### United States

Department of Agriculture Anim al and Plant Health Inspection Service May 201 3 **Analysis in Support of Certification that the** 

**Rule will not have a Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial Number of Small**  **Entities Proposed Rule**  **20 11**  **- 0101**  **RIN 0579 -**  **AD83 Amendments to the National Poultry**  **Improvement Plan Regulations, t**  **heir Auxiliary Provisions, and to**  **Avian Influenza Response**  **Regulations**

Policy & Program Development Policy Analysis & Development0

**Summary** This rulemaking would result in various changes to 9 CFR part s 56 and 145

– 147 , modifying provisions of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP)
. The proposed modifications are recommended by the NPIP General Conference Committee (GCC) , which represent s cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members and advise s the Secretary o n issues pertaining to poultry health. The proposed amendments to these regulations would improve the regulatory

environment for poultry

and poultry

products. This proposed rule would move approved tests and testing procedures from the Code of Federal Regulations to a program standards document ; add compartmentalization standards to the NPIP regulations ; and make a number of s pecific changes , including adding or amending definitions of technical terms to specific sections , amending poultry disease classifi cations and laboratory

procedures, and adding specific tests for certain poultry diseases. The e stablishments that would be affected b y the proposed rule

— principally

entities engage d in poultry

production and processing

— are predominantl y small by Small Bu siness Administration standards. Inthose instances in which an addition or modification could potentially result in a cost to certain entities, we do not expect the costs to be significant. This rule embodies changes decided upon b y the NPIP G C C on behalf of Plan members, that is, changes recognized by

the poultry

industry as in their interest. We note that NPI P membership is voluntary
. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determine d that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a subst antial number of small entities.1



### Introduction This analy sis provides the basis, as required by the Regulatory

Flexibility

Act, for certification by

the APHIS A dministrator that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would result in various changes to the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) regulations in 9 CFR parts 56 and 1 45

– 147
. R egulations found in 9 CFR 56 set the conditions for the control of and pay ment of indemnity

for H5 and H7 low pathogenic avian influenza . Regulations contained in 9 CFR parts 145 and 146 consist of the NPIP regulations for breeding poultry

and commercial poultry , respectively
. Part 147 contains the procedures for blood testing, bacteriological examination, sanitation, and changing the NPIP. The proposed modifications were discussed and recommended b y the NPIP General Conference Committee (GCC), which represent s cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members and advise s the Secretary on issues pertaining to poultry health
. The proposed amendments to these regu lations would improve the regulatory environment for poultry

and poultry products
. 

### Industry Background The United States is the world’ s largest broiler (chickens under 13 weeks old) and turkey producer and the second largest egg pro ducer. In 2011 , the combined value of production from broilers, eggs, turkey s, and chickens was $35.6 billion. 1 Broiler production ($23.2 billion) accounted for the major share , followed by eggs ($7.4 billion) , turkey ($5 billion) , and other chicken ($81.3 million)
. Broiler production is concentrated throughout the Southeast and Mid
- Atlantic coast (f igure 1 ) . The top three broiler
- produc ing S tates in 2011 were Georgia, Arkansas, and Alabama
. 2 That y ear, over 49.7 billion pounds of broilers were produced
. Most production is

1 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Poultry
- Producti on and Value 2011 Summary. April 2012. http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/PoulProdVa/PoulProdVa
- 04
- 26
- 2012.pdf 2 USDA Economic Research Service . Poultry and Eggs Background. May 2012. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal
- products/poultry
- eggs/background.aspx#.UWbycrXFVms2

under contract with a broiler processor , with growers supply ing the broiler
- houses and labor and processors suppl y ing the chicks, feed, and veterinary services
. U.S. per capita consumption for broilers in 2011 and 2012 was 82.9 pounds and 80.4 pounds , resp ectivel y , the largest of any m eat ty pe. 3 P er capita consumption of broilers has more than doubled over the last 40 y ears, averaging 40.0 pounds per year from 1970 to 1980 and 83.3 pounds per year from 2002 to 2012. 4 **Figure 1**  **. Num**  **ber of Broilers and Other Meat -**  **Type Chickens Sold: 2007**

3 USDA Economic Research Service. Livestock & Meat Domestic Data. April 2013. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data
products/livestock
- meat - dom estic
- data.aspx#26147 4 Ibid.3

Turkey production is more scattered than broiler production. The top three turkey
producing S tates are Minnesota, North Carolina, and Missouri (f igure 2 ) . U.S. Per capita consumption of turkey

was 16.1 pounds in 2011 and 16.0 pounds in 2012. Turkey per capita consumption has also practically doubled over the last 40 years, with average per capita consumption equaling 8.8 pounds per y ear from 1970 to 1980 a nd 16.9 pounds per year from 2002 to 2012. 5 **Figure 2**  **. Number of Turkeys Sold: 2007** 

U.S. egg operations produc e over 90 billion eggs annually . Approximately 67 billion eggs are produced annually for human consumption; the remaining one
- fourth of production is used for the hatching market and become breeding stock, replacement layers, or broilers. The top three egg
- producing S tates are Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (f igure 3 ) . U.S. per capita

5 Ibid
.4

consumption was 248 eggs in 2011 and 250 eggs in 2012. Per capita consumption of eggs has remained relativel y constant since the 1990s. 6 **Figure 3**  **. Layers Inventory: 2007** 



### Potential **Impact on Small Entities** This proposed rule consists of one broad and numerous specific changes. Based upon the recommendations of the NPI P GCC, t he broad change that APHIS proposes is m oving the names of approved tests and details on how to perform tests for various poultry diseases from the Code of Federal Regulations to a program standards document , including changes to the tests and testing procedures that were approved at the 2010 Plan Conference
. The s pecific p roposed changes would include, among others, adding or amending definitions of technical terms to specific sections , amending poultry disease classifications and

6 Ibid.5

laboratory

procedures, and adding specific tests for certain poultry diseases. Intotal there are 15 specific changes which were approved at the 2010 Plan Conference and 2012 Plan Conference. Establishments that would be affected b y the proposed rule

— principall y entities that engage in poultry

production or processing

— are predominantly small by Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. The major industries that would be affected are categorized according to the North American Industry Classification Sy stem as follows , and have the SB A small
- entity

standards indicated : Poultry Hatcheries (NAICS 112340 , not more than $7 50 ,000 in annual receipts), Other Poultry Production (NAICS 112390 , not more than $750 ,000 in annual receipts ), Poultry

Processing (NAICS 311615, not more than 500 employ ees), and Poultry and Poultry Product Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424440, not more than 1 00 employ ees )
. 7 A ffected entities would benefit from the movem ent of approved tests and testing procedures to a program standards document , the prov ision of compartmentalization standards, and the various specific regulatory changes included in this proposed rule. In those instances in which an addition or modificat ion could potentially result in a cost to certain entities , we do not expect the costs to be significant. This rule embodies changes decided upon by the NPIP G C C on behalf of members, that is, they are recognized by

the poultry

industry as regulatory

changes that would be in their interest. We note that NPIP membership is voluntary. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Anima l and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

7 U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards. http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf