National Organic Program (NOP); Amendments to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (Crops and Processing), 8089-8092 [2012-2938]
Download as PDF
8089
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 77, No. 30
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
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.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 205
[Document Number AMS–NOP–10–0079;
NOP–09–02FR]
RIN 0581–AD06
National Organic Program (NOP);
Amendments to the National List of
Allowed and Prohibited Substances
(Crops and Processing)
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule amends the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) National List of Allowed and
Prohibited Substances (National List) to
enact six recommendations submitted to
the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary)
by the National Organic Standards
Board (NOSB) on May 22, 2008,
November 19, 2008, and May 6, 2009.
This final rule adds one substance,
microcrystalline cheesewax, along with
any restrictive annotations, for use in
organic mushroom production; and
adds three substances, acidified sodium
chlorite, dried orange pulp, and Pacific
kombu seaweed, with any restrictive
annotations, for use in organic handling.
This final rule also amends the
annotation for one substance used in
organic handling, unbleached lecithin,
and removes bleached lecithin from the
National List.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes
effective March 15, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Bailey, Ph.D., Director,
Standards Division, National Organic
Program, Telephone: (202) 720–3252;
Fax: (202) 205–7808.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:25 Feb 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
I. Background
On December 21, 2000, the Secretary
established within the NOP [7 CFR part
205] the National List regulations
§§ 205.600 through 205.607. The
National List identifies synthetic
substances that may be used and the
nonsynthetic (natural) substances that
may not be used in organic production.
The National List also identifies
nonagricultural synthetic, nonsynthetic
nonagricultural and nonorganic
agricultural substances that may be used
in organic handling. The Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as
amended (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), and
NOP regulations, in § 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 must also be
on the National List.
Under the authority of the OFPA, the
National List can be amended by the
Secretary based on proposed
amendments developed by the NOSB.
Since established, the NOP has
published multiple amendments to the
National List: October 31, 2003 (68 FR
61987); November 3, 2003 (68 FR
62215); October 21, 2005 (70 FR 61217);
June 7, 2006 (71 FR 32803); September
11, 2006 (71 FR 53299); June 27, 2007
(72 FR 35137); October 16, 2007 (72 FR
58469); December 10, 2007 (72 FR
69569); December 12, 2007 (72 FR
70479); September 18, 2008 (73 FR
54057); October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59479);
July 6, 2010 (75 FR 38693); August 24,
2010 (75 FR 51919); December 13, 2010
(75 FR 77521) and March 14, 2011 (76
FR 13501). Additionally, a proposed
amendment to the National List was
published on May 5, 2011 (76 FR
25612).
This final rule amends the National
list to enact six recommendations
submitted to the Secretary by the NOSB
on May 22, 2008, November 19, 2008,
and May 6, 2009.
II. Overview of Amendments
The following provides an overview
of the amendments made to designated
sections of the National List regulations:
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Section 205.601 Synthetic Substances
Allowed for Use in Organic Crop
Production
This final rule amends § 205.601 of
the National List regulations by adding
new paragraph (o) for the addition of
one substance as follows: As production
aids. Microcrystalline cheesewax (CAS
#s 64742– 42–3, 8009–03–08, and 8002–
74–2)—for use in log grown mushroom
production. Must be made without
either ethylene-propylene co-polymer or
synthetic colors.
The proposed rule to add
microcrystalline cheesewax included an
annotation specifying that the substance
be ‘‘for use in log grown mushroom
culture.’’ The NOP determined that the
substance’s use annotation should be
modified ‘‘for use in log grown
mushroom production’’ (emphasis
added) in this final rule. This language
change is consistent with terminology
that will be utilized in a forthcoming
proposed rule on organic mushroom
standards.
Section 205.605 Nonagricultural
(Nonorganic) Substances Allowed as
Ingredients in or on Processed Products
Labeled as ‘‘Organic’’ or ‘‘Made With
Organic (Specified Ingredients or Food
Groups(s))’’
This final rule amends § 205.605(b) of
the National List regulations by
removing Lecithin—bleached, and
adding acidified sodium chlorite in
alphabetical order as follows: Acidified
sodium chlorite—Secondary direct
antimicrobial food treatment and
indirect food contact surface sanitizing.
Acidified with citric acid only.
Section 205.606 Nonorganically
Produced Agricultural Products Allowed
as Ingredients in or on Processed
Products Labeled as ‘‘Organic’’
This final rule amends § 205.606 of
the National List regulations by revising
paragraph (p) to read as follows: (p)
Lecithin—de-oiled. Further, this final
rule redesignates paragraphs (r) through
(t) and paragraphs (u) through (y) as
paragraphs (s) through (u) and (w)
through (aa) respectively; and adds new
paragraphs (r) and (v) for the addition of
two substances as follows: (r) Orange
pulp, dried, and (v) Seaweed, Pacific
kombu.
E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM
14FER1
8090
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
III. Related Documents
Three notices were published
regarding the meetings of the NOSB and
its deliberations on recommendations
and substances petitioned for amending
the National List. Substances and
recommendations included in this
proposed rule were announced for
NOSB deliberation in the following
Federal Register notices: (1) 74 FR
11904, March 20, 2009 (bleached
lecithin, acidified sodium chlorite,
unbleached fluid lecithin); (2) 73 FR
54781, September 23, 2008 (dried
orange pulp, acidified sodium chlorite);
and (3) 73 FR 18491, April 4, 2008
(microcrystalline cheesewax, acidified
sodium chlorite, Pacific kombu
seaweed). The proposal to allow the use
of the four substances in this final rule,
along with the deletion of one substance
and the revised annotation of one
substance, was published as a proposed
rule on November 8, 2010 (75 FR
68505).
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority
The OFPA, as amended (7 U.S.C.
6501–6522), authorizes the Secretary to
make amendments to the National List
based on proposed amendments
developed by the NOSB. Sections
6518(k)(2) and 6518(n) of the OFPA
authorize the NOSB to develop
proposed amendments to the National
List for submission to the Secretary and
establish a petition process by which
persons may petition the NOSB for the
purpose of having substances evaluated
for inclusion or deletion from the
National List. The National List petition
process is implemented under § 205.607
of the NOP regulations. The current
petition process (72 FR 2167, January
18, 2007) can be accessed through the
NOP Web site at https://www.ams.usda.
gov/nop.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been determined not
significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866, and therefore, has not
been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Executive Order 12988
Executive Order 12988 instructs each
executive agency to adhere to certain
requirements in the development of new
and revised regulations in order to avoid
unduly burdening the court system.
This final rule is not intended to have
a retroactive effect.
States and local jurisdictions are
preempted under the OFPA from
creating programs of accreditation for
private persons or State officials who
want to become certifying agents of
organic farms or handling operations. A
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:25 Feb 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
governing State official would have to
apply to USDA to be accredited as a
certifying agent, as described in
§ 2115(b) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C.
6514(b)). States are also preempted
under §§ 2104 through 2108 of the
OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6503 through 6507)
from creating certification programs to
certify organic farms or handling
operations unless the State programs
have been submitted to, and approved
by, the Secretary as meeting the
requirements of the OFPA.
Pursuant to § 2108(b)(2) of the OFPA
(7 U.S.C. 6507(b)(2)), a State organic
certification program may contain
additional requirements for the
production and handling of organically
produced agricultural products that are
produced in the State and for the
certification of organic farm and
handling operations located within the
State under certain circumstances. Such
additional requirements must: (a)
Further the purposes of the OFPA, (b)
not be inconsistent with the OFPA, (c)
not be discriminatory toward
agricultural commodities organically
produced in other States, and (d) not be
effective until approved by the
Secretary.
Pursuant to § 2120(f) of the OFPA (7
U.S.C. 6519(f)), this final rule would not
alter the authority of the Secretary
under the Federal Meat Inspection Act
(21 U.S.C. 601–624), the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451–
471), or the Egg Products Inspection Act
(21 U.S.C. 1031–1056), concerning meat,
poultry, and egg products, nor any of
the authorities of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services under the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
301 et seq.), nor the authority of the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
Section 2121 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C.
6520) provides for the Secretary to
establish an expedited administrative
appeals procedure under which persons
may appeal an action of the Secretary,
the applicable governing State official,
or a certifying agent under this title that
adversely affects such person or is
inconsistent with the organic
certification program established under
this title. The OFPA also provides that
the U.S. District Court for the district in
which a person is located has
jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s
decision.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires agencies to
consider the economic impact of each
rule on small entities and evaluate
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
alternatives that would accomplish the
objectives of the rule without unduly
burdening small entities or erecting
barriers that would restrict their ability
to compete in the market. The purpose
is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to the action. Section
605 of the RFA allows an agency to
certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an
analysis, if the rulemaking is not
expected to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth
in the RFA, AMS performed an
economic impact analysis on small
entities in the final rule published in the
Federal Register on December 21, 2000
(65 FR 80548). AMS has also considered
the economic impact of this action on
small entities. The impact on entities
affected by this final rule would not be
significant. The effect of this final rule
would be to allow the use of additional
substances and clarify the use of one
substance in agricultural production
and handling. This action will modify
the regulations published in the final
rule and will provide small entities with
more tools to use in day-to-day farming
and handling operations. AMS
concludes that the economic impact of
this addition of allowed substances, if
any, will be minimal and beneficial to
small agricultural service firms.
Accordingly, USDA certifies that this
rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
Small agricultural service firms,
which include producers, handlers, and
accredited certifying agents, have been
defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201)
as those having annual receipts of less
than $7,000,000, and small agricultural
producers are defined as those having
annual receipts of less than $750,000.
According to USDA Economic
Research Service (ERS) data based upon
information from USDA-accredited
certifying agents, the number of certified
U.S. organic crop and livestock
operations totaled nearly 13,000 and
certified organic acreage exceeded 4.8
million acres in 2008.1 ERS, based upon
the list of certified operations
maintained by the National Organic
Program, estimated the number of
certified handling operations was 3,225
in 2007.2 The AMS believes that most of
1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service. 2009. Data Sets: U.S. Certified
Organic Farmland Acreage, Livestock Numbers and
Farm Operations, 1992–2008. https://www.ers.usda.
gov/Data/Organic/.
2 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, 2009. Data Sets: Procurement and
Contracting by Organic Handlers: Documentation.
E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM
14FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
these entities would be considered to be
small entities under the criteria
established by the SBA.
The U.S. sales of organic food and
beverages grew from $3.6 billion in 1997
to nearly $21.1 billion in 2008.3
Between 1990 and 2008, organic food
sales demonstrated an historic growth
rate between 15 to 24 percent each year.
In 2010, organic food sales grew 7.7%.4
In addition, USDA has 93 accredited
certifying agents (ACA) who provide
certification services to producers and
handlers under the NOP. A complete
list of names and addresses of ACAs
may be found on the AMS NOP Web
site, at https://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.
The AMS believes that most of these
accredited certifying agents would be
considered small entities under the
criteria established by the SBA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
No additional collection or
recordkeeping requirements are
imposed on the public by this final rule.
Accordingly, OMB clearance is not
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, Chapter 35.
E. Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. The review reveals that
this regulation will not have substantial
and direct effects on Tribal governments
and will not have significant Tribal
implications.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
F. Comments Received on Proposed
Rule NOP–09–02
AMS received 11 comments on the
proposed rule AMS–NOP–10–0079;
NOP–09–02PR. Comments were
received from specialty food ingredient
processors and distributors, specialty
food products manufacturers, an
industrial sanitation supply firm, an
organic consultant, a coalition of foreign
governments and a private citizen.
Comments were submitted in support of
the proposed additions to the National
List for all four of the proposed new use
exemptions and the deletion of one
substance. Comments in favor of the
addition of acidified sodium chlorite to
§ 205.605(b) stated that it will increase
the intervention options available for
https://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/OrganicHandlers/
Documentation.htm.
3 Dimitri, C., and L. Oberholtzer. 2009. Marketing
U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trends from Farms to
Consumers, Economic Information Information
bulletin No. 58, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service, https://www.ers.suda.
gov/PublicationsE1B58.
4 Organic Trade Association’s 2011 Organic
Industry Survey, https://www.ota.com.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:25 Feb 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
maintaining high sanitation standards in
organic food processing and thereby
further improve food safety for
consumers of organic processed foods.
While one comment expressed concern
about the proposed exemption for the
secondary direct antimicrobial food
treatment use of acidified sodium
chlorite, the commenter did not take a
position for or against the specific
proposal. A comment endorsing the
addition of dried orange pulp to
§ 205.606 stated that its use is consistent
with organic principles, since an
insufficient volume of organic oranges
are grown and processed to produce
organic orange pulp, which is a
byproduct of extraction orange juice
processing.
Many comments addressed the
proposed change in the lecithin
annotation from unbleached to de-oiled
on § 205.606. Nonorganic forms of the
substances listed under § 205.606 are
allowed as ingredients in or on
processed products labeled as organic
only when the nonorganic substance is
not commercially available in organic
form and only in accordance with any
specified restrictions. Most comments
submitted in support of the lecithin
annotation change stated that the listing
of de-oiled lecithin on § 205.606 would
prevent disruption in the availability or
quality of a broad range of organic food
products such as ice cream, pasta,
bakery goods, cereals, sauces, soups and
frozen desserts. They indicated that deoiled is the appropriate annotation
because this form of lecithin has a
unique function and blander flavor in
comparison to fluid or dry lecithin. The
comments mentioned de-oiled lecithin’s
superiority in maintaining stability of
water and oil emulsions. Furthermore,
the comments informed that de-oiled
lecithin is not available as organic.
Comments in support of removing
bleached lecithin from § 205.605(b)
indicated that this action will encourage
the increased production and use of
organic ingredients needed for organic
food processing. They also argued that
unbleached lecithin is now
commercially available in organic
forms, so the exemption for these
substances is no longer crucial.
Commenters stated that the use of
nonorganic de-oiled lecithin on
§ 205.606, instead of the nonorganic
unbleached form previously allowed,
would be subject to the determination of
commercial availability of any organic
form—once developed—in the
processor’s organic system plan and
other specific restrictions. Commenters
in favor of the amendment expressed
frustration with discrepant use of
organic unbleached lecithin and less
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8091
expensive conventional unbleached
lecithin in comparably priced multiple
brands of the same processed organic
products on retail shelves. These
commenters conveyed expectations that
this rule change will result in the
replacement of nonorganic bleached
lecithin with the organic form and thus
encourage increased use and availability
of organic ingredients.
A few comments opposing the change
in the unbleached lecithin annotation at
§ 205.606 explained that the only
current source of organic lecithin is soy,
which is a food allergen. They cited a
lack of availability of organic forms of
lecithin from sunflower or canola and
predicted that consumers with a soy
allergy would not be able to eat organic
products containing soy lecithin. These
commenters noted that soy is identified
in the U.S. Food Allergen Labeling and
Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (Pub.
L. 108–282, Title II) (21 U.S.C. 301) as
one of 8 major food groups which
account for 90 percent of lifethreatening food allergies. This
legislation established mandatory
disclosure requirements on labels for
processed food containing any amounts
of the eight named foods (milk, eggs,
fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat,
and soybeans) listed in the 2004 Act.
Food processors have become more
aware of soy’s allergenic potential and
the federal labeling requirements when
soy-based ingredients are used since
passage of the 2004 Act. The opposing
comments expressed concern that the
annotation change would result in
higher levels of soy lecithin being used
in processed organic foods because it is
more commonly available in organic
form, but did not provide specific
evidence to support this statement.
Nonorganic lecithin from sunflower,
rapeseed and canola is widely available
commercially, and NOP believes that
there is potential that any increased
demand for non-soy lecithin will
stimulate increased production of
organic forms of bleached and
unbleached lecithin from these
alternative sources.
A comment criticized the NOSB for
omitting food allergies from the
discussion in considering the lecithin
petition. The NOSB did address this
issue several times during its
deliberation, as captured in the May
2009 NOSB meeting transcripts. The
Board concluded that its recommended
change to unbleached lecithin would
still avail manufacturers with the option
to use nonorganic, non-soy forms of deoiled lecithin. Commenters conveyed a
preference to have non-allergenic,
nonorganic forms of lecithin available
under § 205.606. The change in
E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM
14FER1
8092
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
annotation does not specify the plant
source of lecithin and, therefore,
nonorganic de-oiled lecithin from nonsoy and nonorganic sources may be
used when organic equivalents are not
available. A substance is considered
commercially available if it is available
in an appropriate form, quality, or
quantity to fulfill an essential function
in a system of organic production or
handling, as determined by the
certifying agent in the course of
reviewing the organic plan. In summary,
this annotation change would not limit
the use of lecithin to organic de-oiled
soy lecithin. Non-soy sources that are
non-GMO and nonorganic would
remain acceptable under § 205.606, and
accredited certifying agents would
continue to require any nonorganic deoiled lecithin to be sourced from nonGMO sources as long as de-oiled
lecithin is not commercially available in
organic form.
Changes Requested But Not Made
Commenters requested that the
proposed action be amended for
§ 205.606 to allow the use of non-GMO,
non-allergenic lecithin. We have not
made that change because we believe
this request is mostly accommodated by
the proposed action. Nonorganic forms
of de-oiled lecithin can be used when
the organic version is not commercially
available. The NOP regulations define
commercially available as a production
input in an appropriate form, quality, or
quantity to fulfill an essential function
in a system of organic production or
handling, as determined by the
certifying agent in the course of
reviewing the organic plan. Therefore, if
a processor intends to make a soy-free
product containing lecithin, in which
de-oiled is the appropriate form, the
processor may use nonorganic de-oiled
lecithin from sunflower, canola or other
sources if lecithin from the preferred
sources is not available in organic form.
If a product requires a form of lecithin
other than de-oiled, such as fluid or
powered, the lecithin must be sourced
organically. The NOSB recommendation
was finalized in May 2009. We believe
that processors have had adequate
notice to pursue the procurement of
non-soy forms of organic lecithin if their
products are intended to be soy free.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205
14:25 Feb 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 205 continues to read as follows:
Dated: February 3, 2012.
Robert C. Keeney,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–2938 Filed 2–13–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522.
2. In § 205.601 add new paragraph (o)
to read as follows:
■
§ 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed
for use in organic crop production.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) As production aids.
Microcrystalline cheesewax (CAS #’s
64742–42–3, 8009–03–08, and 8002–74–
2)–for use in log grown mushroom
production. Must be made without
either ethylene-propylene co-polymer or
synthetic colors.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 205.605 is amended by:
A. Removing ‘‘Lecithin-bleached’’
from paragraph (b); and
■ B. Adding one new substance
‘‘Acidified sodium chlorite’’, in
alphabetical order, to paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
■
■
§ 205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic)
substances allowed as ingredients in or on
processed products labeled as ‘‘organic’’ or
‘‘made with organic (specified ingredients
or food group(s)).’’
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Acidified sodium chlorite—
Secondary direct antimicrobial food
treatment and indirect food contact
surface sanitizing. Acidified with citric
acid only.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 205.606 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (p);
■ B. Redesignating paragraphs (r)
through (t) and paragraphs (u) through
(y) as paragraphs (s) through (u) and (w)
through (aa) respectively; and
■ C. Adding new paragraphs (r) and (v).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 205.606 Nonorganically produced
agricultural products allowed as ingredients
in or on processed products labeled as
‘‘organic.’’
*
Administrative practice and
procedure, Agriculture, Animals,
Archives and records, Imports, Labeling,
Organically produced products, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Seals and insignia, Soil
conservation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 205, subpart G is
amended as follows:
*
*
*
*
(p) Lecithin—de-oiled.
*
*
*
*
*
(r) Orange pulp, dried.
*
*
*
*
*
(v) Seaweed, Pacific kombu.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2009–0889; Directorate
Identifier 2009–NE–35–AD; Amendment 39–
16953; AD 2012–03–11]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca
S.A. Turboshaft Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are superseding an
existing airworthiness directive (AD) for
all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1
turboshaft engines. That AD currently
requires checking the transmissible
torque between the low-pressure (LP)
pump impeller and the high-pressure
(HP) pump shaft on high-pressure/lowpressure (HP/LP) pump hydromechanical metering units (HMUs) that
do not incorporate Modification TU 147.
This new AD requires inspection and
possible replacement of the HMU. This
AD was prompted by three additional
cases of uncoupling of the HP/LP pump
HMU LP fuel pump impeller and the HP
fuel pump shaft, since the existing AD
was issued. We are issuing this AD to
prevent an uncommanded in-flight
shutdown, which can result in a forced
autorotation landing or accident.
DATES: This AD is effective March 20,
2012.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in the AD
as of March 20, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain other publication listed in
this AD as of March 11, 2010 (75 FR
5689, February 4, 2010).
ADDRESSES: For service information
identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France;
phone: 33–05–59–74–40–00, fax: 33–
05–59–74–45–15. You may review
copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM
14FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8089-8092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2938]
========================================================================
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. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 8089]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 205
[Document Number AMS-NOP-10-0079; NOP-09-02FR]
RIN 0581-AD06
National Organic Program (NOP); Amendments to the National List
of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (Crops and Processing)
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National
List) to enact six recommendations submitted to the Secretary of
Agriculture (Secretary) by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)
on May 22, 2008, November 19, 2008, and May 6, 2009. This final rule
adds one substance, microcrystalline cheesewax, along with any
restrictive annotations, for use in organic mushroom production; and
adds three substances, acidified sodium chlorite, dried orange pulp,
and Pacific kombu seaweed, with any restrictive annotations, for use in
organic handling. This final rule also amends the annotation for one
substance used in organic handling, unbleached lecithin, and removes
bleached lecithin from the National List.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes effective March 15, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Bailey, Ph.D., Director,
Standards Division, National Organic Program, Telephone: (202) 720-
3252; Fax: (202) 205-7808.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On December 21, 2000, the Secretary established within the NOP [7
CFR part 205] the National List regulations Sec. Sec. 205.600 through
205.607. The National List identifies synthetic substances that may be
used and the nonsynthetic (natural) substances that may not be used in
organic production. The National List also identifies nonagricultural
synthetic, nonsynthetic nonagricultural and nonorganic agricultural
substances that may be used in organic handling. The Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), and
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 must also be on the
National List.
Under the authority of the OFPA, the National List can be amended
by the Secretary based on proposed amendments developed by the NOSB.
Since established, the NOP has published multiple amendments to the
National List: October 31, 2003 (68 FR 61987); November 3, 2003 (68 FR
62215); October 21, 2005 (70 FR 61217); June 7, 2006 (71 FR 32803);
September 11, 2006 (71 FR 53299); June 27, 2007 (72 FR 35137); October
16, 2007 (72 FR 58469); December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69569); December 12,
2007 (72 FR 70479); September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54057); October 9, 2008
(73 FR 59479); July 6, 2010 (75 FR 38693); August 24, 2010 (75 FR
51919); December 13, 2010 (75 FR 77521) and March 14, 2011 (76 FR
13501). Additionally, a proposed amendment to the National List was
published on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25612).
This final rule amends the National list to enact six
recommendations submitted to the Secretary by the NOSB on May 22, 2008,
November 19, 2008, and May 6, 2009.
II. Overview of Amendments
The following provides an overview of the amendments made to
designated sections of the National List regulations:
Section 205.601 Synthetic Substances Allowed for Use in Organic Crop
Production
This final rule amends Sec. 205.601 of the National List
regulations by adding new paragraph (o) for the addition of one
substance as follows: As production aids. Microcrystalline cheesewax
(CAS s 64742- 42-3, 8009-03-08, and 8002-74-2)--for use in log
grown mushroom production. Must be made without either ethylene-
propylene co-polymer or synthetic colors.
The proposed rule to add microcrystalline cheesewax included an
annotation specifying that the substance be ``for use in log grown
mushroom culture.'' The NOP determined that the substance's use
annotation should be modified ``for use in log grown mushroom
production'' (emphasis added) in this final rule. This language change
is consistent with terminology that will be utilized in a forthcoming
proposed rule on organic mushroom standards.
Section 205.605 Nonagricultural (Nonorganic) Substances Allowed as
Ingredients in or on Processed Products Labeled as ``Organic'' or
``Made With Organic (Specified Ingredients or Food Groups(s))''
This final rule amends Sec. 205.605(b) of the National List
regulations by removing Lecithin--bleached, and adding acidified sodium
chlorite in alphabetical order as follows: Acidified sodium chlorite--
Secondary direct antimicrobial food treatment and indirect food contact
surface sanitizing. Acidified with citric acid only.
Section 205.606 Nonorganically Produced Agricultural Products Allowed
as Ingredients in or on Processed Products Labeled as ``Organic''
This final rule amends Sec. 205.606 of the National List
regulations by revising paragraph (p) to read as follows: (p)
Lecithin--de-oiled. Further, this final rule redesignates paragraphs
(r) through (t) and paragraphs (u) through (y) as paragraphs (s)
through (u) and (w) through (aa) respectively; and adds new paragraphs
(r) and (v) for the addition of two substances as follows: (r) Orange
pulp, dried, and (v) Seaweed, Pacific kombu.
[[Page 8090]]
III. Related Documents
Three notices were published regarding the meetings of the NOSB and
its deliberations on recommendations and substances petitioned for
amending the National List. Substances and recommendations included in
this proposed rule were announced for NOSB deliberation in the
following Federal Register notices: (1) 74 FR 11904, March 20, 2009
(bleached lecithin, acidified sodium chlorite, unbleached fluid
lecithin); (2) 73 FR 54781, September 23, 2008 (dried orange pulp,
acidified sodium chlorite); and (3) 73 FR 18491, April 4, 2008
(microcrystalline cheesewax, acidified sodium chlorite, Pacific kombu
seaweed). The proposal to allow the use of the four substances in this
final rule, along with the deletion of one substance and the revised
annotation of one substance, was published as a proposed rule on
November 8, 2010 (75 FR 68505).
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority
The OFPA, as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522), authorizes the Secretary
to make amendments to the National List based on proposed amendments
developed by the NOSB. Sections 6518(k)(2) and 6518(n) of the OFPA
authorize the NOSB to develop proposed amendments to the National List
for submission to the Secretary and establish a petition process by
which persons may petition the NOSB for the purpose of having
substances evaluated for inclusion or deletion from the National List.
The National List petition process is implemented under Sec. 205.607
of the NOP regulations. The current petition process (72 FR 2167,
January 18, 2007) can be accessed through the NOP Web site at https://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been determined not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866, and therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Executive Order 12988
Executive Order 12988 instructs each executive agency to adhere to
certain requirements in the development of new and revised regulations
in order to avoid unduly burdening the court system. This final rule is
not intended to have a retroactive effect.
States and local jurisdictions are preempted under the OFPA from
creating programs of accreditation for private persons or State
officials who want to become certifying agents of organic farms or
handling operations. A governing State official would have to apply to
USDA to be accredited as a certifying agent, as described in Sec.
2115(b) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6514(b)). States are also preempted under
Sec. Sec. 2104 through 2108 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6503 through 6507)
from creating certification programs to certify organic farms or
handling operations unless the State programs have been submitted to,
and approved by, the Secretary as meeting the requirements of the OFPA.
Pursuant to Sec. 2108(b)(2) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6507(b)(2)), a
State organic certification program may contain additional requirements
for the production and handling of organically produced agricultural
products that are produced in the State and for the certification of
organic farm and handling operations located within the State under
certain circumstances. Such additional requirements must: (a) Further
the purposes of the OFPA, (b) not be inconsistent with the OFPA, (c)
not be discriminatory toward agricultural commodities organically
produced in other States, and (d) not be effective until approved by
the Secretary.
Pursuant to Sec. 2120(f) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6519(f)), this
final rule would not alter the authority of the Secretary under the
Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601-624), the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451-471), or the Egg Products Inspection Act
(21 U.S.C. 1031-1056), concerning meat, poultry, and egg products, nor
any of the authorities of the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.),
nor the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7
U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
Section 2121 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6520) provides for the Secretary
to establish an expedited administrative appeals procedure under which
persons may appeal an action of the Secretary, the applicable governing
State official, or a certifying agent under this title that adversely
affects such person or is inconsistent with the organic certification
program established under this title. The OFPA also provides that the
U.S. District Court for the district in which a person is located has
jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decision.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires
agencies to consider the economic impact of each rule on small entities
and evaluate alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of the
rule without unduly burdening small entities or erecting barriers that
would restrict their ability to compete in the market. The purpose is
to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to the
action. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in
lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the RFA, AMS performed an
economic impact analysis on small entities in the final rule published
in the Federal Register on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80548). AMS has
also considered the economic impact of this action on small entities.
The impact on entities affected by this final rule would not be
significant. The effect of this final rule would be to allow the use of
additional substances and clarify the use of one substance in
agricultural production and handling. This action will modify the
regulations published in the final rule and will provide small entities
with more tools to use in day-to-day farming and handling operations.
AMS concludes that the economic impact of this addition of allowed
substances, if any, will be minimal and beneficial to small
agricultural service firms. Accordingly, USDA certifies that this rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Small agricultural service firms, which include producers,
handlers, and accredited certifying agents, have been defined by the
Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having
annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural
producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than
$750,000.
According to USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) data based upon
information from USDA-accredited certifying agents, the number of
certified U.S. organic crop and livestock operations totaled nearly
13,000 and certified organic acreage exceeded 4.8 million acres in
2008.\1\ ERS, based upon the list of certified operations maintained by
the National Organic Program, estimated the number of certified
handling operations was 3,225 in 2007.\2\ The AMS believes that most of
[[Page 8091]]
these entities would be considered to be small entities under the
criteria established by the SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
2009. Data Sets: U.S. Certified Organic Farmland Acreage, Livestock
Numbers and Farm Operations, 1992-2008. https://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/.
\2\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
2009. Data Sets: Procurement and Contracting by Organic Handlers:
Documentation. https://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/OrganicHandlers/Documentation.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. sales of organic food and beverages grew from $3.6 billion
in 1997 to nearly $21.1 billion in 2008.\3\ Between 1990 and 2008,
organic food sales demonstrated an historic growth rate between 15 to
24 percent each year. In 2010, organic food sales grew 7.7%.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Dimitri, C., and L. Oberholtzer. 2009. Marketing U.S.
Organic Foods: Recent Trends from Farms to Consumers, Economic
Information Information bulletin No. 58, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, https://www.ers.suda.gov/PublicationsE1B58.
\4\ Organic Trade Association's 2011 Organic Industry Survey,
https://www.ota.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, USDA has 93 accredited certifying agents (ACA) who
provide certification services to producers and handlers under the NOP.
A complete list of names and addresses of ACAs may be found on the AMS
NOP Web site, at https://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. The AMS believes that
most of these accredited certifying agents would be considered small
entities under the criteria established by the SBA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
No additional collection or recordkeeping requirements are imposed
on the public by this final rule. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Chapter 35.
E. Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation
will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and
will not have significant Tribal implications.
F. Comments Received on Proposed Rule NOP-09-02
AMS received 11 comments on the proposed rule AMS-NOP-10-0079; NOP-
09-02PR. Comments were received from specialty food ingredient
processors and distributors, specialty food products manufacturers, an
industrial sanitation supply firm, an organic consultant, a coalition
of foreign governments and a private citizen. Comments were submitted
in support of the proposed additions to the National List for all four
of the proposed new use exemptions and the deletion of one substance.
Comments in favor of the addition of acidified sodium chlorite to Sec.
205.605(b) stated that it will increase the intervention options
available for maintaining high sanitation standards in organic food
processing and thereby further improve food safety for consumers of
organic processed foods. While one comment expressed concern about the
proposed exemption for the secondary direct antimicrobial food
treatment use of acidified sodium chlorite, the commenter did not take
a position for or against the specific proposal. A comment endorsing
the addition of dried orange pulp to Sec. 205.606 stated that its use
is consistent with organic principles, since an insufficient volume of
organic oranges are grown and processed to produce organic orange pulp,
which is a byproduct of extraction orange juice processing.
Many comments addressed the proposed change in the lecithin
annotation from unbleached to de-oiled on Sec. 205.606. Nonorganic
forms of the substances listed under Sec. 205.606 are allowed as
ingredients in or on processed products labeled as organic only when
the nonorganic substance is not commercially available in organic form
and only in accordance with any specified restrictions. Most comments
submitted in support of the lecithin annotation change stated that the
listing of de-oiled lecithin on Sec. 205.606 would prevent disruption
in the availability or quality of a broad range of organic food
products such as ice cream, pasta, bakery goods, cereals, sauces, soups
and frozen desserts. They indicated that de-oiled is the appropriate
annotation because this form of lecithin has a unique function and
blander flavor in comparison to fluid or dry lecithin. The comments
mentioned de-oiled lecithin's superiority in maintaining stability of
water and oil emulsions. Furthermore, the comments informed that de-
oiled lecithin is not available as organic.
Comments in support of removing bleached lecithin from Sec.
205.605(b) indicated that this action will encourage the increased
production and use of organic ingredients needed for organic food
processing. They also argued that unbleached lecithin is now
commercially available in organic forms, so the exemption for these
substances is no longer crucial. Commenters stated that the use of
nonorganic de-oiled lecithin on Sec. 205.606, instead of the
nonorganic unbleached form previously allowed, would be subject to the
determination of commercial availability of any organic form--once
developed--in the processor's organic system plan and other specific
restrictions. Commenters in favor of the amendment expressed
frustration with discrepant use of organic unbleached lecithin and less
expensive conventional unbleached lecithin in comparably priced
multiple brands of the same processed organic products on retail
shelves. These commenters conveyed expectations that this rule change
will result in the replacement of nonorganic bleached lecithin with the
organic form and thus encourage increased use and availability of
organic ingredients.
A few comments opposing the change in the unbleached lecithin
annotation at Sec. 205.606 explained that the only current source of
organic lecithin is soy, which is a food allergen. They cited a lack of
availability of organic forms of lecithin from sunflower or canola and
predicted that consumers with a soy allergy would not be able to eat
organic products containing soy lecithin. These commenters noted that
soy is identified in the U.S. Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer
Protection Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-282, Title II) (21 U.S.C. 301) as
one of 8 major food groups which account for 90 percent of life-
threatening food allergies. This legislation established mandatory
disclosure requirements on labels for processed food containing any
amounts of the eight named foods (milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree
nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans) listed in the 2004 Act. Food
processors have become more aware of soy's allergenic potential and the
federal labeling requirements when soy-based ingredients are used since
passage of the 2004 Act. The opposing comments expressed concern that
the annotation change would result in higher levels of soy lecithin
being used in processed organic foods because it is more commonly
available in organic form, but did not provide specific evidence to
support this statement. Nonorganic lecithin from sunflower, rapeseed
and canola is widely available commercially, and NOP believes that
there is potential that any increased demand for non-soy lecithin will
stimulate increased production of organic forms of bleached and
unbleached lecithin from these alternative sources.
A comment criticized the NOSB for omitting food allergies from the
discussion in considering the lecithin petition. The NOSB did address
this issue several times during its deliberation, as captured in the
May 2009 NOSB meeting transcripts. The Board concluded that its
recommended change to unbleached lecithin would still avail
manufacturers with the option to use nonorganic, non-soy forms of de-
oiled lecithin. Commenters conveyed a preference to have non-
allergenic, nonorganic forms of lecithin available under Sec. 205.606.
The change in
[[Page 8092]]
annotation does not specify the plant source of lecithin and,
therefore, nonorganic de-oiled lecithin from non-soy and nonorganic
sources may be used when organic equivalents are not available. A
substance is considered commercially available if it is available in an
appropriate form, quality, or quantity to fulfill an essential function
in a system of organic production or handling, as determined by the
certifying agent in the course of reviewing the organic plan. In
summary, this annotation change would not limit the use of lecithin to
organic de-oiled soy lecithin. Non-soy sources that are non-GMO and
nonorganic would remain acceptable under Sec. 205.606, and accredited
certifying agents would continue to require any nonorganic de-oiled
lecithin to be sourced from non-GMO sources as long as de-oiled
lecithin is not commercially available in organic form.
Changes Requested But Not Made
Commenters requested that the proposed action be amended for Sec.
205.606 to allow the use of non-GMO, non-allergenic lecithin. We have
not made that change because we believe this request is mostly
accommodated by the proposed action. Nonorganic forms of de-oiled
lecithin can be used when the organic version is not commercially
available. The NOP regulations define commercially available as a
production input in an appropriate form, quality, or quantity to
fulfill an essential function in a system of organic production or
handling, as determined by the certifying agent in the course of
reviewing the organic plan. Therefore, if a processor intends to make a
soy-free product containing lecithin, in which de-oiled is the
appropriate form, the processor may use nonorganic de-oiled lecithin
from sunflower, canola or other sources if lecithin from the preferred
sources is not available in organic form. If a product requires a form
of lecithin other than de-oiled, such as fluid or powered, the lecithin
must be sourced organically. The NOSB recommendation was finalized in
May 2009. We believe that processors have had adequate notice to pursue
the procurement of non-soy forms of organic lecithin if their products
are intended to be soy free.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Animals,
Archives and records, Imports, Labeling, Organically produced products,
Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seals and insignia,
Soil conservation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 205, subpart
G is amended as follows:
PART 205--NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 205 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522.
0
2. In Sec. 205.601 add new paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop
production.
* * * * *
(o) As production aids. Microcrystalline cheesewax (CAS 's
64742-42-3, 8009-03-08, and 8002-74-2)-for use in log grown mushroom
production. Must be made without either ethylene-propylene co-polymer
or synthetic colors.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 205.605 is amended by:
0
A. Removing ``Lecithin-bleached'' from paragraph (b); and
0
B. Adding one new substance ``Acidified sodium chlorite'', in
alphabetical order, to paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as
ingredients in or on processed products labeled as ``organic'' or
``made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).''
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Acidified sodium chlorite--Secondary direct antimicrobial food
treatment and indirect food contact surface sanitizing. Acidified with
citric acid only.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 205.606 is amended by:
0
A. Revising paragraph (p);
0
B. Redesignating paragraphs (r) through (t) and paragraphs (u) through
(y) as paragraphs (s) through (u) and (w) through (aa) respectively;
and
0
C. Adding new paragraphs (r) and (v).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as
ingredients in or on processed products labeled as ``organic.''
* * * * *
(p) Lecithin--de-oiled.
* * * * *
(r) Orange pulp, dried.
* * * * *
(v) Seaweed, Pacific kombu.
* * * * *
Dated: February 3, 2012.
Robert C. Keeney,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-2938 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P