80_FR_25984 80 FR 25897 - National Organic Program Regulations; Section 610 Review

80 FR 25897 - National Organic Program Regulations; Section 610 Review

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 87 (May 6, 2015)

Page Range25897-25901
FR Document2015-10446

This document summarizes the findings of a USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) review of the National Organic Program (NOP) which is implemented under the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA). The review criteria are stipulated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in section 610. Based upon this review, the AMS has determined that the USDA organic regulations meet the objectives of the OFPA and should continue. Since becoming effective on the October 21, 2002, there have been multiple amendments to the USDA organic regulations. Most of these amendments were additions to or deletions from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List).

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25897-25901]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10446]



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

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

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


Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 25897]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 205

[Docket Numbers AMS-NOP-11-0005; AMS-NOP-11-01]


National Organic Program Regulations; Section 610 Review

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Confirmation of regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document summarizes the findings of a USDA Agricultural 
Marketing Service (AMS) review of the National Organic Program (NOP) 
which is implemented under the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA). The 
review criteria are stipulated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 
in section 610. Based upon this review, the AMS has determined that the 
USDA organic regulations meet the objectives of the OFPA and should 
continue. Since becoming effective on the October 21, 2002, there have 
been multiple amendments to the USDA organic regulations. Most of these 
amendments were additions to or deletions from the National List of 
Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List).

DATES: Effective May 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested persons may obtain a copy 
of the review. Requests for a copy of the review should be sent to 
Jennifer Tucker, Ph.D., Acting Director, Standards Division, National 
Organic Program, USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2648-
S., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268. Telephone: (202) 720-3252, 
Fax. (202) 205-7808 or email: [email protected], or by 
accessing the Web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Organic Program (NOP) is 
authorized by the Organic Foods Protection Act (OFPA) of 1990, as 
amended (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522). The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service 
(AMS) administers the NOP. Final regulations implementing the NOP were 
published December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80548), and became effective on 
October 21, 2002. Through these regulations, the AMS oversees national 
standards for the production, handling, and labeling of organically 
produced agricultural products.
    The OFPA authorizes the certification and inspection of crop, wild 
crop, livestock, or handling operations that label, market or represent 
agricultural products as organic. The OFPA also provides authorization 
for the NOP to accredit state and private certifying agents to certify 
organic crop, wild crop, livestock, or handling operations to the USDA 
organic regulations in the United States and internationally. Since 
becoming fully effective in 2002, the USDA organic regulations have 
been frequently amended. Most of these amendments were changes to the 
National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List) in 7 
CFR 205.601-205.606.
    This National List identifies the synthetic substances that may be 
used and the nonsynthetic (natural) substances that may not be used in 
organic production. The National List also identifies synthetic, 
nonsynthetic nonagricultural, and nonorganic agricultural substances 
that may be used in organic handling. The OFPA and the NOP regulations, 
in Sec.  205.105, specifically prohibit the use of any synthetic 
substance in organic production and handling unless the synthetic 
substance is on the National List. Section 205.105 also requires that 
any nonorganic agricultural and any nonsynthetic nonagricultural 
substance used in organic handling appear on the National List.
    Recommendations to amend the National List are developed by the 
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a 15-member advisory board 
composed of four organic farmers; two organic handlers; one retailer; 
three experts in environmental protection and resource conservation; 
three consumer or public interest group members; one expert in 
toxicology, ecology, or biochemistry and; one certifying agent 
representative. The NOSB is organized under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2 et seq.) to assist in the development of 
standards for substances to be used or not used in organic production 
and handling, and to advise the Secretary on any other sections of the 
USDA organic regulations. NOSB members are nominated by the organic 
community and selected by the Secretary. The OFPA also requires a 
review of all substances on the National List within 5 years of their 
addition or renewal. If a substance is not reviewed by the NOSB and 
renewed through rulemaking by the USDA within the five year period, its 
allowance or prohibition on the National List is no longer in effect (7 
U.S.C. 6517(e)).
    As of January 2, 2014, there are 27,108 producer and handler 
operations certified to the USDA organic regulations. Some of these 
certified operations are certified as ``grower groups,'' certified as a 
single entity, but consisting of groups of ten to thousands of small 
organic producers. The USDA organic regulations, as authorized by the 
OFPA, are implemented and applied uniformly and are designed to benefit 
all entities, regardless of size.
    On March 24, 2006, the AMS published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
14827), its schedule to review certain regulations, including the NOP, 
under criteria contained in section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601-612). 
Because many AMS regulations impact small entities, AMS decided, as a 
matter of policy, to periodically review certain regulations, 
irrespective of whether specific regulations meet the threshold 
requirement for mandatory review established by the RFA.
    A Notice of Regulatory Flexibility Act: Section 610 Review of the 
USDA organic regulations was published in the Federal Register on 
February 25, 2011 (76 FR 10527). This notice indicated AMS would 
implement specific criteria contained in section 610 of the RFA during 
the review of the USDA organic regulations that have a significant 
effect on a substantial number of small entities to determine whether 
any effect can be decreased or minimized. The purpose of the review is 
for AMS to determine whether the USDA organic regulations should be 
continued without change, amended or rescinded, consistent with the 
objectives of OFPA, to minimize impact on small entities. The review

[[Page 25898]]

considered these factors: (1) The continued need for the regulations; 
(2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public 
concerning the regulations; (3) the complexity of the regulations; (4) 
the extent to which the regulations overlap, duplicate, or conflict 
with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and 
local government rules; and (5) the length of time since the 
regulations have been evaluated or the degree to which technology, 
economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected 
by the regulations. The notice invited the general public and 
interested parties to submit written comments on the impact of the 
regulations on small business.
    In response to this notice, the NOP received written comments from 
five organic producers (two crop, one wild crop, and two livestock), 
three accredited certifying agents, three handlers (an ingredient 
supplier, a retailer, and a beverage association), two consumers, and 
an organic business consultant, for a total of fourteen comments.
    Of the fourteen comments received, eight commenters specifically 
addressed the need for the regulations to continue, and not be 
terminated or rescinded. Five additional commenters proposed amendments 
or made recommendations about issues for the NOP to consider. One 
commenter stated that certification of organic products was unfair 
because of time commitment and expense. This commenter alternatively 
proposed that conventional operations should be certified to assess 
inputs used on these operations. Nine commenters described their 
concerns with the program or described concerns regarding the 
regulations. Eight commenters specifically addressed the complexity of 
the regulations either by indicating that the complexity of the 
regulations can be problematic at times, or that a significant level of 
complexity is needed to ensure organic product integrity. There were 
five comments on whether the regulations overlap, duplicate, or 
conflict with other Federal, State or Local government regulation. Four 
commenters specifically addressed the RFA section 610 review criteria 
regarding impacts on small entities as a result of changes in 
technology, economic conditions, or other factors that may have 
impacted an area affected by the regulations since the regulations 
became effective on October 21, 2002.
    One commenter, a certifying agent, addressed all of the factors 
considered in the RFA section 610 review of the USDA organic 
regulations. Most of the commenters addressed three out of five of the 
review factors. Comments are categorically grouped and discussed below.
    Comments from organic producers supported continuation of the 
regulations, but some did include concerns with the program or included 
proposed amendments for improving it. An organic seed producer 
expressed support for the continuation of the regulations, but 
suggested that NOP has not adequately enforced the requirement for the 
use of organic seed when commercially available as required by 7 CFR 
205.204(a). This commenter also suggested that some certifying agents 
may be routinely allowing the use of non-organic seed, even though high 
quality organic seed is available in commercial quality and quantity. 
The commenter requested increased enforcement of the organic seed 
regulation requirements to ensure organic seed is being utilized by 
organic producers. In response to comments received at public meetings, 
the NOSB provided the NOP with recommendations that outlined concepts 
and procedures for determining commercial availability of organic seeds 
and planting stock. In response, the NOP published final guidance NOP 
5029: Seeds, Annual Seedlings, and Planting Stock in Organic Crop 
Production, in the NOP Program Handbook on February 28, 2013.\1\ This 
guidance describes practices for certified operations to use to obtain 
all organic seeds, annual seedlings, and planting stock in support of 
their organic production. The guidance also describes the 
responsibilities of organic operations and certifying agents for 
sourcing organic seeds and planting stock and emphasizes the 
utilization of organic seed is a requirement of the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NOP final guidance, instructions, and policy memos can be 
found in the NOP Program Handbook, available on the NOP Web site at: 
http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOPProgramHandbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A certified organic fruit producer commented on being prevented 
from using an organic label claim on his organic fruit alcohol product 
because of added sulfites. The commenter stated that because of the 
restriction with added sulfites limited for use with only organic 
grapes, a ``made with organic. . .'' claim could not be used on the 
product label. On October 31, 2011, the NOP published Policy Memo 10-2: 
Sulfur Dioxide in wine made with organic fruit, in the Program 
Handbook.\2\ This policy memo stipulates that added sulfites, as sulfur 
dioxide, can only be used in organic wine made from organic grapes as 
specified on the National List in Sec.  205.605(b). The allowance for 
sulfur dioxide on the National List limits the use of sulfur dioxide to 
only wine made with organic grapes and can only be labeled as ``made 
with organic grapes.'' Changing the allowance of sulfur dioxide in 
organic wine can be considered through submission of a National List 
petition to amend the annotation, and subsequent rulemaking to amend 
the regulations. As per 7 CFR 205.607 of the USDA organic regulations, 
any person may submit a petition to change or amend the National List 
according to petition procedures published on January 18, 2007 (72 FR 
2167).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ibid.
    \3\ Notice of Guidelines on Procedures for Submitting National 
List Petitions, January 18, 2007, available on the NOP Web site: 
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navID=NationalOrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPFilingaPetition&description=Filing%20a%20Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An organic wild crop producer supported continuation of the 
regulations, concluding there is an ongoing need for Federal regulation 
and oversight of the term ``organic'' as it applies to all products 
being produced and handled organically. The commenter also stated 
accredited certifying agents should ensure that organic livestock 
producers are providing organic livestock with organic feed 
ingredients. The commenter specifically mentioned organic wild 
harvested kelp. The commenter claimed ensuring the feeding of organic 
kelp would enhance his organization's opportunity to develop and 
maintain additional certified organic wild crop harvesting sites for 
kelp, and would support the growth of the business. On February 28, 
2013, the NOP published guidance document NOP 5057: The Use of Kelp in 
Organic Livestock Feed.\4\ This guidance establishes that kelp may be 
certified organic as a wild crop under 7 CFR 205.207 and must be 
certified organic if used as an ingredient in livestock feed per Sec.  
205.237. The guidance applies to all NOP certifying agents that certify 
kelp and certified organic operations that feed kelp to organic 
livestock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NOP 5057: The Use of Kelp in Organic Livestock Feed, 
available in the NOP Program Handbook on the NOP Web site at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOPProgramHandbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A small livestock producer requested the program increase the 
$5,000 exemption limit for organic certification. There is an exemption 
from certification for organic producers and handlers who sell less 
than $5,000 in organic agricultural products per year

[[Page 25899]]

(7 U.S.C. 6505; 7 CFR 205.101(a)). The livestock producer pointed out 
that the OFPA was passed in 1990, and the $5,000 limit has been subject 
to inflation since 1990. This commenter proposed that the small 
operation exemption be raised to $10,000 or $20,000. Since the $5,000 
exemption from certification is a specific OFPA requirement, an 
increase in the exemption amount must be enacted through Congress and 
cannot be amended through the regulatory process.
    A veterinarian, who also is an organic egg producer, supports the 
NOP, stating there is a good system of certifiers and inspectors in 
place. However, this commenter expressed concern with changes in 
poultry health care practices and living condition standards being 
advocated by some organizations. The comments addressed issues on 
poultry access to pasture, animal behavior, bird stocking rate, age of 
bird, and temporary confinement. According to the commenter, changes in 
the organic standards on these issues should be based upon scientific 
merit, and not on human desires and social interactions. During NOSB 
deliberations, the NOSB considered technical information on livestock 
practice standards. In 2009 and 2011, the NOSB forwarded several 
recommendations on establishing more specific animal welfare 
requirements. These recommendations addressed issues on animal handling 
and transport and animal welfare, including stocking rates and 
livestock health care. The NOP is currently evaluating these 
recommendations to determine how to effectively process these 
recommendations through rulemaking.
    Three accredited certifying agents provided comments in support of 
continuation of the regulations. A small accredited certifying agent 
commented on the burden of the expense of the periodic USDA-required 
accreditation audits on small organic certifiers and requested that 
audit fees should be scaled upon the size of the certifier. The two 
larger certifying agents also commented on the paperwork burden on 
operations seeking certification or continuing with certification. One 
certifying agent affirmed the need for regulations as critical to 
assure integrity and maintain consumer confidence in the organic 
industry. However, comments received from clients regarding the 
regulations were mostly concerned with the amount of paperwork required 
for recordkeeping, which some considered to be excessive and 
burdensome. This certifying agent stated there is a need to streamline 
paperwork and recordkeeping requirements for all organic operations. 
Another certifying agent also addressed the burden faced by certified 
operations, specifically organic dairy operations complying with 
pasture practice standards. This commenter stated that the pasture 
practice standards rule (75 FR 7154) was not needed, was excessively 
complex, would cause significant adverse effects for many small farms, 
and would be difficult for certifying agents to effectively implement. 
The NOP is aware of the commenter's concerns and notes that the pasture 
practice standards were developed over a period of five years with 
input of multiple stakeholders. There were a significant number of oral 
and written responses submitted during public comment periods 
associated with the development of this rule. The majority of 
commenters, including many dairy operations, supported the addition of 
detailed pasture practice standards.
    During NOP trainings for accredited certifying agents conducted in 
2012 and 2013, the NOP received statements from certifying agents on 
farmers reporting that they are spending too much of their time 
completing program forms and maintaining program records. As required 
in 7 CFR 205.103, recordkeeping is essential to ensure organic 
operations are implementing required organic practice standards. The 
NOP has considered how to minimize the regulatory burden when 
implementing the regulations. As a result, the NOP began implementing 
an initiative in 2013 to identify and remove barriers to certification, 
to streamline the certification process, to focus enforcement 
activities, and to work with organic producers and handlers to correct 
small issues before they become larger issues. When developing this 
initiative, the NOP outlined five objectives: (1) Develop efficient 
processes by eliminating bureaucratic processes that do not contribute 
to organic integrity; (2) streamline recordkeeping requirements to 
ensure that required records support organic integrity and are not a 
barrier for farms and businesses to maintain organic compliance; (3) 
apply common sense to an operation's organic system plans that clearly 
capture organic practices; (4) implement fair and focused enforcement; 
and (5) maintain or improve organic integrity by focusing on factors 
that impact organic integrity. The NOP continues to work with 
certifying agents to implement these objectives with regard to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for certifying agents and 
organic producers and handlers.
    Three organic handlers commented on the RFA Section 610 review. An 
ingredient processor submitted a comment requesting clarification on 
why non-organic ethanol is not permitted in the U.S. for use in 
processing organic products. The processor stated that their product, 
processed with ethanol, was marketed with an organic label in the 
European Union (EU), where ethanol is allowed for organic processing in 
the EU regulations. In the U.S., ethanol is available in certified 
organic, natural, and synthetic forms. The use of certified organic 
ethanol would be permitted in the production of the processor's product 
under the USDA organic regulations. Non-organic ethanol is allowed for 
use in organic crop and livestock production as a sanitizer. Non-
organic ethanol cannot be used in organic processing under the USDA 
organic regulations since it is not included on the National List in 
either 7 CFR 205.605 or 7 CFR 205.606. Use of non-organic ethanol in 
organic processing requires amendment of the National List through the 
petition process to include non-organic ethanol on the National List, 
and subsequent rulemaking.
    A beverage association comment disagreed with Alcohol, Tobacco Tax, 
and Trade Bureau (TTB) labeling requirements for wine that requires 
approval for changes to a vintage year on an organic wine label that 
was previously approved. This requirement is outside of the scope of 
the USDA organic regulations. The TTB reviews and approves wine labels, 
including any requirements for changing the vintage year. Under a 
Memorandum of Understanding between AMS and TTB, the TTB receives, 
reviews, and approves or rejects labeling applications for alcohol 
products bearing an organic claim. TTB has informed the NOP of their 
change in the TTB list of the allowable revisions that may be made to 
an approved label without the need for resubmission contained on the 
TTB Application for and certification of label/bottle approval. TTB 
removed the caveat that the change in vintage dates did not apply to 
organic products.
    A comment from an organic co-operative retailer supported the 
continued need for the regulations. The commenter gave a description of 
the positive impacts of the complexity of the regulation on their 
business, and emphasized that the regulations do not overlap, 
duplicate, or conflict with other Federal, state or local rules for the 
operation.

[[Page 25900]]

    A comment from a consumer claimed that certification requirements 
for organic operations are unfair because nonorganic operations are not 
required to disclose to the public the uses of harmful substances. All 
food products in the normal stream of commerce are subject to Federal, 
state, and local laws and regulatory requirements that contribute to 
maintaining food safety and restrict or prohibit the use of harmful 
substances.
    Another consumer comment expressed support for continuation of the 
regulations. This commenter chooses organic products to assure that the 
food is raised humanely and without synthetic ingredients. However, the 
commenter also expressed concern that the regulations may be more 
burdensome to small dairy operations. As noted in prior discussion, the 
NOP started an initiative on 2013 to reduce the regulatory burden on 
organic operations.
    An organic agricultural business expressed strong support for 
continuation of the regulations. This commenter stated that the 
regulations need to be routinely amended since organic production is 
based upon a concept of continual improvement, and the regulation 
should adhere to this principle. Such amendments should take into 
account innovations and improvements by organic practitioners. The 
commenter proposed several amendments to the regulations, some of these 
proposed amendments were identified as opportunities to decrease 
regulatory complexity and reduce regulatory burden without sacrificing 
organic integrity or compromise consumer confidence. A summary of these 
proposed amendments include:
     The NOP should prohibit blending of organic and non-
organic forms of the same ingredient in ``made with organic'' products. 
On May 2, 2014, the NOP published final guidance NOP 5032: Products in 
the ``made with Organic * * * Labeling Category to address this 
issue.\5\ This guidance describes requirements for products in the 
``made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))'' 
category. This guidance clarifies product composition, labeling claims, 
use of organic and nonorganic forms of the same ingredient, percentage 
of organic ingredient statements, and ingredients or food groups in the 
``made with organic * * *'' claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NOP 5032: Products in the ``made with Organic * * * Labeling 
Category, available in the NOP Program Handbook on the NOP Web site 
at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOPProgramHandbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The regulations should allow the use of non-synthetic 
substances allowed for use in crop production to control pest 
infestation in post-harvest handling pest control when preventive 
practices are ineffective. On April 25, 2014, the NOP published draft 
guidance, NOP 5023: Substances Used in Post-Harvest Handling of Organic 
Products.\6\ This draft guidance describes substances that may be used 
in post-harvest handling of organic products. The guidance clarifies: 
(1) What substances may be used; (2) the difference between post-
harvest handling of raw agricultural crops and further processing; and 
(3) the provisions for facility pest management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Draft Guidance NOP 5023: Substances Used in Post-Harvest 
Handling of Organic Products. NOP draft guidance can be found on the 
NOP Web site at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOPDraftGuidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The NOP should amend 7 CFR 205.237(a) to allow commercial 
availability to be applied to minor agricultural ingredients fed to 
organic livestock to alleviate burden on small organic livestock 
producers. On February 28, 2013, the NOP published NOP 5030, Evaluating 
Allowed Ingredients and Sources of Vitamins and Minerals For Organic 
Livestock Feed.\7\ This guidance clarifies the agricultural, 
nonsynthetic, and synthetic ingredients permitted in organic livestock 
feed and also addresses the feed supplements and feed additives that 
must be reviewed for compliance with regulations. Under the USDA 
organic regulations, organic producers must provide livestock feed 
pursuant to 7 CFR 205.237. Section 205.237 states that agricultural 
ingredients included in the ingredients list for livestock feed 
products must be organically produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NOP 5030: Evaluating Allowed Ingredients and Sources of 
Vitamins and Minerals For Organic Livestock Feed, available in the 
NOP Program Handbook on the NOP Web site at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOPProgramHandbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The NOP should amend the National List petition procedures 
and processes as they are complicated, costly, lengthy, arbitrary, and 
may not provide due process to the petitioners. In May 2014, the NOP in 
collaboration with the NOSB initiated a process to revise National List 
petition procedures in an effort to make the petition submission 
procedures clearer for petitioners. The revised procedures will clarify 
how to submit complete petitions, explain to petitioners what to expect 
in the petition process, and make the review process for the NOSB 
clearer and more consistent.
     The NOP should increase collaboration between NOP and 
other government agencies with authority related to organic 
agricultural production. Historically, NOP has established and 
maintained collaborative interactions with the U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) on organic food processing and handling and 
livestock healthcare products and feed ingredients; with the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on pest control ingredients and 
applications; with TTB on labeling of organic alcohol beverages; and 
with the Federal Trade Commission on product labeling. As part of these 
interactions, NOP continues to collaborate regarding agricultural 
products that fall within the scope of organic certification.
     The NOP should alter restrictions on the use of plastic 
mulch (Sec.  205.601(b)(2)(ii)) so that biodegradable plastic mulch 
could remain on the soil beyond harvest or end of the growing season. 
The commenter indicated there is no listing for mulch made from 
biodegradable plastic on the National List, and a petition would have 
to be submitted to add this new material. In August 2013, the NOP 
published proposed rule (78 FR 52100), based upon NOSB recommendations, 
which would add a new definition for biodegradable biobased mulch film 
to 7 CFR 205.2 and add biodegradable biobased mulch film to the 
National List in 7 CFR 205.601 for use in organic crop production.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ National Organic Program; Proposed Amendments to the 
National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (Crops and 
Processing); Proposed rule; Available on the NOP Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5104847

Upon the completion of the RFA Section 610 review of the USDA organic 
regulations, AMS has determined that there is no critical need to amend 
the regulations. Since becoming effective on the October 21, 2002, 
there have been multiple amendments of the regulations, mostly to the 
National List. Some of these amendments have reduced the burden on 
small operations, while some amendments, that have served to protect 
organic integrity and support consumer confidence, may have increased 
the burden on small operations. Based on the findings from the review, 
AMS has determined that the NOP is not overly complex and does not 
significantly overlap, or conflict with other regulations.
    Based upon the review, AMS has determined that the NOP should 
continue. The USDA organic regulations are dynamic in nature and the 
NOP continues to collaborate with the NOSB and the organic community on 
rulemaking and development of guidance documents, such as recently 
published rulemaking on pesticide residue testing, and published 
guidance on composting, wild crop harvesting,

[[Page 25901]]

handling unpackaged organic goods, and the list of permitted substances 
for crops.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 6501-6522.

    Dated: April 30, 2015.
Rex A. Barnes,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-10446 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-02-P



                                                                                                                                                                                             25897

                                            Rules and Regulations                                                                                         Federal Register
                                                                                                                                                          Vol. 80, No. 87

                                                                                                                                                          Wednesday, May 6, 2015



                                            This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER                    authorized by the Organic Foods                       under the Federal Advisory Committee
                                            contains regulatory documents having general            Protection Act (OFPA) of 1990, as                     Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2 et seq.) to assist in
                                            applicability and legal effect, most of which           amended (7 U.S.C. 6501–6522). The                     the development of standards for
                                            are keyed to and codified in the Code of                USDA Agricultural Marketing Service                   substances to be used or not used in
                                            Federal Regulations, which is published under           (AMS) administers the NOP. Final                      organic production and handling, and to
                                            50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
                                                                                                    regulations implementing the NOP were                 advise the Secretary on any other
                                            The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by              published December 21, 2000 (65 FR                    sections of the USDA organic
                                            the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of              80548), and became effective on October               regulations. NOSB members are
                                            new books are listed in the first FEDERAL               21, 2002. Through these regulations, the              nominated by the organic community
                                            REGISTER issue of each week.                            AMS oversees national standards for the               and selected by the Secretary. The
                                                                                                    production, handling, and labeling of                 OFPA also requires a review of all
                                                                                                    organically produced agricultural                     substances on the National List within
                                            DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE                               products.                                             5 years of their addition or renewal. If
                                                                                                       The OFPA authorizes the certification              a substance is not reviewed by the
                                            Agricultural Marketing Service                          and inspection of crop, wild crop,                    NOSB and renewed through rulemaking
                                                                                                    livestock, or handling operations that                by the USDA within the five year
                                            7 CFR Part 205                                          label, market or represent agricultural               period, its allowance or prohibition on
                                            [Docket Numbers AMS–NOP–11–0005;                        products as organic. The OFPA also                    the National List is no longer in effect
                                            AMS–NOP–11–01]                                          provides authorization for the NOP to                 (7 U.S.C. 6517(e)).
                                                                                                    accredit state and private certifying                    As of January 2, 2014, there are 27,108
                                            National Organic Program                                agents to certify organic crop, wild crop,            producer and handler operations
                                            Regulations; Section 610 Review                         livestock, or handling operations to the              certified to the USDA organic
                                            AGENCY:  Agricultural Marketing Service,                USDA organic regulations in the United                regulations. Some of these certified
                                            USDA.                                                   States and internationally. Since                     operations are certified as ‘‘grower
                                            ACTION: Confirmation of regulations.                    becoming fully effective in 2002, the                 groups,’’ certified as a single entity, but
                                                                                                    USDA organic regulations have been                    consisting of groups of ten to thousands
                                            SUMMARY:    This document summarizes                    frequently amended. Most of these                     of small organic producers. The USDA
                                            the findings of a USDA Agricultural                     amendments were changes to the                        organic regulations, as authorized by the
                                            Marketing Service (AMS) review of the                   National List of Allowed and Prohibited               OFPA, are implemented and applied
                                            National Organic Program (NOP) which                    Substances (National List) in 7 CFR                   uniformly and are designed to benefit
                                            is implemented under the Organic Food                   205.601–205.606.                                      all entities, regardless of size.
                                            Production Act (OFPA). The review                          This National List identifies the                     On March 24, 2006, the AMS
                                            criteria are stipulated by the Regulatory               synthetic substances that may be used                 published in the Federal Register (71
                                            Flexibility Act (RFA), in section 610.                  and the nonsynthetic (natural)                        FR 14827), its schedule to review
                                            Based upon this review, the AMS has                     substances that may not be used in                    certain regulations, including the NOP,
                                            determined that the USDA organic                        organic production. The National List                 under criteria contained in section 610
                                            regulations meet the objectives of the                  also identifies synthetic, nonsynthetic               of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601–612). Because
                                            OFPA and should continue. Since                         nonagricultural, and nonorganic                       many AMS regulations impact small
                                            becoming effective on the October 21,                   agricultural substances that may be used              entities, AMS decided, as a matter of
                                            2002, there have been multiple                          in organic handling. The OFPA and the                 policy, to periodically review certain
                                            amendments to the USDA organic                          NOP regulations, in § 205.105,                        regulations, irrespective of whether
                                            regulations. Most of these amendments                   specifically prohibit the use of any                  specific regulations meet the threshold
                                            were additions to or deletions from the                 synthetic substance in organic                        requirement for mandatory review
                                            National List of Allowed and Prohibited                 production and handling unless the                    established by the RFA.
                                            Substances (National List).                             synthetic substance is on the National                   A Notice of Regulatory Flexibility Act:
                                            DATES: Effective May 6, 2015.                           List. Section 205.105 also requires that              Section 610 Review of the USDA
                                            FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                        any nonorganic agricultural and any                   organic regulations was published in the
                                            Interested persons may obtain a copy of                 nonsynthetic nonagricultural substance                Federal Register on February 25, 2011
                                            the review. Requests for a copy of the                  used in organic handling appear on the                (76 FR 10527). This notice indicated
                                            review should be sent to Jennifer                       National List.                                        AMS would implement specific criteria
                                            Tucker, Ph.D., Acting Director,                            Recommendations to amend the                       contained in section 610 of the RFA
                                            Standards Division, National Organic                    National List are developed by the                    during the review of the USDA organic
                                            Program, USDA–AMS–NOP, 1400                             National Organic Standards Board                      regulations that have a significant effect
                                            Independence Ave. SW., Room 2648–S.,                    (NOSB), a 15-member advisory board                    on a substantial number of small entities
                                            Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250–                     composed of four organic farmers; two                 to determine whether any effect can be
                                            0268. Telephone: (202) 720–3252, Fax.                   organic handlers; one retailer; three                 decreased or minimized. The purpose of
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                            (202) 205–7808 or email:                                experts in environmental protection and               the review is for AMS to determine
                                            Jennifer.Tucker@ams.usda.gov, or by                     resource conservation; three consumer                 whether the USDA organic regulations
                                            accessing the Web site at http://                       or public interest group members; one                 should be continued without change,
                                            www.ams.usda.gov/nop.                                   expert in toxicology, ecology, or                     amended or rescinded, consistent with
                                            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The                          biochemistry and; one certifying agent                the objectives of OFPA, to minimize
                                            National Organic Program (NOP) is                       representative. The NOSB is organized                 impact on small entities. The review


                                       VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:11 May 05, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00001   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM   06MYR1


                                            25898              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

                                            considered these factors: (1) The                       of the review factors. Comments are                   wine made from organic grapes as
                                            continued need for the regulations; (2)                 categorically grouped and discussed                   specified on the National List in
                                            the nature of complaints or comments                    below.                                                § 205.605(b). The allowance for sulfur
                                            received from the public concerning the                    Comments from organic producers                    dioxide on the National List limits the
                                            regulations; (3) the complexity of the                  supported continuation of the                         use of sulfur dioxide to only wine made
                                            regulations; (4) the extent to which the                regulations, but some did include                     with organic grapes and can only be
                                            regulations overlap, duplicate, or                      concerns with the program or included                 labeled as ‘‘made with organic grapes.’’
                                            conflict with other Federal rules, and, to              proposed amendments for improving it.                 Changing the allowance of sulfur
                                            the extent feasible, with State and local               An organic seed producer expressed                    dioxide in organic wine can be
                                            government rules; and (5) the length of                 support for the continuation of the                   considered through submission of a
                                            time since the regulations have been                    regulations, but suggested that NOP has               National List petition to amend the
                                            evaluated or the degree to which                        not adequately enforced the requirement               annotation, and subsequent rulemaking
                                            technology, economic conditions, or                     for the use of organic seed when                      to amend the regulations. As per 7 CFR
                                            other factors have changed in the area                  commercially available as required by 7               205.607 of the USDA organic
                                            affected by the regulations. The notice                 CFR 205.204(a). This commenter also                   regulations, any person may submit a
                                            invited the general public and interested               suggested that some certifying agents                 petition to change or amend the
                                            parties to submit written comments on                   may be routinely allowing the use of                  National List according to petition
                                            the impact of the regulations on small                  non-organic seed, even though high                    procedures published on January 18,
                                            business.                                               quality organic seed is available in                  2007 (72 FR 2167).3
                                               In response to this notice, the NOP                  commercial quality and quantity. The                     An organic wild crop producer
                                            received written comments from five                     commenter requested increased                         supported continuation of the
                                            organic producers (two crop, one wild                   enforcement of the organic seed                       regulations, concluding there is an
                                            crop, and two livestock), three                         regulation requirements to ensure                     ongoing need for Federal regulation and
                                            accredited certifying agents, three                     organic seed is being utilized by organic             oversight of the term ‘‘organic’’ as it
                                            handlers (an ingredient supplier, a                     producers. In response to comments                    applies to all products being produced
                                            retailer, and a beverage association), two              received at public meetings, the NOSB                 and handled organically. The
                                            consumers, and an organic business                      provided the NOP with                                 commenter also stated accredited
                                            consultant, for a total of fourteen                     recommendations that outlined                         certifying agents should ensure that
                                            comments.                                               concepts and procedures for                           organic livestock producers are
                                               Of the fourteen comments received,                   determining commercial availability of                providing organic livestock with organic
                                            eight commenters specifically addressed                 organic seeds and planting stock. In                  feed ingredients. The commenter
                                            the need for the regulations to continue,               response, the NOP published final                     specifically mentioned organic wild
                                            and not be terminated or rescinded. Five                                                                      harvested kelp. The commenter claimed
                                                                                                    guidance NOP 5029: Seeds, Annual
                                            additional commenters proposed                                                                                ensuring the feeding of organic kelp
                                                                                                    Seedlings, and Planting Stock in
                                            amendments or made recommendations                                                                            would enhance his organization’s
                                                                                                    Organic Crop Production, in the NOP
                                            about issues for the NOP to consider.                                                                         opportunity to develop and maintain
                                                                                                    Program Handbook on February 28,
                                            One commenter stated that certification                                                                       additional certified organic wild crop
                                                                                                    2013.1 This guidance describes practices
                                            of organic products was unfair because                                                                        harvesting sites for kelp, and would
                                                                                                    for certified operations to use to obtain
                                            of time commitment and expense. This                                                                          support the growth of the business. On
                                                                                                    all organic seeds, annual seedlings, and
                                            commenter alternatively proposed that                                                                         February 28, 2013, the NOP published
                                                                                                    planting stock in support of their
                                            conventional operations should be                                                                             guidance document NOP 5057: The Use
                                                                                                    organic production. The guidance also
                                            certified to assess inputs used on these                                                                      of Kelp in Organic Livestock Feed.4 This
                                            operations. Nine commenters described                   describes the responsibilities of organic
                                                                                                                                                          guidance establishes that kelp may be
                                            their concerns with the program or                      operations and certifying agents for
                                                                                                                                                          certified organic as a wild crop under 7
                                            described concerns regarding the                        sourcing organic seeds and planting
                                                                                                                                                          CFR 205.207 and must be certified
                                            regulations. Eight commenters                           stock and emphasizes the utilization of
                                                                                                                                                          organic if used as an ingredient in
                                            specifically addressed the complexity of                organic seed is a requirement of the
                                                                                                                                                          livestock feed per § 205.237. The
                                            the regulations either by indicating that               regulations.
                                                                                                                                                          guidance applies to all NOP certifying
                                            the complexity of the regulations can be                   A certified organic fruit producer
                                                                                                                                                          agents that certify kelp and certified
                                            problematic at times, or that a                         commented on being prevented from                     organic operations that feed kelp to
                                            significant level of complexity is needed               using an organic label claim on his                   organic livestock.
                                            to ensure organic product integrity.                    organic fruit alcohol product because of                 A small livestock producer requested
                                            There were five comments on whether                     added sulfites. The commenter stated                  the program increase the $5,000
                                            the regulations overlap, duplicate, or                  that because of the restriction with                  exemption limit for organic
                                            conflict with other Federal, State or                   added sulfites limited for use with only              certification. There is an exemption
                                            Local government regulation. Four                       organic grapes, a ‘‘made with organic.                from certification for organic producers
                                            commenters specifically addressed the                    . .’’ claim could not be used on the                 and handlers who sell less than $5,000
                                            RFA section 610 review criteria                         product label. On October 31, 2011, the               in organic agricultural products per year
                                            regarding impacts on small entities as a                NOP published Policy Memo 10–2:
                                            result of changes in technology,                        Sulfur Dioxide in wine made with                        3 Notice of Guidelines on Procedures for

                                            economic conditions, or other factors                   organic fruit, in the Program                         Submitting National List Petitions, January 18,
                                            that may have impacted an area affected                 Handbook.2 This policy memo                           2007, available on the NOP Web site: http://
                                                                                                    stipulates that added sulfites, as sulfur             www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplate
                                            by the regulations since the regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                                                                          Data.do?template=TemplateN&navID=National
                                            became effective on October 21, 2002.                   dioxide, can only be used in organic                  OrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganic
                                               One commenter, a certifying agent,                                                                         Program&page=NOPFilingaPetition&description=
                                                                                                     1 NOP final guidance, instructions, and policy       Filing%20a%20Petition.
                                            addressed all of the factors considered
                                                                                                    memos can be found in the NOP Program                   4 NOP 5057: The Use of Kelp in Organic Livestock
                                            in the RFA section 610 review of the                    Handbook, available on the NOP Web site at: http://   Feed, available in the NOP Program Handbook on
                                            USDA organic regulations. Most of the                   www.ams.usda.gov/NOPProgramHandbook.                  the NOP Web site at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/
                                            commenters addressed three out of five                   2 Ibid.                                              NOPProgramHandbook.



                                       VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:11 May 05, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00002   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM   06MYR1


                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations                                          25899

                                            (7 U.S.C. 6505; 7 CFR 205.101(a)). The                  requirements for all organic operations.              requirements for certifying agents and
                                            livestock producer pointed out that the                 Another certifying agent also addressed               organic producers and handlers.
                                            OFPA was passed in 1990, and the                        the burden faced by certified operations,                Three organic handlers commented
                                            $5,000 limit has been subject to                        specifically organic dairy operations                 on the RFA Section 610 review. An
                                            inflation since 1990. This commenter                    complying with pasture practice                       ingredient processor submitted a
                                            proposed that the small operation                       standards. This commenter stated that                 comment requesting clarification on
                                            exemption be raised to $10,000 or                       the pasture practice standards rule (75               why non-organic ethanol is not
                                            $20,000. Since the $5,000 exemption                     FR 7154) was not needed, was                          permitted in the U.S. for use in
                                            from certification is a specific OFPA                   excessively complex, would cause                      processing organic products. The
                                            requirement, an increase in the                         significant adverse effects for many                  processor stated that their product,
                                            exemption amount must be enacted                        small farms, and would be difficult for               processed with ethanol, was marketed
                                            through Congress and cannot be                          certifying agents to effectively                      with an organic label in the European
                                            amended through the regulatory                          implement. The NOP is aware of the                    Union (EU), where ethanol is allowed
                                            process.                                                                                                      for organic processing in the EU
                                                                                                    commenter’s concerns and notes that
                                               A veterinarian, who also is an organic                                                                     regulations. In the U.S., ethanol is
                                                                                                    the pasture practice standards were
                                            egg producer, supports the NOP, stating                                                                       available in certified organic, natural,
                                                                                                    developed over a period of five years
                                            there is a good system of certifiers and                                                                      and synthetic forms. The use of certified
                                            inspectors in place. However, this                      with input of multiple stakeholders.                  organic ethanol would be permitted in
                                            commenter expressed concern with                        There were a significant number of oral               the production of the processor’s
                                            changes in poultry health care practices                and written responses submitted during                product under the USDA organic
                                            and living condition standards being                    public comment periods associated with                regulations. Non-organic ethanol is
                                            advocated by some organizations. The                    the development of this rule. The                     allowed for use in organic crop and
                                            comments addressed issues on poultry                    majority of commenters, including                     livestock production as a sanitizer. Non-
                                            access to pasture, animal behavior, bird                many dairy operations, supported the                  organic ethanol cannot be used in
                                            stocking rate, age of bird, and temporary               addition of detailed pasture practice                 organic processing under the USDA
                                            confinement. According to the                           standards.                                            organic regulations since it is not
                                            commenter, changes in the organic                         During NOP trainings for accredited                 included on the National List in either
                                            standards on these issues should be                     certifying agents conducted in 2012 and               7 CFR 205.605 or 7 CFR 205.606. Use of
                                            based upon scientific merit, and not on                 2013, the NOP received statements from                non-organic ethanol in organic
                                            human desires and social interactions.                  certifying agents on farmers reporting                processing requires amendment of the
                                            During NOSB deliberations, the NOSB                     that they are spending too much of their              National List through the petition
                                            considered technical information on                     time completing program forms and                     process to include non-organic ethanol
                                            livestock practice standards. In 2009                   maintaining program records. As                       on the National List, and subsequent
                                            and 2011, the NOSB forwarded several                    required in 7 CFR 205.103,                            rulemaking.
                                            recommendations on establishing more                    recordkeeping is essential to ensure                     A beverage association comment
                                            specific animal welfare requirements.                   organic operations are implementing                   disagreed with Alcohol, Tobacco Tax,
                                            These recommendations addressed                         required organic practice standards. The              and Trade Bureau (TTB) labeling
                                            issues on animal handling and transport                 NOP has considered how to minimize                    requirements for wine that requires
                                            and animal welfare, including stocking                  the regulatory burden when                            approval for changes to a vintage year
                                            rates and livestock health care. The NOP                                                                      on an organic wine label that was
                                                                                                    implementing the regulations. As a
                                            is currently evaluating these                                                                                 previously approved. This requirement
                                                                                                    result, the NOP began implementing an
                                            recommendations to determine how to                                                                           is outside of the scope of the USDA
                                                                                                    initiative in 2013 to identify and remove
                                            effectively process these                                                                                     organic regulations. The TTB reviews
                                                                                                    barriers to certification, to streamline
                                            recommendations through rulemaking.                                                                           and approves wine labels, including any
                                                                                                    the certification process, to focus
                                               Three accredited certifying agents                                                                         requirements for changing the vintage
                                                                                                    enforcement activities, and to work with              year. Under a Memorandum of
                                            provided comments in support of
                                            continuation of the regulations. A small                organic producers and handlers to                     Understanding between AMS and TTB,
                                            accredited certifying agent commented                   correct small issues before they become               the TTB receives, reviews, and approves
                                            on the burden of the expense of the                     larger issues. When developing this                   or rejects labeling applications for
                                            periodic USDA-required accreditation                    initiative, the NOP outlined five                     alcohol products bearing an organic
                                            audits on small organic certifiers and                  objectives: (1) Develop efficient                     claim. TTB has informed the NOP of
                                            requested that audit fees should be                     processes by eliminating bureaucratic                 their change in the TTB list of the
                                            scaled upon the size of the certifier. The              processes that do not contribute to                   allowable revisions that may be made to
                                            two larger certifying agents also                       organic integrity; (2) streamline                     an approved label without the need for
                                            commented on the paperwork burden                       recordkeeping requirements to ensure                  resubmission contained on the TTB
                                            on operations seeking certification or                  that required records support organic                 Application for and certification of
                                            continuing with certification. One                      integrity and are not a barrier for farms             label/bottle approval. TTB removed the
                                            certifying agent affirmed the need for                  and businesses to maintain organic                    caveat that the change in vintage dates
                                            regulations as critical to assure integrity             compliance; (3) apply common sense to                 did not apply to organic products.
                                            and maintain consumer confidence in                     an operation’s organic system plans that                 A comment from an organic co-
                                            the organic industry. However,                          clearly capture organic practices; (4)                operative retailer supported the
                                            comments received from clients                          implement fair and focused                            continued need for the regulations. The
                                            regarding the regulations were mostly                   enforcement; and (5) maintain or                      commenter gave a description of the
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                            concerned with the amount of                            improve organic integrity by focusing on              positive impacts of the complexity of
                                            paperwork required for recordkeeping,                   factors that impact organic integrity.                the regulation on their business, and
                                            which some considered to be excessive                   The NOP continues to work with                        emphasized that the regulations do not
                                            and burdensome. This certifying agent                   certifying agents to implement these                  overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other
                                            stated there is a need to streamline                    objectives with regard to the                         Federal, state or local rules for the
                                            paperwork and recordkeeping                             recordkeeping and reporting                           operation.


                                       VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:11 May 05, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00003   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM   06MYR1


                                            25900              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

                                               A comment from a consumer claimed                    for use in crop production to control                 collaborative interactions with the U.S.
                                            that certification requirements for                     pest infestation in post-harvest handling             Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on
                                            organic operations are unfair because                   pest control when preventive practices                organic food processing and handling
                                            nonorganic operations are not required                  are ineffective. On April 25, 2014, the               and livestock healthcare products and
                                            to disclose to the public the uses of                   NOP published draft guidance, NOP                     feed ingredients; with the U.S.
                                            harmful substances. All food products                   5023: Substances Used in Post-Harvest                 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
                                            in the normal stream of commerce are                    Handling of Organic Products.6 This                   on pest control ingredients and
                                            subject to Federal, state, and local laws               draft guidance describes substances that              applications; with TTB on labeling of
                                            and regulatory requirements that                        may be used in post-harvest handling of               organic alcohol beverages; and with the
                                            contribute to maintaining food safety                   organic products. The guidance                        Federal Trade Commission on product
                                            and restrict or prohibit the use of                     clarifies: (1) What substances may be                 labeling. As part of these interactions,
                                            harmful substances.                                     used; (2) the difference between post-                NOP continues to collaborate regarding
                                               Another consumer comment                             harvest handling of raw agricultural                  agricultural products that fall within the
                                            expressed support for continuation of                   crops and further processing; and (3) the             scope of organic certification.
                                            the regulations. This commenter                         provisions for facility pest management.                 • The NOP should alter restrictions
                                            chooses organic products to assure that                    • The NOP should amend 7 CFR                       on the use of plastic mulch
                                            the food is raised humanely and without                 205.237(a) to allow commercial                        (§ 205.601(b)(2)(ii)) so that
                                            synthetic ingredients. However, the                     availability to be applied to minor                   biodegradable plastic mulch could
                                            commenter also expressed concern that                   agricultural ingredients fed to organic               remain on the soil beyond harvest or
                                            the regulations may be more                             livestock to alleviate burden on small                end of the growing season. The
                                            burdensome to small dairy operations.                   organic livestock producers. On                       commenter indicated there is no listing
                                            As noted in prior discussion, the NOP                   February 28, 2013, the NOP published                  for mulch made from biodegradable
                                            started an initiative on 2013 to reduce                 NOP 5030, Evaluating Allowed                          plastic on the National List, and a
                                            the regulatory burden on organic                        Ingredients and Sources of Vitamins and               petition would have to be submitted to
                                            operations.                                             Minerals For Organic Livestock Feed.7                 add this new material. In August 2013,
                                               An organic agricultural business                     This guidance clarifies the agricultural,             the NOP published proposed rule (78
                                            expressed strong support for                            nonsynthetic, and synthetic ingredients               FR 52100), based upon NOSB
                                            continuation of the regulations. This                   permitted in organic livestock feed and               recommendations, which would add a
                                            commenter stated that the regulations                   also addresses the feed supplements and               new definition for biodegradable
                                            need to be routinely amended since                      feed additives that must be reviewed for              biobased mulch film to 7 CFR 205.2 and
                                            organic production is based upon a                      compliance with regulations. Under the                add biodegradable biobased mulch film
                                            concept of continual improvement, and                   USDA organic regulations, organic                     to the National List in 7 CFR 205.601 for
                                            the regulation should adhere to this                    producers must provide livestock feed                 use in organic crop production.8
                                            principle. Such amendments should                       pursuant to 7 CFR 205.237. Section                    Upon the completion of the RFA
                                            take into account innovations and                       205.237 states that agricultural                      Section 610 review of the USDA organic
                                            improvements by organic practitioners.                  ingredients included in the ingredients               regulations, AMS has determined that
                                            The commenter proposed several                          list for livestock feed products must be              there is no critical need to amend the
                                            amendments to the regulations, some of                  organically produced.                                 regulations. Since becoming effective on
                                            these proposed amendments were                             • The NOP should amend the                         the October 21, 2002, there have been
                                            identified as opportunities to decrease                 National List petition procedures and                 multiple amendments of the regulations,
                                            regulatory complexity and reduce                        processes as they are complicated,                    mostly to the National List. Some of
                                            regulatory burden without sacrificing                   costly, lengthy, arbitrary, and may not               these amendments have reduced the
                                            organic integrity or compromise                         provide due process to the petitioners.               burden on small operations, while some
                                            consumer confidence. A summary of                       In May 2014, the NOP in collaboration                 amendments, that have served to protect
                                            these proposed amendments include:                      with the NOSB initiated a process to                  organic integrity and support consumer
                                               • The NOP should prohibit blending                   revise National List petition procedures              confidence, may have increased the
                                            of organic and non-organic forms of the                 in an effort to make the petition                     burden on small operations. Based on
                                            same ingredient in ‘‘made with organic’’                submission procedures clearer for                     the findings from the review, AMS has
                                            products. On May 2, 2014, the NOP                       petitioners. The revised procedures will              determined that the NOP is not overly
                                            published final guidance NOP 5032:                      clarify how to submit complete                        complex and does not significantly
                                            Products in the ‘‘made with Organic                     petitions, explain to petitioners what to             overlap, or conflict with other
                                            * * * Labeling Category to address this                 expect in the petition process, and make              regulations.
                                            issue.5 This guidance describes                         the review process for the NOSB clearer                  Based upon the review, AMS has
                                            requirements for products in the ‘‘made                 and more consistent.                                  determined that the NOP should
                                            with organic (specified ingredients or                     • The NOP should increase                          continue. The USDA organic regulations
                                            food group(s))’’ category. This guidance                collaboration between NOP and other                   are dynamic in nature and the NOP
                                                                                                    government agencies with authority                    continues to collaborate with the NOSB
                                            clarifies product composition, labeling
                                                                                                    related to organic agricultural                       and the organic community on
                                            claims, use of organic and nonorganic
                                                                                                    production. Historically, NOP has                     rulemaking and development of
                                            forms of the same ingredient, percentage
                                                                                                    established and maintained                            guidance documents, such as recently
                                            of organic ingredient statements, and
                                                                                                                                                          published rulemaking on pesticide
                                            ingredients or food groups in the ‘‘made
                                                                                                       6 Draft Guidance NOP 5023: Substances Used in      residue testing, and published guidance
                                            with organic * * *’’ claim.
                                                                                                                                                          on composting, wild crop harvesting,
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                               • The regulations should allow the                   Post-Harvest Handling of Organic Products. NOP
                                                                                                    draft guidance can be found on the NOP Web site
                                            use of non-synthetic substances allowed                 at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOPDraftGuidance.           8 National Organic Program; Proposed
                                                                                                       7 NOP 5030: Evaluating Allowed Ingredients and
                                                                                                                                                          Amendments to the National List of Allowed and
                                              5 NOP 5032: Products in the ‘‘made with Organic       Sources of Vitamins and Minerals For Organic          Prohibited Substances (Crops and Processing);
                                            * * * Labeling Category, available in the NOP           Livestock Feed, available in the NOP Program          Proposed rule; Available on the NOP Web site:
                                            Program Handbook on the NOP Web site at:                Handbook on the NOP Web site at: http://              http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/
                                            http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOPProgramHandbook.             www.ams.usda.gov/NOPProgramHandbook.                  getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5104847



                                       VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:11 May 05, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00004   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM   06MYR1


                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations                                                25901

                                            handling unpackaged organic goods,                      agencies plan to take on the 2015 IECC                 3. Life-cycle Cost (LCC) Savings, Net
                                            and the list of permitted substances for                and ASHRAE 90.1–2013 codes.                               Positive Cash Flow, and Simple Payback
                                            crops.                                                  DATES: This notice of final                               for the 2009 IECC
                                                                                                    determination will be effective                        4. Quintiles of Income Before Taxes and
                                               Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522.
                                                                                                    according to the implementation                           Shares of Average Annual Expenditures
                                              Dated: April 30, 2015.                                                                                       5. Current Status of ASHRAE Code
                                                                                                    schedule described herein that
                                            Rex A. Barnes,                                                                                                    Adoption by State
                                                                                                    commences no earlier than June 5, 2015.
                                            Associate Administrator, Agricultural                                                                          6. Estimated Costs and Benefits per
                                                                                                    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                            Marketing Service.                                                                                                Dwelling Unit From Adoption of
                                                                                                    HUD: Rachel Isacoff, Office of Economic                   ASHRAE 90.1–2007
                                            [FR Doc. 2015–10446 Filed 5–5–15; 8:45 am]
                                                                                                    Resilience, Department of Housing and                  7. Estimated Number of HUD- and USDA-
                                            BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
                                                                                                    Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW.,                    Supported Units Potentially Impacted by
                                                                                                    Room 10180, Washington, DC 20410;                         Adoption of 2009 IECC
                                                                                                    telephone number 202–402–3710 (this                    8. Estimated Number of HUD-Assisted
                                            DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
                                                                                                    is not a toll-free number). Persons with                  Units Potentially Impacted by Adoption
                                            7 CFR Chapter 0                                         hearing or speech impairments may                         of ASHRAE 90.1–2007
                                                                                                    access this number through TTY by                      9. Annualized Value of Reduction in CO2
                                            RIN 0575–ZA00                                           calling the Federal Relay Service toll-                   Emissions
                                                                                                    free at 800–877–8339. USDA: Meghan                    Appendices:
                                            DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND                               Walsh, Rural Housing Service,                          1. Covered HUD and USDA Programs
                                            URBAN DEVELOPMENT                                       Department of Agriculture, 1400                        2. Estimated Energy and Cost Savings From
                                                                                                    Independence Avenue SW., Room                             Adoption of ASHRAE 90.1–2007
                                            24 CFR Parts 91 and 93                                  6900–S, Washington, DC 20250;                          3. Total Development Cost (TDC)
                                            [HUD FR–5647–N–02]                                      telephone number 202–205–9590 (this                       Adjustment Factors for States That Have
                                                                                                    is not a toll-free number).                               Not Adopted ASHRAE 90.1–2007
                                            RIN 2501–ZA01                                                                                                  4. Estimated Total Costs and Energy Cost
                                                                                                    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                                                                                    I. Background                                             Savings From Adoption of 2009 IECC
                                            Final Affordability Determination—                                                                             5. Estimated Total Costs and Energy Cost
                                                                                                       A. Statutory Requirements
                                            Energy Efficiency Standards                                B. HUD and USDA Preliminary                            Savings From Adoption of ASHRAE
                                            AGENCY: U.S. Department of Housing                            Determination                                       90.1–2007
                                                                                                       C. Public Comments on Preliminary
                                            and Urban Development and U.S.                                Determination                                   I. Background
                                            Department of Agriculture.                                 D. Adoption of Preliminary Determination
                                            ACTION: Notice of Final Determination.                        as Final Determination                          A. Statutory Requirements
                                                                                                    II. HUD–USDA Final Affordability
                                            SUMMARY:   The U.S. Department of                             Determination                                      HUD and USDA have a statutory
                                            Housing and Urban Development (HUD)                        A. Discussion of Market Failures                   responsibility to adopt minimum energy
                                            and the U.S. Department of Agriculture                     B. 2009 IECC Affordability Determination           standards for new construction of
                                            (USDA) have determined that adoption                       1. Current Adoption of the 2009 IECC               certain HUD- and USDA-assisted
                                            of the 2009 edition of the International                   2. 2009 IECC Affordability Analysis                housing, following procedures
                                                                                                       3. Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Results         established in EISA. Section 481 of
                                            Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for                        4. Limitations
                                            single family homes and the 2007                                                                              EISA amended section 109 of the
                                                                                                       5. Distributional Impacts on Low-Income            Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
                                            edition of the American Society of                            Consumers or Low Energy Users
                                            Heating, Refrigerating and Air-                            6. Conclusion
                                                                                                                                                          Housing Act of 1990 (Cranston-
                                            conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1                       C. ASHRAE 90.1–2007 Affordability                  Gonzalez) (42 U.S.C. 12709), which
                                            for multifamily buildings will not                            Determination                                   establishes procedures for setting
                                            negatively affect the affordability and                    1. Current Adoption of ASHRAE 90.1–2007            minimum energy standards for certain
                                            availability of certain HUD- and USDA-                     2. ASHRAE 90.1–2007 Affordability                  HUD and USDA programs. The two
                                                                                                          Analysis                                        standards referenced in EISA (the IECC
                                            assisted housing specified in section                      3. Energy Savings Analysis
                                            481 of the Energy and Independence                                                                            and ASHRAE 90.1) apply to different
                                                                                                       4. Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Results         building types: the IECC standard
                                            and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). This                      5. Conclusion
                                            determination fulfills a statutory                         D. Impact on Availability of Housing
                                                                                                                                                          applies to single family homes and low-
                                            requirement established under EISA                         1. Impact of increases in housing prices           rise multifamily buildings (up to three
                                            that HUD and USDA adopt revisions to                          and hedonic effects                             stories), while ASHRAE 90.1 applies to
                                            the 2006 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1–2004                         2. Impact of 2009 IECC on Housing                  multifamily mid- or high-rise residential
                                            subject to: A determination that the                          Availability                                    buildings (four or more stories).1
                                                                                                       3. Impact of ASHRAE 90.1–2007 on
                                            revised codes do not negatively affect                        Housing Availability
                                                                                                                                                             The following HUD and USDA
                                            the availability or affordability of new                   4. Conclusion                                      programs are specified in the statute:
                                            construction of single family and                          E. Implementation Schedule                            (A) New construction of public and
                                            multifamily housing covered by EISA;                       F. Alternative Compliance Paths                    assisted housing and single family and
                                            and a determination by the Secretary of                    G. Cost Benefit Analysis                           multifamily residential housing (other
                                            Energy that the revised codes ‘‘would                      1. Energy Costs and Savings
                                                                                                                                                          than manufactured homes) subject to
                                            improve energy efficiency.’’ For the                       2. Social Benefits of Energy Standards
                                            more recent IECC and ASHRAE codes                       III. Findings and Certifications
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                                                                            1 The IECC addresses both residential and
                                                                                                       A. Environmental Review
                                            that have been published since the                                                                            commercial buildings. ASHRAE 90.1 covers
                                                                                                    List of Tables:
                                            publication of the 2009 IECC and                           1. Current Energy Standards and Incentives         commercial buildings only, including multifamily
                                            ASHRAE 90.1–2007, HUD and USDA                                                                                buildings four or more stories above grade. The
                                                                                                          for HUD and USDA Programs (New                  IECC adopts, by reference, ASHRAE 90.1; that is,
                                            intend to follow this Notice of Final                         Construction Only)                              compliance with ASHRAE 90.1 qualifies as
                                            Determination with an advance notice                       2. Current Status of IECC Adoption by              compliance with the IECC for commercial
                                            that addresses the next steps the                             State                                           buildings.



                                       VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:11 May 05, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00005   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM   06MYR1



Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:41:22
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:41:22
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionRules and Regulations
ActionConfirmation of regulations.
DatesEffective May 6, 2015.
ContactInterested persons may obtain a copy of the review. Requests for a copy of the review should be sent to Jennifer Tucker, Ph.D., Acting Director, Standards Division, National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2648- S., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268. Telephone: (202) 720-3252, Fax. (202) 205-7808 or email: [email protected], or by accessing the Web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.
FR Citation80 FR 25897 

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR