) In the presence of illness or to * * * * * (i) The following practice may not be alleviate pain and suffering, and Pullets. Female chickens being raised routinely used and must be used only (ii) That such medications are allowed for egg production that have not yet with documentation that alternative under § 205.603. started to lay eggs. methods to prevent harm failed: Needle (3) Administer hormones for growth * * * * * teeth clipping (no more than top one- promotion, production, or reproduction, Ritual slaughter. Slaughtering in third of the tooth) in pigs and tail except as provided in § 205.603. accordance with the ritual requirements docking in pigs. (4) Administer synthetic parasiticides of the Jewish faith or any other religious (ii) The following practices are on a routine basis. faith that prescribes a method of prohibited: De-beaking, de-snooding, (5) Administer synthetic parasiticides slaughter whereby the animal suffers caponization, dubbing, toe clipping of to slaughter stock.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7090 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

(6) Administer animal drugs in provide ruminants with access to the (i) Sows may be housed individually violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and outdoors during the non-grazing season at farrowing and during the suckling Cosmetic Act; or and supplemental feeding during the period; (7) Withhold medical treatment from grazing season. Yards, feeding pads, and (ii) Boars; and a sick animal in an effort to preserve its feedlots shall be large enough to allow (iii) Swine with documented instance organic status. All appropriate all ruminant livestock occupying the of aggression or recovery from an medications must be used to restore an yard, feeding pad, or feedlot to feed illness. animal to health when methods without competition for food. (9) Piglets shall not be kept on flat acceptable to organic production fail. Continuous total confinement of any decks or in piglet cages. Livestock treated with a prohibited animal indoors is prohibited. (10) For swine, rooting materials must substance must be clearly identified and Continuous total confinement of be provided, except during the neither the animal nor its products shall ruminants in yards, feeding pads, and farrowing and suckling period. be sold, labeled, or represented as feedlots is prohibited. (11) In confined housing with stalls organically produced. (2) For all ruminants, management on for mammalian livestock, enough stalls (8) Withhold individual treatment pasture and daily grazing throughout must be present to provide for the designed to minimize pain and suffering the grazing season(s) to meet the natural behaviors of the animals. A cage for injured, diseased, or sick animals, requirements of § 205.237, except as must not be called a stall. For group- which may include forms of euthanasia provided for in paragraphs (b), (c), and housed swine, the number of individual as recommended by the American (d) of this section. feeding stalls may be less than the Veterinary Medical Association. (3) Appropriate clean, dry bedding. number of animals, as long as all (9) Neglect to identify and record When roughages are used as bedding, animals are fed routinely over a 24-hour treatment of sick and injured animals in they shall have been organically period. For group-housed cattle, bedded animal health records. produced in accordance with this part packs, compost packs, tie-stalls, free- (10) Practice forced molting or by an operation certified under this part, stalls, and stanchion barns are all withdrawal of feed to induce molting. except as provided in § 205.236(a)(2)(i), acceptable housing as part of an overall (d) Organic livestock operations must and, if applicable, organically handled organic system plan. have comprehensive plans to minimize by operations certified to the NOP. (12) Outdoor space must be provided internal parasite problems in livestock. (4) Shelter designed to allow for: year-round. When the outdoor space The plan will include preventive (i) Over a 24-hour period, sufficient includes soil, maximal vegetative cover measures such as pasture management, space and freedom to lie down, turn must be maintained as appropriate for fecal monitoring, and emergency around, stand up, fully stretch their the season, climate, geography, species measures in the event of a parasite limbs, and express normal patterns of of livestock, and stage of production. (b) The producer of an organic outbreak. Parasite control plans shall be behavior; livestock operation may provide approved by the certifying agent. (ii) Temperature level, ventilation, (e) Euthanasia. (1) Organic livestock temporary confinement or shelter for an and air circulation suitable to the operations must have written plans for animal because of: species; prompt, humane euthanasia for sick or (1) Inclement weather; (iii) Reduction of potential for injured livestock. (2) The animal’s stage of life, (2) The following methods of livestock injury; and however, lactation is not a stage of life euthanasia are not permitted: (iv) If indoor housing is provided, that would exempt ruminants from any suffocation; manual blow to the head by areas for bedding and resting that are of the mandates set forth in this part; blunt instrument or manual blunt force sufficiently large, solidly built, and (3) Conditions under which the trauma; and the use of equipment that comfortable so that animals are kept health, safety, or well-being of the crushes the neck, including killing clean, dry, and free of lesions. animal could be jeopardized; pliers or Burdizzo clamps. (5) The use of yards, feeding pads, (4) Risk to soil or water quality; (3) Following a euthanasia procedure, feedlots and laneways that shall be well- (5) Preventive healthcare procedures livestock must be carefully examined to drained, kept in good condition or for the treatment of illness or injury ensure that they are dead. (including frequent removal of wastes), (neither the various life stages nor and managed to prevent runoff of wastes ■ 4. Section 205.239 is revised to read lactation is an illness or injury); and contaminated waters to adjoining or as follows: (6) Sorting or shipping animals and nearby surface water and across livestock sales, provided that the § 205.239 Mammalian livestock living property boundaries. animals shall be maintained under conditions. (6) Housing, pens, runs, equipment, continuous organic management, (a) The producer of an organic and utensils shall be properly cleaned including organic feed, throughout the livestock operation must establish and and disinfected as needed to prevent extent of their allowed confinement; maintain year-round livestock living cross-infection and build-up of disease- (7) Breeding: Except, that, animals conditions which accommodate the carrying organisms. shall not be confined any longer than wellbeing and natural behavior of (7) Dairy young stock may be housed necessary to perform the natural or animals, including: in individual pens until completion of artificial insemination. Animals may not (1) Year-round access for all animals the weaning process but no later than 6 be confined to observe estrus; and to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise months of age, provided that they have (8) 4–H, National FFA Organization, areas, fresh air, clean water for drinking, enough room to turn around, lie down, and other youth projects, for no more and direct sunlight, suitable to the stretch out when lying down, get up, than one week prior to a fair or other species, its stage of life, the climate, and rest, and groom themselves; individual demonstration, through the event, and the environment: Except, that, animals animal pens shall be designed and up to 24 hours after the animals have may be temporarily denied access to the located so that each animal can see, arrived home at the conclusion of the outdoors in accordance with paragraphs smell, and hear other calves. event. These animals must have been (b) and (c) of this section. Yards, feeding (8) Swine must be housed in a group, maintained under continuous organic pads, and feedlots may be used to except: management, including organic feed,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 7091

during the extent of their allowed metals, or pathogenic organisms and (7) Houses with slatted/mesh floors confinement for the event. optimizes recycling of nutrients and must have 30 percent minimum of solid Notwithstanding the requirements in must manage pastures and other floor area available with sufficient litter paragraph (b)(6) of this section, facilities outdoor access areas in a manner that available for dust baths so that birds where 4–H, National FFA Organization, does not put soil or water quality at risk. may freely dust bathe without crowding. and other youth events are held are not ■ 5. Section 205.241 is added to read as (8) For layers (Gallus gallus), indoor required to be certified organic for the follows: stocking density must not exceed (live participating animals to be sold as bird weight): organic, provided all other organic § 205.241 Avian living conditions. (i) Mobile housing: 4.5 pounds per management practices are followed. (a) The producer of an organic poultry square foot. (c) The producer of an organic operation must establish and maintain (ii) Aviary housing: 4.5 pounds per livestock operation may, in addition to year-round poultry living conditions square foot. the times permitted under paragraph (b) that accommodate the health and (iii) Slatted/mesh floor housing: 3.75 of this section, temporarily deny a natural behavior of poultry, including: pounds per square foot. ruminant animal pasture or outdoor Year-round access to outdoors; shade; (iv) Floor litter housing: 3.0 pounds access under the following conditions: shelter; exercise areas; fresh air; direct per square foot. (1) One week at the end of a lactation sunlight; clean water for drinking; (v) Other housing: 2.25 pounds per for dry off (for denial of access to materials for dust bathing; and adequate square foot. pasture only), three weeks prior to outdoor space to escape aggressive (9) For pullets (Gallus gallus), indoor parturition (birthing), parturition, and behaviors suitable to the species, its stocking density must not exceed 3.0 pounds of bird per square foot. up to one week after parturition; stage of life, the climate, and (10) For broilers (Gallus gallus), (2) In the case of newborn dairy cattle environment. Poultry may be indoor stocking density must not exceed for up to six months, after which they temporarily denied access to the must be on pasture during the grazing 5.0 pounds of bird per square foot. outdoors in accordance with paragraph (11) Indoor space includes flat areas season and may no longer be (d) of this section. individually housed: Except, That, an available to birds, excluding nest boxes. (b) Indoor space requirements— (12) Indoor space may include animal shall not be confined or tethered (1) Poultry housing must be enclosed porches and lean-to type in a way that prevents the animal from sufficiently spacious to allow all birds structures (e.g. screened in, roofed) as lying down, standing up, fully to move freely, stretch their wings, long as the birds always have access to extending its limbs, and moving about stand normally, and engage in natural the space, including during temporary freely; behaviors. confinement events. If birds do not have (3) In the case of fiber bearing (2) Producers must monitor ammonia continuous access to the porch during animals, for short periods for shearing; levels at least monthly and implement temporary confinement events, this and practices to maintain ammonia levels (4) In the case of dairy animals, for space must not be considered indoors. below 10 ppm. When ammonia levels (c) Outdoor space requirements— short periods daily for milking. Milking exceed 10 ppm, producers must (1) Access to outdoor space and door must be scheduled in a manner to implement additional practices and spacing must be designed to promote ensure sufficient grazing time to provide additional monitoring to reduce and encourage outside access for all each animal with an average of at least ammonia levels below 10 ppm. birds on a daily basis. Producers must 30 percent DMI from grazing throughout Ammonia levels must not exceed 25 provide access to the outdoors at an the grazing season. Milking frequencies ppm. early age to encourage (i.e., train) birds or duration practices cannot be used to (3) For layers and fully feathered to go outdoors. Birds may be deny dairy animals pasture. birds, artificial light may be used to temporarily denied access to the (d) Ruminant slaughter stock, prolong the day length, to provide up to outdoors in accordance with typically grain finished, shall be 16 hours of continuous light. Artificial § 205.241(d). maintained on pasture for each day that light intensity must be lowered (2) At least 50 percent of outdoor the finishing period corresponds with gradually to encourage hens to move to space must be soil. Outdoor space with the grazing season for the geographical perches or settle for the night. Natural soil must include maximal vegetative location. Yards, feeding pads, or light must be sufficient indoors on cover appropriate for the season, feedlots may be used to provide finish sunny days so that an inspector can read climate, geography, species of livestock, feeding rations. During the finishing and write when all lights are turned off. and stage of production. Vegetative period, ruminant slaughter stock shall (4) Exit areas—poultry houses must cover must be maintained in a manner be exempt from the minimum 30 have sufficient exit areas that are that does not provide harborage for percent DMI requirement from grazing. appropriately distributed to ensure that rodents and other pests. Yards, feeding pads, or feedlots used to all birds have ready access to the (3) Shade may be provided by provide finish feeding rations shall be outdoors. structures, trees, or other objects in the large enough to allow all ruminant (5) Perches—for layers (Gallus gallus), outdoor area. slaughter stock occupying the yard, six inches of perch space must be (4) For layers (Gallus gallus), outdoor feeding pad, or feed lot to feed without provided per bird. Perch space may space must be provided at a rate of no crowding and without competition for include the alighting rail in front of the less than one square foot for every 2.25 food. The finishing period shall not nest boxes. All layers must be able to pounds of bird in the flock. exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the animal’s perch at the same time except for aviary (5) For pullets (Gallus gallus), outdoor total life or 120 days, whichever is housing, in which 55 percent of layers space must be provided at a rate of no shorter. must be able to perch at the same time. less than one square foot for every 3.0 (e) The producer of an organic (6) All birds must have access to areas pounds of bird in the flock. livestock operation must manage in the house that allow for scratching (6) For broilers (Gallus gallus), manure in a manner that does not and dust bathing. Litter must be outdoor space must be provided at a rate contribute to contamination of crops, provided and maintained in a dry of no less than one square foot for every soil, or water by plant nutrients, heavy condition. 5.0 pounds of bird in the flock.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7092 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

(7) Outdoor space may include plant nutrients, heavy metals, or (21 U.S.C. 603(b) and 21 U.S.C. 610(b)), porches and lean-to type structures that pathogenic organisms. The producer the regulations at 9 CFR part 313 are not enclosed (e.g. with roof, but with must also optimize recycling of regarding humane handling and screens removed) and allow birds to nutrients and must manage outdoor slaughter of livestock, and the freely access other outdoor space. access in a manner that does not put soil regulations of 9 CFR part 309 regarding (d) The producer of an organic poultry or water quality at risk. ante-mortem inspection. operation may temporarily confine ■ 6. Section 205.242 is added to read as (2) Producers and handlers who birds. Confinement must be recorded. follows: slaughter organic exotic animals must Operations may temporarily confine be in compliance with the Agricultural birds when one of the following § 205.242 Transport and slaughter. Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621, et circumstances exists: (a) Transportation. (1) Certified seq.), the regulations at 9 CFR parts 313 (1) Inclement weather, including organic livestock must be clearly and 352 regarding the humane handling when air temperatures are under 40 identified as organic, and this identity and slaughter of exotic animals, and the degrees F or above 90 degrees F. must be traceable for the duration of regulations of 9 CFR part 309 regarding (2) The animal’s stage of life, transport. ante-mortem inspection. including: (2) All livestock must be fit for (3) Producers and handlers who (i) The first 4 weeks of life for broilers transport to buyers, auction or slaughter slaughter organic livestock or exotic (Gallus gallus); facilities. animals must provide all (ii) The first 16 weeks of life for (i) Calves must have a dry navel cord noncompliance records related to pullets (Gallus gallus); and and be able to stand and walk without humane handling and slaughter issued (iii) Until fully feathered for bird human assistance. by the controlling national, federal, or species other than Gallus gallus. (ii) Non-ambulatory animals must not state authority and all records of (3) Conditions under which the be transported for sale or slaughter. subsequent corrective actions to health, safety, or well-being of the Such animals may be medically treated certifying agents during inspections or animal could be jeopardized. or euthanized. upon request. (4) Risk to soil or water quality, (3) Adequate and season-appropriate including to establish vegetation by ventilation is required for all livestock (c) Avian slaughter. (1) Producers and reseeding the outdoor space. trailers, shipping containers, and any handlers who slaughter organic poultry (5) Preventive healthcare procedures other mode of transportation used to must be in compliance, as determined or for the treatment of illness or injury protect animals against cold and heat by FSIS, with the Poultry Products (neither various life stages nor egg stresses. Inspection Act requirements (21 U.S.C. laying is an illness or injury). (4) Bedding must be provided on 453(g)(5)); the regulations at paragraph (6) Sorting or shipping birds and trailer floors and in holding pens as (v) of the definition of ‘‘Adulterated’’ in poultry sales, provided that the birds are needed to keep livestock clean, dry, and 9 CFR 381.1(b), and 9 CFR 381.90, and maintained under continuous organic comfortable during transport and prior 381.65(b)); and FSIS Directives 6100.3 management, throughout the extent of to slaughter. Bedding is not required in and 6910.1. their allowed confinement. poultry crates. When roughages are used (2) Producers and handlers who (7) For nest box training, provided for bedding, they must be certified slaughter organic poultry must provide that birds shall not be confined any organic. all noncompliance records related to the longer than required to establish the (5) Arrangements for water and use of good manufacturing practices in proper behavior. Confinement must not organic feed must be made if transport connection with slaughter issued by the exceed five weeks. time, including all time on the mode of controlling national, federal, or state (8) For 4–H, National FFA transportation, exceeds 12 hours. authority and all records of subsequent Organization, and other youth projects, (i) The producer or handler of an corrective actions to the certifying agent provided that temporary confinement organic livestock operation, who is at inspection or upon request. for no more than one week prior to a fair responsible for overseeing the transport (3) Producers and handlers who or other demonstration, through the of organic livestock, must provide slaughter organic poultry, but are event, and up to 24 hours after the birds records to certifying agents during exempt from or not covered by the have arrived home at the conclusion of inspections or upon request that requirements of the Poultry Products the event. During temporary demonstrate that transport times for Inspection Act, must ensure that: confinement, birds must be under organic livestock are not detrimental to (i) No lame birds may be shackled, continuous organic management, the welfare of the animals and meet the hung, or carried by their legs; including organic feed, for the duration requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this (ii) All birds shackled on a chain or of confinement. Notwithstanding the section. automated system must be stunned requirements in paragraph (d)(6) of this (6) Organic producers and handlers, prior to exsanguination, with the section, facilities where 4–H, National who are responsible for overseeing the exception of ritual slaughter; and FFA Organization, and other youth transport of organic livestock, must have (iii) All birds must be irreversibly events are held are not required to be emergency plans in place that insensible prior to being placed in the certified organic for the participating adequately address possible animal scalding tank. birds to be sold as organic, provided all welfare problems that might occur other organic management practices are during transport. Dated: January 11, 2017. followed. (b) Mammalian slaughter. (1) Elanor Starmer, (e) The producer of an organic poultry Producers and handlers who slaughter Administrator, Agricultural Marketing operation must manage manure in a organic livestock must be in Service. manner that does not contribute to compliance, as determined by FSIS, [FR Doc. 2017–00888 Filed 1–18–17; 8:45 am] contamination of crops, soil, or water by with the Federal Meat Inspection Act BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:24 Jan 19, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19JAR4.SGM 19JAR4 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES