This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

52643 

Vol. 82, No. 218 

Tuesday, November 14, 2017 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Doc. No. AMS–NOP–15–0012; NOP–15–06] 

RIN 0581–AD74 

National Organic Program (NOP); 

Organic Livestock and Poultry 

Practices 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective 

date. 

SUMMARY: The United States Department 

of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) is delaying the effective 

date of the Organic Livestock and 

Poultry Practices final rule published in 

the Federal Register on January 19, 

2017 (OLPP final rule), until May 14, 

2018. 

DATES: As of November 9, 2017, the 

effective date of the final rule published 

on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7042), 

delayed on February 9, 2017 (82 FR 

9967), further delayed on May 10, 2017 

(82 FR 21677), is further delayed until 

May 14, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Lewis, Ph.D., Director, Standards 

Division. Telephone: (202) 720–3252; 

Fax: (202) 260–9151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OLPP 

final rule amends the organic livestock 

and poultry production requirements of 

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 

rule finalized a proposed rule that AMS 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 13, 2016 (81 FR 21955). The OLPP 

final rule was scheduled to become 

effective on March 20, 2017. Consistent 

with the memorandum of January 20, 

2017, to the heads of executive 

departments and agencies from the 

Assistant to the President and Chief of 

Staff, entitled, ‘‘Regulatory Freeze 

Pending Review,’’ on February 9, 2017, 

AMS delayed the effective date of the 

OLPP final rule until May 19, 2017. 

Because significant policy and legal 

issues addressed within the final rule 

warranted further review by USDA, 

AMS delayed the effective date by an 

additional 180 days from May 19, 2017 

to November 14, 2017. In addition, AMS 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) that solicited public 

comments on the direction that USDA 

should take with respect to the rule. The 

NPRM presented four options for agency 

action: ‘‘Option 1: Implement,’’ allowing 

the Organic Livestock and Poultry 

Practices final rule to take effect on 

November 14, 2017; ‘‘Option 2: 

Suspend,’’ suspending the Organic 

Livestock and Poultry Practices final 

rule indefinitely; ‘‘Option 3: Delay,’’ 

delaying the Organic Livestock and 

Poultry Practices final rule’s effective 

date beyond November 14, 2017; and 

‘‘Option 4: Withdraw,’’ withdrawing the 

Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices 

final rule. The 30-day public comment 

period closed on June 9, 2017. 

AMS received over 47,000 comments 

on the four options for agency action. 

Over 40,000 of commenters, including 

over 34,600 submitted as form letters, 

supported ‘‘Option 1: Implement’’; 

twenty-eight other commenters 

supported ‘‘Option 4: Withdraw’’; a few 

chose ‘‘Option 2: Suspend’’; and only 

one chose ‘‘Option 3: Delay.’’ The 

remaining commenters did not indicate 

a clear preference. 

Most commenters supporting ‘‘Option 

1: Implement’’ expressed concern 

animals would be harmed if USDA did 

otherwise. Some said consumers expect 

animal welfare to be a part of organic 

certification and consumers are 

concerned about humane transport and 

slaughter procedures. Noting the 

inclusive nature of the rule 

development process, these commenters 

advocated for clear, consistent standards 

so that organic farmers would be on a 

‘‘level playing field.’’ Others said they 

believed ‘‘Option 1: Implement’’ would 

strengthen USDA’s organic seal broadly 

and benefit organic farmers. 

Commenters supporting ‘‘Option 2: 

Suspend’’ included veterinarians and 

farmers, and commenters supporting 

‘‘Option 4: Withdraw’’ included organic 

producers and trade associations. These 

commenters gave similar reasons for 

their positions, including the economic 

costs and regulatory compliance 

burdens; increased consumer prices and 

reduced availability of organic eggs; 

biosecurity and food safety risks; and 

potentially higher avian mortality rates. 

Some commenters stated that the 

Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices 

final rule is unnecessary because 

current regulations are sufficient and 

the final rule is outside the scope of the 

NOP’s authority and role. Others noted 

the significant investment costs in land 

and facilities that would be required to 

implement the poultry space and 

outdoor access requirements, making 

business unsustainable for many organic 

farmers. This final rule adopts Option 3: 

Delay, so that important questions 

regarding USDA’s statutory authority to 

promulgate the OLPP rule and the likely 

costs and benefits of that rule, can be 

more fully assessed through the notice 

and comment process prior to AMS 

making a final decision on whether the 

OLPP final rule should take effect. 

The Organic Livestock and Poultry 

Practices 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.) Although 

animal welfare is an important USDA 

priority, AMS believes that OFPA’s 

reference to additional regulatory 

standards ‘‘for the care’’ of organically 

produced livestock is limited to health 

care practices similar to those specified 

by Congress in the statute, rather than 

as reflecting a stand-alone concern for 

animal welfare. AMS intends to seek 

public comment on this interpretation. 

AMS also is concerned that the 

Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices 

final rule is not consistent with USDA 

regulatory policy principles, including 

those expressed in Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563, because the 

requirements in that rule may not 

represent the most innovative and least 

burdensome tools for achieving 

regulatory ends; may impose costs that 

are not justified by the potential 

benefits; and may not reasonably be 

tethered to OFPA’s statutory text, 

nature, and purpose. AMS intends to 

seek public comment on these 

questions. Of note, during the course of 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
52644 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

reviewing the rulemaking record for the 

OLPP final rule, AMS discovered a 

significant, material error in the 

mathematical calculation of the benefits 

estimates. With the material error, the 

regulatory impact analysis presented 

costs and benefits in a table that could 

be reasonably interpreted to conclude 

that benefits were likely to exceed the 

costs. (82 FR 7083–82 FR 7084.) 

However, AMS believes that the 

regulatory impact analysis’ calculation 

of benefits was flawed because the 

incorrect calculation was applied for the 

3 percent and 7 percent discount rates. 

Re-analysis using the correct 

mathematical calculations suggests that 

this error was material. It is not 

appropriate for AMS to allow a final 

rule to become effective based on a 

record containing such a material error. 

AMS intends to seek public comment 

on the revised calculation of benefits. 

Due to these significant concerns 

regarding statutory authority for, and 

costs and benefits of, the OLPP rule, 

including the question whether the 

OLPP final rule was based on a 

mathematically flawed assessment of 

benefits, AMS is selecting Option 3: 

Delay. AMS is issuing this final rule to 

further delay the effective date for until 

May 14, 2018 to allow for AMS to issue 

another notice of proposed rulemaking 

to receive comments on USDA statutory 

authority under the OFPA to regulate 

animal welfare; the likely costs and 

benefits of the OLPP rule viewed in 

terms of the statutory objectives of the 

OPFA, as interpreted above; whether the 

OLPP rule’s requirements represent the 

most innovate and least burdensome 

way to achieve regulatory ends; and the 

revised calculations and analysis of the 

benefits of the OLPP rule. This delay 

will provide additional time for AMS to 

solicit comment on these important 

issues and review all the comments 

prior to making a final decision on the 

direction of the OLPP final rule. 

To preserve the status quo rather than 

allow an expansive set of new 

requirements to become effective only to 

be delayed, suspended, or withdrawn a 

short time later and to allow AMS to 

receive and consider comments on the 

issues discussed above, this final rule 

action is effective upon publication 

because AMS believes that the 30-day 

delay is impracticable, unnecessary, and 

contrary to the public interest. When 

agencies establish good cause for an 

immediate effective date, Congress 

intended that, combined with 

unavoidable time limitations, ‘‘the 

primary consideration was to be the 

‘convenience or necessity of the people 

affected.’ ’’ United States v. Gavrilovic, 

551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) 

(citing S.Rep.No.752, 79th Cong., 1st 

Sess. 15 (1946); H.R.Rep.No.1980, 79th 

Cong., 2d Sess. 25 (1946)). Ordinarily, 

the thirty-day waiting period gives 

stakeholders and the public a reasonable 

time to adjust behavior. Omnipoint 

Corp. v. F.C.C., 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. 

Cir. 1996). In this case, however, a 

thirty-day waiting period would require 

stakeholders to begin changing their 

behavior to comply with the OLPP final 

rule, when that rule may be delayed, 

suspended, or withdrawn after the 

agency has completed review of 

comments in response to an notice of 

proposed rulemaking that will present 

the issues discussed above. It is also 

contrary to the public interest to allow 

a final rule that is based on a flawed 

record to become effective. Thus, and 

for the reasons stated above, waiting for 

thirty days to delay the effective date of 

the OLPP final rule is not warranted by 

‘‘convenience’’ and would be 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest. 

Dated: November 8, 2017. 

Sonia N. Jimenez, 

Acting Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24675 Filed 11–9–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2017–0712; Product 

Identifier 2017–NM–014–AD; Amendment 

39–19095; AD 2017–23–01] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc., Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016–13– 

14, which applied to certain 

Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC–8–400 

series airplanes. AD 2016–13–14 

required an inspection to determine if 

certain left and right main landing gear 

(MLG) retract actuator rod ends were 

installed, repetitive liquid penetrant 

inspections (LPIs) of affected left and 

right MLG retract actuator rod ends, and 

corrective actions if necessary. This new 

AD retains the actions specified in AD 

2016–13–14 and also requires 

replacement of the left and right MLG 

retract actuator rod ends. This AD was 

prompted by a report of a cracked MLG 

retract actuator rod end. We are issuing 

this AD to address the unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective December 

19, 2017. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of July 20, 2016 (81 FR 43481, July 

5, 2016). 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical 

Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, 

Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; 

telephone: 416–375–4000; fax: 416– 

375–4539; email: thd.qseries@

aero.bombardier.com; Internet: http://

www.bombardier.com. You may view 

this referenced service information at 

the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. It is also available on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2017–0712. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2017– 

0712; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (telephone: 800–647– 

5527) is Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz 

Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, 

New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 

11590; telephone: 516–228–7329; fax: 

516–794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2016–13–14, 

Amendment 39–18579 (81 FR 43481, 

July 5, 2016) (‘‘AD 2016–13–14’’). AD 

2016–13–14 applied to certain 

Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC–8–400 

series airplanes. The NPRM published 

in the Federal Register on July 28, 2017 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES