82 FR 59988 - National Organic Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices-Withdrawal
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 241 (December 18, 2017)
Agricultural Marketing Service
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 241 (December 18, 2017)
| Page Range | 59988-59992 | |
| FR Document | 2017-27316 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 59988-59992] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-27316] ======================================================================== Proposed Rules Federal Register ________________________________________________________________________ This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. ======================================================================== Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 241 / Monday, December 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules [[Page 59988]] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 205 [Doc. No. AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06] RIN 0581-AD75 National Organic Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices--Withdrawal AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This proposed rule sets forth the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA or Department) intention to withdraw the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) final rule published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2017, by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The OLPP final rule amends the organic livestock and poultry production requirements in the USDA organic regulations by adding new provisions for livestock handling and transport for slaughter and avian living conditions; and expands and clarifies existing requirements covering livestock care and production practices and mammalian living conditions. The OLPP final rule was originally set to take effect on March 20, 2017. The effective date has been extended to May 14, 2018 under separate actions. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed rule on or before January 17, 2018. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on the proposed rule by any of the following methods:Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Paul Lewis, Ph.D., Director, Standards Division, National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 2642-So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268. Instructions: All submissions received must include the docket number AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06, and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0581-AD75 for this rulemaking. You should clearly indicate the reason(s) for your stated position. All comments received and any relevant background documents will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Document: For access to the document and to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will also be available for viewing in person at USDA-AMS, National Organic Program, Room 2642-South Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday (except official Federal holidays). Persons wanting to visit the USDA South Building to view comments received in response to this proposed rule are requested to make an appointment in advance by calling (202) 720-3252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Lewis, Ph.D., Director, Standards Division, Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax: (202) 720-7808. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522), authorizes the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard and to facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is organically produced. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administers the National Organic Program (NOP) under 7 CFR part 205. On April 13, 2016, AMS published the OLPP proposed rule in the Federal Register (81 FR 21956). On January 19, 2017, AMS published the OLPP final rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 7042). This rule was scheduled to take effect on March 20, 2017. On January 20, 2017, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff sent a memorandum titled ``Regulatory Freeze Pending Review'' to USDA and other federal executive departments and agencies. Accordingly, on February 9, 2017, AMS published a notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 9967) delaying the OLPP final rule's effective date until May 19, 2017. On May 10, 2017, AMS published two documents regarding the OLPP final rule in the Federal Register. The first document delayed the OLPP final rule's effective date until November 14, 2017 (82 FR 21677). The second document presented four options for agency action (82 FR 21742). Interested parties were invited to submit comments on the four options on or before June 9, 2017. On November 14, 2017, AMS published a final rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 52643) delaying the effective date of the OLPP final rule until May 14, 2018 to allow AMS the opportunity to gather additional public comments on important questions regarding USDA's statutory authority to promulgate the OLPP final rule and the likely costs and benefits of the rule. II. Overview of Action Being Considered By this notice, AMS is proposing to withdraw the OLPP final rule. See 82 FR 7042 (January 19, 2017). USDA has reviewed the OLPP final rule and is initiating this action based on the outcome of that review. Specifically, USDA proposes withdrawing the OLPP rule based on its current interpretation of 7 U.S.C. 6905, under which the OLPP final rule would exceed USDA's statutory authority. Withdrawal of the OLPP rule also is independently justified based upon USDA's revised assessments of its benefits and burdens and USDA's view of sound regulatory policy. If this withdrawal is finalized, the existing organic livestock and poultry regulations now published at 7 CFR part 205 would remain effective. AMS seeks comments on the proposal to withdraw the OLPP final rule. III. Related Documents Documents related to this OLPP final rule include: OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6501--6524) and its implementing regulations (7 CFR part 205); the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices proposed rule published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016 (81 FR 21956); the OLPP final rule published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7042); the final rule delaying the OLPP [[Page 59989]] final rule's effective date until May 19, 2017, published by AMS in the Federal Register on February 9, 2017 (82 FR 9967); the final rule delaying the OLPP final rule's effective date until November 14, 2017, published by AMS in the Federal Register on May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21677); a second proposed rule presenting the four options for agency action listed in Section I, supra, published by AMS in the Federal Register on May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21742); and a final rule further delaying the OLPP final rule's effective date until May 14, 2018, published by AMS in the Federal Register on November 14, 2017 (82 FR 52643). IV. Legal Authority The basis for the proposed withdrawal of the OLPP final rule is USDA's current interpretation of OFPA, which is discussed in this notice and USDA's revised assessment of the regulatory benefits and burdens of the OLPP rule.\1\ USDA invites comment generally on the regulatory and other policy implications of the legal interpretation of OFPA proposed in this action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ USDA's legal authority to revisit the OLPP final rule is well-established. As an initial matter, agencies have broad discretion to reconsider a regulation at any time. Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 8-9 (DC Cir. 2017). Furthermore, USDA's interpretation of OFPA ``is not instantly carved in stone,'' but may be evaluated ``on a continuing basis.'' Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 863-64 (1984). This is true when, as is the case here, the agency's review is undertaken in response to a change in administrations. National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFPA is the statutory authority for the OLPP final rule as well as for this rulemaking. AMS believes that withdrawing the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices final rule is appropriate in light of its interpretation of the scope of authority granted to USDA by OFPA and to maintain consistency with USDA regulatory policy principles. If this proposed rule to withdraw is finalized, the existing organic livestock and poultry regulations now published at 7 CFR part 205 would remain effective. V. Rationale for Withdrawing Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices OLPP Final Rule This section provides AMS' primary reasons for proposing to withdraw the OLPP final rule. A. Authority Under the OFPA To Issue Animal Welfare Regulations The OLPP final rule consisted, in large part, of rules clarifying how producers and handlers participating in the National Organic Program must treat livestock and poultry to ensure their wellbeing (82 FR 7042). AMS is proposing to withdraw the OLPP final rule because it now believes OFPA does not authorize the animal welfare provisions of the OLPP final rule. Rather, the agency's current reading of the statute, given the relevant language and context, suggests OFPA's reference to additional regulatory standards ``for the care'' of organically produced livestock should be limited to health care practices similar to those specified by Congress in the statute, rather than expanded to encompass stand-alone animal welfare concerns. 7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(2). USDA believes that the Department's power to act and how it may act are authoritatively prescribed by statutory language and context; USDA believes that it may not lawfully regulate outside the boundaries of legislative text.\2\ Therefore, in considering the scope of its lawful authority, USDA believes the threshold question should be whether Congress has authorized the proposed action. If, however, a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, then USDA believes that its interpretation is entitled to deference and the question becomes simply whether USDA's action is based on a permissible statutory construction.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1868 (2013). \3\ See Chevron, U.S.A., 467 U.S. at 843; City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1871. USDA believes that fidelity to the Constitution and to the rule of law are better served when regulatory authority is firmly grounded in plain statutory text. Id. at 1876 (Scalia, J.) (``The fox-in-the-henhouse syndrome is to be avoided. . . . by taking seriously, and applying rigorously, in all cases, statutory limits on agencies' authority'') (emphasis added); id. at 1879 (Roberts, CJ., dissenting) (``the danger posed by the growing administrative state cannot be dismissed''); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (``The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. . . . [but] slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority''); FTC v. Ruberoid Co., 343 U.S. 470, 487 (1952) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (the administrative state ``has deranged our three-branch legal theories''). USDA generally believes that it may promulgate rules that are reasonable in light of the text, nature, and purpose of the relevant statute in cases of gaps or ambiguity. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229 (2001). However, USDA also believes Congress knows to speak in plain terms when it wishes to circumscribe, and in capacious terms when it wishes to enlarge, USDA's discretion. Compare 7 U.S.C. 6509(g), with 7 U.S.C. 2151 (``The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such rules, regulations, and orders as he may deem necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter''), 15 U.S.C. 1823(c) (``The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation requirements . . . to detect and diagnose a horse that is sore . . .''), 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(4) (the Patent Office has the authority to issue ``regulations . . . establishing and governing inter parties review under this chapter''), and 49 U.S.C. 40103(b) (FAA shall ``prescribe air traffic regulations''); see generally Cuzzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142-43 (2016); City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1868. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- USDA believes 7 U.S.C. 6509 is the relevant authority for OFPA- related regulations governing animal production practices. USDA further believes that it should adhere to this legislative text and that it lacks the power to tailor legislation to policy goals, however worthy, by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms. Rather, USDA believes it may properly exercise discretion only in the interstices created by statutory silence or ambiguity and must always give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See generally Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2441, 2445-46 (2014) (citations omitted). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The OLPP final rule is a broadly prescriptive animal welfare regulation governing outdoor access and space, transport, and slaughter, among other things. (82 FR 7042, 7074, 7082). USDA's general OFPA implementing authority was used as justification for the OLPP final rule, which cited 7 U.S.C. 6509(g) as ``convey(ing) the intent for the USDA to develop more specific standards. . . .'' (82 FR 7043), and 7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(2) as authorizing regulations for animal ``wellbeing'' and the ``care of livestock.'' (82 FR 7042, 7074, 7082). But nothing in Section 6509 authorizes the broadly prescriptive, stand-alone animal welfare regulations contained in the OLPP final rule.\5\ Rather, section 6509 authorizes USDA to regulate with respect to discrete aspects of animal production practices and materials: Breeder stock, feed and growth promoters, animal health care, forage, and record-keeping. Section 6509(d) is titled ``Health Care.'' [[Page 59990]] Subsection 6509(d)(1) identifies prohibited health care practices, including subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics; routine synthetic internal parasiticides; and medication, other than vaccinations, absent illness. Reading the plain language in context, AMS now believes that the authority granted in section 6509(g) for the Secretary to issue regulations fairly extends only to those aspects of animal care that are similar to those described in section 6509(d)(1) and that are shown to be necessary to meet the congressional objectives specified in 7 U.S.C. 6501.\6\ The Secretary's authority to promulgate rules under section 6509(g) is similarly circumscribed: He may ``develop detailed regulations'' only to ``guide the implementation of the standards for livestock products provided under this section.'' 7 U.S.C. 6509(g) (emphasis added). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Congress directed USDA to establish national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced products; to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard; and to facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is organically produced, assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard, among other things. 7 U.S.C. 6501. However, OFPA's plain language does not mandate, and arguably limits, the Secretary's authority to promulgate prescriptive rules governing how producers meet programmatic standards. Instead, USDA believes a contextual reading of OFPA suggests a regulatory approach based on market-based solutions is more appropriate. See 7 U.S.C. 6503-11 (setting standards); 7 U.S.C. 6509(g) (authorizing promulgation of regulations to ``guide implementation of standards . . .''); 7 U.S.C. 6512 (``If a production or handling practice is not prohibited or otherwise restricted under this chapter, such practice shall be permitted unless it is determined that such practice would be inconsistent with the applicable organic certification program''). \6\ Compare 7 U.S.C. 6509(g) (regulations to ``guide the implementation of standards for livestock products'') with 7 U.S.C. 2151 (``The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such rules, regulations, and orders as he may deem necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter''), 15 U.S.C. 1823(c) (``The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation requirements . . . to detect and diagnose a horse that is sore . . .'', and 49 U.S.C. 40103(b) (FAA shall ``prescribe air traffic regulations''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- AMS finds that its rulemaking authority in section 6509(d)(2) should not be construed in isolation, but rather should be interpreted in light of section 6509(d)(1) and section 6509(g). Furthermore, even if OFPA is deemed to be silent or ambiguous with respect to this issue, AMS believes that a decision to withdraw the OLPP final rule based on section 6509's language, titles, and position within Chapter 94 of Title 7 of the United States Code; \7\ controlling Supreme Court authorities; and general USDA regulatory policy, would be a permissible statutory construction. AMS seeks comment on this issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074, 1082 (2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Impact of OLPP Final Rule on Producers AMS notes that organic producers have already made significant investments in facilities and infrastructure to support the growing organic market under the current USDA organic regulations, and there has been significant growth in the organic market under the existing regulatory regime. This suggests that the present regulatory regime is meeting statutory objectives of reassuring consumers of organic integrity and facilitating interstate commerce in organic products, which coincides with the growth in the organic poultry sector. From 2007 to 2016, the organic egg market grew 12.7 percent annually which shows consumer confidence in the products produced under the current standards. The organic industry continues to grow domestically and globally, with USDA's Organic Integrity Database listing 24,650 certified organic operations in the United States, and 37,032 around the world, at the end of 2016. The 2016 count of U.S. certified organic farms and businesses reflects a 13% increase between the end of 2015 and 2016, continuing a trend of double-digit growth in the organic sector. The number of certified operations has continuously increased since the count began in 2002; the 2015-2016 increase was one of the highest annual increases since 2008. According to the Organic Trade Association's (OTA's) 2017 Organic Industry Survey, organic sales reached almost $47 billion in 2016, reflecting an increase of almost $3.7 billion above the $43 billion mark achieved in 2015. Furthermore, as a policy matter and a general principle, USDA is concerned that the OLPP final rule's prescriptive codification of current industry practices in the dynamic, evolving marketplace could have the unintended consequence of preventing or stunting future market-based innovation in response to rapidly evolving social and producer norms. Overly prescriptive regulation can discourage technological and social innovation, especially by small firms and consumers, distorting or even preventing technological development. Lacking evidence of the material market failure to justify prescriptive regulatory action, AMS is concerned that the OLPP rule may hamper market-driven innovation and evolution and impose unnecessary regulatory burdens. AMS welcomes comment on these concerns. C. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 This section provides an Executive Summary of the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA). Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov website. This rulemaking has been designated as an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 directs Agencies to identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed for every new regulation unless prohibited by law. The total incremental cost of all regulations issued in a given fiscal year must have costs within the amount of incremental costs allowed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, unless otherwise required by law or approved in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's PRIA, posted separately and summarized below. The estimated costs in the OLPP final rule were based on three potential scenarios. First, if the OLPP final rule were implemented and if all organic livestock and poultry producers were to come into compliance, the estimated cost to the industry would have been $28.7 to $31 million each year. Second, if 50 percent of the organic egg producers moved to the cage-free egg market and the organic industry continues to grow at historical rates, the costs would be $11.7-$12.0 million. Third, if 50 percent of the organic egg producers moved to the cage-free egg market and there were no new entrants that could not already comply, the costs would be $8.2 million. These costs do not include an additional $1.95-$3.9 million associated with paperwork burden. The OLPP final rule estimated the benefits from the rule's implementation as $4.1 to $49.5 million annually. The estimated benefits spanned a wider range than the estimated costs and were based on research that measured consumers' willingness-to-pay for outdoor access for laying hens. The OLPP final rule acknowledged that the benefits were difficult to quantify. In reviewing the OLPP final rule, AMS found that the calculation of benefits contained mathematical errors in calculating the discount rates of 7% and 3%. AMS also found the estimated benefits over time were handled differently than were the estimated costs over time. In addition, the range used for estimating the benefit interval could be replaced with more suitable estimates. The revised calculations of benefits are presented in the accompanying PRIA. [[Page 59991]] As a result of reviewing the calculation of estimated benefits, AMS reassessed the economic basis for the rulemaking as well as the validity of the estimated benefits. On the basis of that reassessment, AMS finds little, if any, economic justification for the OLPP final rule. The RIA for the OLPP final rule did not identify a significant market failure to justify the need for rule. The RIA for the OLPP final rule noted that there is wide variance in production practices within the organic egg sector and asserted that ``as more consumers become aware of this disparity, they will either seek specific brands of organic eggs or seek animal welfare labels in addition to the USDA organic seal.'' AMS also found the ``majority of organic producers also participate in private, third-party verified animal welfare certification programs.'' OLPP final rule RIA (https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/OLPPSupplementalDocAnalysis.pdf) at 14. Variance in production practices and participation in private, third-party certification programs, however, do not constitute evidence of significant market failure. First, while AMS recognizes that the purpose of the OFPA is to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent and uniform standard, that purpose does not imply that there should be no variation in organic production practices. Rather, a variety of production methods may be employed to meet the same standard. Some may be more labor intensive and others more capital intensive, and some may be appropriate for small operations while others are appropriate for large operations. Importantly, producers will adopt different production methods over time as technology evolves and enables operations to meet the same standard more efficiently. Thus, variation in production practices is expected and does not stand as an indicator of a significant market failure. Second, private, third-party certification programs are common in the dynamic food sector. The fact that organic suppliers participate in such programs does not indicate a market failure with respect to the standards promulgated under the USDA NOP. Rather, the use of third- party certifications in addition to the USDA organic seal merely indicates that participants in the food sector seek ways to differentiate their products from those of their competitors. The fact that some aspects of a private certification may overlap with the requirements underlying the USDA organic seal demonstrates that food producers, manufacturers, and retailers use multiple methods to communicate with consumers about the attributes of the foods that they produce and sell. Private, third-party certifications reflect attributes that food sellers wish to emphasize, and the existence of such certifications on organic products provides no evidence of a significant market failure relating to USDA organic standards. Notwithstanding the lack of a market failure justification for the OLPP final rule, the accompanying PRIA explains several calculation errors associated with the OLPP final rule RIA. The PRIA also provides additional information regarding the estimated benefits and explains why they likely were overstated in the OLPP final rule RIA. In any case, withdrawing the OLPP final rule would prevent the negative cost impacts from taking effect, resulting in substantial organic poultry producer cost savings of $8.2 to $31 million annually, plus additional cost savings of $1.95-$3.9 million from paperwork reduction. Consideration of Alternatives AMS considered three alternatives in developing this proposed rule. The first alternative considered was to implement the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices final rule on May 14, 2018, which is the current effective date. The second alternative was to further delay the final rule. The third alternative, which is the selected alternative, was to withdraw the final rule. For the first alternative, if the OLPP final rule were to become effective on May 14, 2018, the costs and transfers described in the PRIA would be expected to occur, resulting in requirements with substantial costs not supported by evidence of significant market failure. The second alternative considered was to further delay the OLPP final rule. This alternative, however, would defer the decision on whether to implement or withdraw to a future date, despite the agency having performed its review and received comments from the public. This alternative fails to achieve USDA's goal of reducing regulatory uncertainty. AMS is proposing the third alternative, to withdraw the OLPP final rule as the preferred alternative. This alternative estimates cost savings for poultry producers of $8.2 to $31 million per year (based on 15-year costs). In addition, $1.95-$3.9 million in annual paperwork burden would not be incurred. As described in the PRIA, the range of benefits could be expected to be lower than shown in the OLPP final rule RIA. Moreover, a priori, the benefits associated with any government intervention without there being an identifiable market failure will be lower than the required costs of imposing such an intervention. Given the unclear nature of the market failure being addressed by the OLPP final rule, AMS would give clear preference to the lower end of the benefit range, which consistently fall below the costs associated with the OLPP final rule. VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires agencies to consider the economic impact of each rule on small entities and evaluate alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of the rule without unduly burdening small entities or erecting barriers that would restrict their ability to compete in the market. Data suggest nearly all organic egg producers qualify as small businesses. OLPP Final Rule RIA (https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/OLPPSupplementalDocAnalysis.pdf) at 140-141. Small egg producers are listed under NAICS code 112310 (Chicken Egg Production) as grossing less than $15,000,000 per year, and AMS estimates that out of 722 operations reporting sales of organic eggs, only four are not small businesses. However, the RIA found that some small egg producers and small chicken (broiler) producers will be affected by the poultry outdoor access and space provisions. See OLPP Final Rule RIA at 136-138, 142, 145-146. Furthermore, the RIA of the OLPP final rule notes that some producers were particularly concerned about limited land availability for outdoor access requirements and the potential for increased mortality attendant to the new regulatory demands. These were identified as sources of burdensome costs and/or major obstacles to compliance for some small businesses. See id. at 26- 28. Based on surveys of organic egg producers, AMS believes approximately fifty percent of layer production will not be able to acquire additional land needed to comply with the OLPP final rule. Id. at 142. Also, certain existing certified organic slaughter facilities could surrender their organic certification as a result of the OLPP final rule and certain businesses currently providing livestock transport services for certified organic producers or slaughter facilities may be unwilling to meet and/or document compliance with the livestock transit requirements. Id. at 149. Withdrawing the OLPP final rule would avoid these economic impacts, [[Page 59992]] without introducing any incremental burdens or erecting barriers that would restrict the ability of small entities to compete in the market. This conclusion is supported by the historic growth of the organic industry without the regulatory amendments. The demand for organic food has continued to grow over the past ten years under the current regulatory regime. This proposed rule would relieve producers of the costs of complying with the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices final rule. The effects would be beneficial, but not significant. A small number of entities may experience time and money savings as a result of not having to change practices to comply with the OLPP final rule. Affected small entities would include organic egg and organic broiler producers. The proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. VII. Executive Order 12988 Executive Order 12988 instructs each executive agency to adhere to certain requirements in the development of new and revised regulations to avoid unduly burdening the court system. Pursuant to section 6519(f) of OFPA, if finalized, this rule would not alter the authority of the Secretary under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601-624), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451-471), or the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056), concerning meat, poultry, and egg products, nor any of the authorities of the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301-399) or the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201-300), nor the authority of the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136- 136(y)). VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act No additional collection or recordkeeping requirements would be imposed on the public by withdrawing the OLPP final rule. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501), Chapter 35. Withdrawing the OLPP final rule will avoid an estimated $1.95-$3.9 million in costs for increased paperwork burden associated with that final rule. IX. Executive Order 13175 This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. AMS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, AMS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress. X. Civil Rights Impact Analysis AMS has reviewed this draft rule in accordance with the Department Regulation 4300-4, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, to address any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. AMS has determined that withdrawing the OLPP final rule would not affect producers in protected groups differently than the general population of producers. XI. Conclusion In compliance with USDA's interpretation of the OFPA and consistent with USDA regulatory policy, AMS is proposing to withdraw the OLPP final rule. Dated: December 14, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 2017-27316 Filed 12-15-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
![59988
Proposed Rules Federal Register
Vol. 82, No. 241
Monday, December 18, 2017
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Instructions: All submissions received Pending Review’’ to USDA and other
contains notices to the public of the proposed must include the docket number AMS– federal executive departments and
issuance of rules and regulations. The NOP–15–0012; NOP–15–06, and/or agencies. Accordingly, on February 9,
purpose of these notices is to give interested Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 2017, AMS published a notice in the
persons an opportunity to participate in the 0581–AD75 for this rulemaking. You Federal Register (82 FR 9967) delaying
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
should clearly indicate the reason(s) for the OLPP final rule’s effective date until
rules.
your stated position. All comments May 19, 2017.
received and any relevant background On May 10, 2017, AMS published two
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE documents will be posted without documents regarding the OLPP final
change to http://www.regulations.gov. rule in the Federal Register. The first
Agricultural Marketing Service Document: For access to the document delayed the OLPP final rule’s
document and to read background effective date until November 14, 2017
7 CFR Part 205 documents or comments received, go to (82 FR 21677). The second document
http://www.regulations.gov. Comments presented four options for agency action
[Doc. No. AMS–NOP–15–0012; NOP–15–06] (82 FR 21742). Interested parties were
submitted in response to this proposed
RIN 0581–AD75 rule will also be available for viewing in invited to submit comments on the four
person at USDA–AMS, National Organic options on or before June 9, 2017.
National Organic Program (NOP); Program, Room 2642–South Building, On November 14, 2017, AMS
Organic Livestock and Poultry 1400 Independence Ave. SW, published a final rule in the Federal
Practices—Withdrawal Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon Register (82 FR 52643) delaying the
and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday effective date of the OLPP final rule
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,
through Friday (except official Federal until May 14, 2018 to allow AMS the
USDA.
holidays). Persons wanting to visit the opportunity to gather additional public
ACTION: Proposed rule. comments on important questions
USDA South Building to view
SUMMARY: This proposed rule sets forth comments received in response to this regarding USDA’s statutory authority to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rule are requested to make an promulgate the OLPP final rule and the
(USDA or Department) intention to appointment in advance by calling (202) likely costs and benefits of the rule.
withdraw the Organic Livestock and 720–3252. II. Overview of Action Being
Poultry Practices (OLPP) final rule FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Considered
published in the Federal Register on Lewis, Ph.D., Director, Standards By this notice, AMS is proposing to
January 19, 2017, by USDA’s Division, Telephone: (202) 720–3252; withdraw the OLPP final rule. See 82 FR
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Fax: (202) 720–7808. 7042 (January 19, 2017). USDA has
The OLPP final rule amends the organic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: reviewed the OLPP final rule and is
livestock and poultry production initiating this action based on the
requirements in the USDA organic I. Background
outcome of that review. Specifically,
regulations by adding new provisions The Organic Foods Production Act of USDA proposes withdrawing the OLPP
for livestock handling and transport for 1990 (OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. rule based on its current interpretation
slaughter and avian living conditions; 6501–6522), authorizes the United of 7 U.S.C. 6905, under which the OLPP
and expands and clarifies existing States Department of Agriculture final rule would exceed USDA’s
requirements covering livestock care (USDA) to establish national standards statutory authority. Withdrawal of the
and production practices and governing the marketing of certain OLPP rule also is independently
mammalian living conditions. The agricultural products as organically justified based upon USDA’s revised
OLPP final rule was originally set to produced to assure consumers that assessments of its benefits and burdens
take effect on March 20, 2017. The organically produced products meet a and USDA’s view of sound regulatory
effective date has been extended to May consistent standard and to facilitate policy. If this withdrawal is finalized,
14, 2018 under separate actions. interstate commerce in fresh and the existing organic livestock and
DATES: Interested persons are invited to processed food that is organically poultry regulations now published at 7
submit written comments on this produced. USDA’s Agricultural CFR part 205 would remain effective.
proposed rule on or before January 17, Marketing Service (AMS) administers AMS seeks comments on the proposal to
2018. the National Organic Program (NOP) withdraw the OLPP final rule.
ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit under 7 CFR part 205.
On April 13, 2016, AMS published III. Related Documents
comments on the proposed rule by any
of the following methods: the OLPP proposed rule in the Federal Documents related to this OLPP final
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Register (81 FR 21956). rule include: OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6501—
www.regulations.gov. Follow the On January 19, 2017, AMS published 6524) and its implementing regulations
instructions for submitting comments. the OLPP final rule in the Federal (7 CFR part 205); the Organic Livestock
• Mail: Paul Lewis, Ph.D., Director, Register (82 FR 7042). This rule was and Poultry Practices proposed rule
Standards Division, National Organic scheduled to take effect on March 20, published in the Federal Register on
Program, USDA–AMS–NOP, 1400 2017. April 13, 2016 (81 FR 21956); the OLPP
Independence Ave. SW, Room 2642– On January 20, 2017, the Assistant to final rule published in the Federal
So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC the President and Chief of Staff sent a Register on January 19, 2017 (82 FR
20250–0268. memorandum titled ‘‘Regulatory Freeze 7042); the final rule delaying the OLPP
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:21 Dec 15, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_60229/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 241 / Monday, December 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 59989
final rule’s effective date until May 19, the National Organic Program must treat USDA believes 7 U.S.C. 6509 is the
2017, published by AMS in the Federal livestock and poultry to ensure their relevant authority for OFPA-related
Register on February 9, 2017 (82 FR wellbeing (82 FR 7042). AMS is regulations governing animal
9967); the final rule delaying the OLPP proposing to withdraw the OLPP final production practices. USDA further
final rule’s effective date until rule because it now believes OFPA does believes that it should adhere to this
November 14, 2017, published by AMS not authorize the animal welfare legislative text and that it lacks the
in the Federal Register on May 10, 2017 provisions of the OLPP final rule. power to tailor legislation to policy
(82 FR 21677); a second proposed rule Rather, the agency’s current reading of goals, however worthy, by rewriting
presenting the four options for agency the statute, given the relevant language unambiguous statutory terms. Rather,
action listed in Section I, supra, and context, suggests OFPA’s reference USDA believes it may properly exercise
published by AMS in the Federal to additional regulatory standards ‘‘for discretion only in the interstices created
Register on May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21742); the care’’ of organically produced by statutory silence or ambiguity and
and a final rule further delaying the livestock should be limited to health must always give effect to the
OLPP final rule’s effective date until care practices similar to those specified unambiguously expressed intent of
May 14, 2018, published by AMS in the by Congress in the statute, rather than Congress.4
Federal Register on November 14, 2017 expanded to encompass stand-alone The OLPP final rule is a broadly
(82 FR 52643). animal welfare concerns. 7 U.S.C. prescriptive animal welfare regulation
6509(d)(2). governing outdoor access and space,
IV. Legal Authority transport, and slaughter, among other
USDA believes that the Department’s
The basis for the proposed power to act and how it may act are things. (82 FR 7042, 7074, 7082).
withdrawal of the OLPP final rule is authoritatively prescribed by statutory USDA’s general OFPA implementing
USDA’s current interpretation of OFPA, language and context; USDA believes authority was used as justification for
which is discussed in this notice and that it may not lawfully regulate outside the OLPP final rule, which cited 7
USDA’s revised assessment of the the boundaries of legislative text.2 U.S.C. 6509(g) as ‘‘convey(ing) the
regulatory benefits and burdens of the Therefore, in considering the scope of intent for the USDA to develop more
OLPP rule.1 USDA invites comment its lawful authority, USDA believes the specific standards. . . .’’ (82 FR 7043),
generally on the regulatory and other threshold question should be whether and 7 U.S.C. 6509(d)(2) as authorizing
policy implications of the legal Congress has authorized the proposed regulations for animal ‘‘wellbeing’’ and
interpretation of OFPA proposed in this action. If, however, a statute is silent or the ‘‘care of livestock.’’ (82 FR 7042,
action. 7074, 7082).
ambiguous with respect to a specific
OFPA is the statutory authority for the But nothing in Section 6509
issue, then USDA believes that its
OLPP final rule as well as for this authorizes the broadly prescriptive,
rulemaking. AMS believes that interpretation is entitled to deference
stand-alone animal welfare regulations
withdrawing the Organic Livestock and and the question becomes simply
contained in the OLPP final rule.5
Poultry Practices final rule is whether USDA’s action is based on a
Rather, section 6509 authorizes USDA
appropriate in light of its interpretation permissible statutory construction.3
to regulate with respect to discrete
of the scope of authority granted to 2 City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1868 aspects of animal production practices
USDA by OFPA and to maintain (2013). and materials: Breeder stock, feed and
consistency with USDA regulatory 3 See Chevron, U.S.A., 467 U.S. at 843; City of growth promoters, animal health care,
policy principles. If this proposed rule Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1871. USDA believes that forage, and record-keeping. Section
to withdraw is finalized, the existing fidelity to the Constitution and to the rule of law 6509(d) is titled ‘‘Health Care.’’
are better served when regulatory authority is firmly
organic livestock and poultry grounded in plain statutory text. Id. at 1876 (Scalia,
regulations now published at 7 CFR part J.) (‘‘The fox-in-the-henhouse syndrome is to be U.S.C. 40103(b) (FAA shall ‘‘prescribe air traffic
205 would remain effective. avoided. . . . by taking seriously, and applying regulations’’); see generally Cuzzo Speed
rigorously, in all cases, statutory limits on agencies’ Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–43
V. Rationale for Withdrawing Organic authority’’) (emphasis added); id. at 1879 (Roberts, (2016); City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1868.
Livestock and Poultry Practices OLPP CJ., dissenting) (‘‘the danger posed by the growing 4 See generally Utility Air Regulatory Group v.
Final Rule administrative state cannot be dismissed’’); Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427,
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 2441, 2445–46 (2014) (citations omitted).
This section provides AMS’ primary 579, 593–94 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) 5 Congress directed USDA to establish national
reasons for proposing to withdraw the (‘‘The accretion of dangerous power does not come standards governing the marketing of certain
OLPP final rule. in a day. . . . [but] slowly, from the generative agricultural products as organically produced
force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that products; to assure consumers that organically
A. Authority Under the OFPA To Issue fence in even the most disinterested assertion of produced products meet a consistent standard; and
authority’’); FTC v. Ruberoid Co., 343 U.S. 470, 487 to facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and
Animal Welfare Regulations (1952) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (the administrative processed food that is organically produced, assure
The OLPP final rule consisted, in state ‘‘has deranged our three-branch legal consumers that organically produced products meet
large part, of rules clarifying how theories’’). USDA generally believes that it may a consistent standard, among other things. 7 U.S.C.
promulgate rules that are reasonable in light of the 6501. However, OFPA’s plain language does not
producers and handlers participating in text, nature, and purpose of the relevant statute in mandate, and arguably limits, the Secretary’s
cases of gaps or ambiguity. United States v. Mead authority to promulgate prescriptive rules
1 USDA’s legal authority to revisit the OLPP final Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229 (2001). However, USDA governing how producers meet programmatic
rule is well-established. As an initial matter, also believes Congress knows to speak in plain standards. Instead, USDA believes a contextual
agencies have broad discretion to reconsider a terms when it wishes to circumscribe, and in reading of OFPA suggests a regulatory approach
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
regulation at any time. Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, capacious terms when it wishes to enlarge, USDA’s based on market-based solutions is more
862 F.3d 1, 8–9 (DC Cir. 2017). Furthermore, discretion. Compare 7 U.S.C. 6509(g), with 7 U.S.C. appropriate. See 7 U.S.C. 6503–11 (setting
USDA’s interpretation of OFPA ‘‘is not instantly 2151 (‘‘The Secretary is authorized to promulgate standards); 7 U.S.C. 6509(g) (authorizing
carved in stone,’’ but may be evaluated ‘‘on a such rules, regulations, and orders as he may deem promulgation of regulations to ‘‘guide
continuing basis.’’ Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of this implementation of standards . . .’’); 7 U.S.C. 6512
Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 863–64 (1984). This is true chapter’’), 15 U.S.C. 1823(c) (‘‘The Secretary shall (‘‘If a production or handling practice is not
when, as is the case here, the agency’s review is prescribe by regulation requirements . . . to detect prohibited or otherwise restricted under this
undertaken in response to a change in and diagnose a horse that is sore . . .’’), 35 U.S.C. chapter, such practice shall be permitted unless it
administrations. National Cable & 316(a)(4) (the Patent Office has the authority to is determined that such practice would be
Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet issue ‘‘regulations . . . establishing and governing inconsistent with the applicable organic
Services, 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005). inter parties review under this chapter’’), and 49 certification program’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:21 Dec 15, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_60229/page/2.svg)
![59992 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 241 / Monday, December 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
without introducing any incremental IX. Executive Order 13175 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
burdens or erecting barriers that would
restrict the ability of small entities to This rule has been reviewed in 10 CFR Part 430
compete in the market. This conclusion accordance with the requirements of
is supported by the historic growth of Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation Procedures, Interpretations, and
the organic industry without the and Coordination with Indian Tribal Policies for Consideration of New or
regulatory amendments. The demand Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175 Revised Energy Conservation
for organic food has continued to grow requires Federal agencies to consult and Standards for Consumer Products
over the past ten years under the current coordinate with tribes on a government- AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and
regulatory regime. to-government basis on policies that Renewable Energy, Department of
This proposed rule would relieve have tribal implications, including Energy.
producers of the costs of complying regulations, legislative comments or
with the Organic Livestock and Poultry ACTION: Request for information and
proposed legislation, and other policy
Practices final rule. The effects would notification of public meeting.
statements or actions that have
be beneficial, but not significant. A substantial direct effects on one or more
small number of entities may experience SUMMARY: As part of its implementation
Indian tribes, on the relationship of, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and
time and money savings as a result of
between the Federal Government and Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’ (January
not having to change practices to
comply with the OLPP final rule. Indian tribes or on the distribution of 30, 2017) and, ‘‘Enforcing the
Affected small entities would include power and responsibilities between the Regulatory Reform Agenda,’’ (Feb. 24,
organic egg and organic broiler Federal Government and Indian tribes. 2017), the Department of Energy (DOE)
producers. The proposed rule would not AMS has assessed the impact of this is seeking comments and information
have a significant economic impact on rule on Indian tribes and determined from interested parties to assist DOE in
a substantial number of small entities. that this rule would not, to our identifying potential modifications to its
Under these circumstances, the knowledge, have tribal implications that ‘‘Process Rule’’ for the development of
Administrator of the Agricultural require tribal consultation under E.O. appliance standards to achieve
Marketing Service has determined that meaningful burden reduction while
13175. If a Tribe requests consultation,
this action would not have a significant continuing to achieve the Department’s
AMS will work with the Office of Tribal
economic impact on a substantial statutory obligations in the development
Relations to ensure meaningful of appliance standards. DOE will also
number of small entities. consultation is provided where changes, hold a public meeting to receive input
VII. Executive Order 12988 additions and modifications identified from interested parties on potential
Executive Order 12988 instructs each herein are not expressly mandated by improvements to the ‘‘Process Rule’’.
executive agency to adhere to certain Congress. This RFI is the first in a series of steps
requirements in the development of new X. Civil Rights Impact Analysis DOE is taking to consider modifications
and revised regulations to avoid unduly to the ‘‘Process Rule.’’ Subsequently,
burdening the court system. AMS has reviewed this draft rule in DOE expects to expeditiously publish
Pursuant to section 6519(f) of OFPA, accordance with the Department an ANPRM that will provide feedback
if finalized, this rule would not alter the Regulation 4300–4, Civil Rights Impact on the public comment received in
authority of the Secretary under the Analysis, to address any major civil response to this notice and seek
Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. rights impacts the rule might have on additional information on potential
601–624), the Poultry Products minorities, women, and persons with improvements to our process for
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451–471), or disabilities. AMS has determined that developing and promulgating energy
the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 withdrawing the OLPP final rule would efficiency standards.
U.S.C. 1031–1056), concerning meat, not affect producers in protected groups DATES: Written comments and
poultry, and egg products, nor any of differently than the general population information are requested on or before
the authorities of the Secretary of Health February 16, 2018. A public meeting
of producers.
and Human Services under the Federal will be held on January 9, 2018.
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. XI. Conclusion
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will
301–399) or the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 201–300), nor the In compliance with USDA’s begin at 9:30 a.m., at the U.S.
authority of the Administrator of the interpretation of the OFPA and Department of Energy, Forrestal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency consistent with USDA regulatory policy, Building, Room 8E–089, 1000
under the Federal Insecticide, AMS is proposing to withdraw the Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 OLPP final rule. DC 20585.
U.S.C. 136–136(y)). Interested persons are encouraged to
Dated: December 14, 2017. submit comments, identified by
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Bruce Summers, ‘‘Process Rule RFI,’’ by any of the
No additional collection or Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing following methods:
recordkeeping requirements would be Service. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
imposed on the public by withdrawing [FR Doc. 2017–27316 Filed 12–15–17; 8:45 am]
the OLPP final rule. Accordingly, OMB BILLING CODE 3410–02–P instructions for submitting comments.
clearance is not required by the • Email: Regulatory.Review@
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 hq.doe.gov. Include ‘‘Process Rule RFI’’
U.S.C. 3501), Chapter 35. Withdrawing in the subject line of the message.
the OLPP final rule will avoid an • Mail: U.S. Department of Energy,
estimated $1.95–$3.9 million in costs Office of the General Counsel, 1000
for increased paperwork burden Independence Avenue SW, Room
associated with that final rule. 6A245, Washington, DC 20585.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:21 Dec 15, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_60229/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2017-12-15 23:54:56
Document Modified: 2017-12-15 23:54:56
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed rule on or before January 17, 2018. | |
| Contact | Paul Lewis, Ph.D., Director, Standards Division, Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax: (202) 720-7808. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 59988 | |
| RIN Number | 0581-AD75 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR