Rule2022-03851
National Organic Program; Amendments to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (2022 Sunset)
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 28, 2022
Effective
March 30, 2022
Issuing agencies
Agriculture DepartmentAgricultural Marketing Service
Abstract
This final rule amends the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) organic regulations to implement recommendations from the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The rule prohibits fourteen nonorganic ingredients, which are currently allowed in the manufacture of organic processed products. The rule also prohibits two substances (vitamin B<INF>1</INF> and procaine), which are currently allowed in organic crop and livestock production. Finally, the rule renews an allowance for two substances (oxytocin and sucrose octanoate esters) in organic production.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10930-10938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03851]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 205
[Document Number AMS-NOP-19-0106; NOP-19-03]
RIN 0581-AD98
National Organic Program; Amendments to the National List of
Allowed and Prohibited Substances (2022 Sunset)
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) organic regulations to implement recommendations
from the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The rule prohibits
fourteen nonorganic ingredients, which are currently allowed in the
manufacture of organic processed products. The rule also prohibits two
substances (vitamin B<INF>1</INF> and procaine), which are currently
allowed in organic crop and livestock production. Finally, the rule
renews an allowance for two substances (oxytocin and sucrose octanoate
esters) in organic production.
DATES:
Effective Date: This rule is effective on March 30, 2022.
Compliance Dates: The compliance date for the amendments that
remove vitamin B<INF>1</INF> and procaine from the National List is
March 15, 2023. The compliance date for all other amendments that
remove substances from the National List is March 15, 2024. Products in
the stream of commerce after the compliance date that are labeled as
``organic'' or ``made with organic (specified ingredients or food
group(s))'' may contain substances removed in this final rule if
manufactured prior to the compliance date. The final rule renews an
allowance for two substances (oxytocin and sucrose octanoate esters) in
organic production. This rule maintains the current regulatory
structure with regard to these two substances upon publication for up
to five years.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jared Clark, Standards Division,
National Organic Program. Telephone: (202) 720-3252 or Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#db91baa9bebff598b7baa9b09baea8bfbaf5bcb4ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="773d1605121359341b16051c370204131659101801">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On December 21, 2000, the Secretary of Agriculture (``Secretary'')
established the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) National Organic
Program (NOP) and the USDA organic regulations (65 FR 80547). Within
the USDA organic regulations (7 CFR part 205) is the National List of
Allowed and Prohibited Substances (or ``National List''). The National
List identifies the synthetic substances that may be used in organic
crop and livestock production as well as the nonsynthetic (natural)
substances that may not be used. It also identifies the nonorganic
substances that may be used in or on processed organic products.
AMS is finalizing 16 amendments to the National List in accordance
with the procedures detailed in the Organic Foods Production Act of
1990 (OFPA) (7 U.S.C. 6501-6524). OFPA establishes what may be included
on the National List and the procedures that the USDA must follow to
amend the National List (7 U.S.C. 6517). OFPA also describes the NOSB's
responsibilities in proposing amendments to the National List,
including the criteria for evaluating amendments to the National List
(7 U.S.C. 6518).
To remain on the National List, substances must be: (1) Reviewed
every five years by the NOSB, a 15-member federal advisory committee;
and (2) renewed by the Secretary (7 U.S.C. 6517(e)). This action of
NOSB review and USDA renewal is commonly referred to as the ``sunset
review'' or ``sunset process.'' AMS published information about this
process in the Federal Register on September 16, 2013 (78 FR 56811).
The sunset date (i.e., the date by which the Secretary must renew a
substance for the listing to remain valid on the National List) for
each substance is included in the NOP Program Handbook (document NOP
5611).
The removal of substances from the National List addresses National
Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendations submitted to the
Secretary after the conclusion of the NOSB's public meetings on October
29, 2015; November 2, 2017; October 26, 2018; and October 30, 2020.
During a 60-day comment period that closed on October 25, 2021, AMS
received 60 comments on the proposed rule. See below for a discussion
of the comments received and AMS's responses to comments. Comments on
the proposed rule can also be viewed through <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. Use the
search area on the homepage at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> to enter a
keyword,
[[Page 10931]]
title, or docket ID (the docket number for this rule is AMS-NOP-19-
0106).
II. Overview of Amendments
This rule removes fourteen ingredients and two substances from the
National List and retains (or ``renews'') two substances on the
National List. Additional background on the NOSB's review of the
substances may be found in the proposed rule (86 FR 47242; August 24,
2021).
This final rule removes the following synthetic substances, which
are currently allowed in organic crop and livestock production (7 CFR
205.601 and 205.603):
<bullet> Vitamin B<INF>1</INF> (crop production); and
<bullet> Procaine (livestock production).
As noted in the DATES section, AMS is providing a one-year
implementation period for these changes to provide time for certifying
agents to communicate the changes to organic operations and for organic
producers to cease use.
Additionally, AMS is removing the following nonorganic ingredients,
which are currently allowed in organic handling (Sec. Sec. 205.605 and
205.606):
<bullet> Alginic acid;
<bullet> Colors (black currant juice color, blueberry juice color,
carrot juice color, cherry juice color, grape juice color, paprika
color, pumpkin juice color, turmeric extract color);
<bullet> Kelp;
<bullet> Konjac flour;
<bullet> Sweet potato starch;
<bullet> Turkish bay leaves; and
<bullet> Whey protein concentrate.
Finally, this rule renews sucrose octanoate esters for organic crop
and livestock production and oxytocin for organic livestock production.
The new sunset date for the two substances (three listings on the
National List) is March 15, 2027.
Below, AMS describes each substance in alphabetical order, sorted
by use (i.e., crop production, livestock production, handling). Sucrose
octanoate esters is discussed first because it is used in both crop and
livestock production. For each substance, AMS outlines the NOSB's
sunset review, discusses comments received, and describes the final
action by this rule.
Implementation Period. As noted in the DATES section, AMS is
providing a one-year implementation period for producers to cease use
of vitamin B<INF>1</INF> and procaine. For all other substances removed
by this final rule, AMS is providing a two-year implementation period.
A shorter implementation period for vitamin B<INF>1</INF> and procaine
is appropriate because there is no evidence these substances are
currently used in organic production. A 2-year implementation period is
provided for organic handling operations to cease use of the nonorganic
ingredients (including alginic acid) above. AMS believes that a two-
year implementation period provides certifying agents with the
necessary time to communicate the changes to organic operations and for
operations to source organic forms of the ingredients (if necessary),
revise labels, and/or adjust recipes. Public comment indicated a two-
year implementation period would be adequate. AMS notes that while the
final rule provides a two-year implementation period, organic handlers
may not use nonorganic forms of ingredients when organic forms of the
ingredients are commercially available (see 7 CFR 205.301(f)(6)).
Sucrose Octanoate Esters (Sec. 205.601 and Sec. 205.603)
This final rule renews the allowances for sucrose octanoate esters
at 7 CFR 205.601(e)(10) and 205.603(b)(11).\1\ Sucrose octanoate esters
is a pesticide that targets mites (e.g., Varroa mites, a pest that
attacks honeybees) and certain soft-bodied insects (e.g., aphids).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sucrose octanoate esters is cited in NOSB recommendation(s)
at 7 CFR 205.603(b)(10). The current citation for sucrose octanoate
esters is 7 CFR 205.603(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOSB Review and Recommendation
Following the sunset review of sucrose octanoate esters, the NOSB
recommended removing sucrose octanoate esters from the National List.
As described in the Background section, the sunset process is a system
of regular evaluation of National List substances against criteria in
the OFPA. If a substance is found to no longer satisfy these criteria,
the NOSB may recommend removal of the substance.
Prior to the NOSB's 2018 Fall meeting, the NOSB received
information indicating there were no current U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) registrations for sucrose octanoate esters at
the time and therefore no approved pesticide applications. Based on
this information, the NOSB reasoned that no argument could be made that
this substance remains an essential tool for organic production if
there was no current legal use consistent with the National List
restrictions. The Board then voted to remove both the crop use listing
(at Sec. 205.601(e)) and the livestock use listing (at Sec.
205.603(b)).<SUP>2 3</SUP> In both organic crop and livestock
production, sucrose octanoate esters are allowed as an insecticide and
parasiticide, with the latter including treatment of Varroa mites in
honeybees. Honeybees are regulated as livestock under the USDA organic
regulations (see definition of ``livestock'' at Sec. 205.2), allowing
substances on the National List for livestock production to be used in
organic apiculture (beekeeping).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Organic Standards Board, Sunset Review of
Substances Listed at Sec. Sec. 205.601 and 205.602, <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/CS2020SunsetFinalRecOct2018.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/CS2020SunsetFinalRecOct2018.pdf</a>.
\3\ National Organic Standards Board, Sunset Review of
Substances Listed at Sec. 205.603, <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/LS2020SunsetFinalRecOct2018.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/LS2020SunsetFinalRecOct2018.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received
Most comments on the proposed rule related to the proposed removal
of sucrose octanoate esters from the National List.
Lack of approved alternatives. Most comments supported keeping
sucrose octanoate esters on the National List. Commenters stated that
removing this substance would have a negative impact on organic farmers
and beekeepers, as it is a primary ingredient in OrganiShield--a common
product used in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems. Commenters
stressed that there is no comparable product on the market that is
safe, effective, and approved for use in organic crop and livestock
production.
Environmentally friendly pesticide. Commenters noted that the use
of sucrose octanoate esters benefits crop-friendly insects such as
pollinators, biodegrades rapidly after use, and does not negatively
impact the environment. Multiple commenters highlighted that sucrose
octanoate esters play a key role as an organic pesticide, specifically
in controlling Varroa mites.
Change in market situation. Commenters highlighted that the NOSB
voted to remove both the crop use listing at Sec. 205.601(e) and the
livestock use at Sec. 205.603(b) during the Fall 2018 meeting. The
NOSB's rationale was that sucrose octanoate esters could not be
considered an essential tool for organic production if there were no
legally approved uses (i.e., there were no active EPA pesticide
registrations at the time). Commenters noted that the market situation
has changed since the NOSB's 2018 decision, as there have since been
new EPA registrations for sucrose octanoate esters.
AMS Response
AMS had tentatively suggested removal of sucrose octanoate esters
in the proposed rule based on the lack of EPA-approved uses for this
substance back when the NOSB recommended its removal in 2018 (86 FR
47242, August 24, 2021). Following the 2018 NOSB
[[Page 10932]]
meeting, the EPA received product registrations for sucrose octanoate
esters in December 2020. Subsequent comments demonstrated that the
market situation had changed since the 2018 NOSB recommendation, with
recent product registrations and increased use of sucrose octanoate
esters. Additionally, comments noted this substance is not harmful to
the environment and cited the lack of alternatives approved for organic
use. In response to comments identifying the recent registration,
increased use, and a lack of alternatives, AMS is not removing sucrose
octanoate esters from the National List at Sec. Sec. 205.601(e)(10)
and 205.603(b)(11). The substance will undergo another sunset review
prior to the new March 15, 2027 sunset date. At that time, the Board
will have another opportunity to evaluate the substance against OFPA
criteria considering this recent registration and increase in use.
Vitamin B<INF>1</INF> (Sec. 205.601)
This final rule amends the National List to prohibit use of
synthetic vitamin B<INF>1</INF> in organic crop production by removing
vitamin B<INF>1</INF> from 7 CFR 205.601(j)(9).
NOSB Review and Recommendation
Following the sunset review of vitamin B<INF>1</INF>, the NOSB
recommended removing vitamin B<INF>1</INF> from the National List. As
described in the Background section, the sunset process is a system of
regular evaluation of National List substances against criteria in the
OFPA. If a substance is found to no longer satisfy these criteria, the
NOSB may recommend removal of the substance.
In support of their sunset review,\4\ the NOSB requested a third-
party technical report on the use of vitamins B<INF>1</INF>, C, and E
in crop production.\5\ The technical report stated these vitamins are
generally used for stimulation of crop growth and plant protection but
found that previous claims about root growth and reduction of
transplant shock associated with vitamin B<INF>1</INF> were largely
unsubstantiated outside of a laboratory environment. Due to this, and
the lack of support voiced during the public comment process regarding
efficacy or necessity, the NOSB recommended removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Organic Standards Board, Crops 2019 Sunset
Substances, <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/CS2019SunsetsFinalRec.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/CS2019SunsetsFinalRec.pdf</a>.
\5\ Pesticide Research Institute, Technical Evaluation Report:
Vitamins B1, C and E, <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Vitamins%20B1-C-E%20TR%202015.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Vitamins%20B1-C-E%20TR%202015.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received
AMS received no comments in support of keeping synthetic vitamin
B<INF>1</INF> on the National List for organic crop production. One
commenter requested the NOP allow for a 12-month implementation
timeline.
AMS Response
As commenters noted, the NOSB voted to remove vitamin B<INF>1</INF>
from the National List at the Fall 2017 meeting on the basis that it is
not essential for organic crop production and because its primary use
for root growth and reduction of transplant shock was not substantiated
by technical information. Given this information regarding use and
efficacy, AMS is removing vitamin B<INF>1</INF> from the National List
for organic crop production. Further, the 2015 technical report on
vitamins for crop production identified several natural (nonsynthetic)
alternatives to vitamin B<INF>1,</INF> including yeast, various meals
(e.g., soybean meal, cottonseed meal), and other crop waste or
residues. After considering public comments, technical reports, and the
NOSB review, AMS is finalizing the removal of vitamin B<INF>1</INF>
from the National List at Sec. 205.601(j)(9). As specified in the
DATES section, organic crop producers will have until March 15, 2023,
to comply with this change.
Oxytocin (Sec. 205.603)
This final rule renews the allowance for oxytocin (an animal drug)
for use in post-parturition (birth) therapeutic applications at 7 CFR
205.603(a)(22). Oxytocin will not be prohibited, as proposed, in
organic livestock production. A discussion of the compliant uses under
the annotation, ``postparturition therapeutic applications,'' is
included below in AMS's response.
NOSB Review and Recommendation
Following its sunset review of oxytocin, the NOSB recommended
removing oxytocin from the National List.\6\ As described in the
Background section, the sunset process is a system of regular
evaluation of National List substances against criteria in the OFPA. If
a substance is found to no longer satisfy these criteria, the NOSB may
recommend removal of the substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Organic Standards Board, Livestock 2019 Sunset
Substances, <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/LS2019SunsetsFinalRec.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/LS2019SunsetsFinalRec.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NOSB requested public comment on whether the substance was
essential for organic production and whether there were natural
alternative materials and methods that render it unnecessary. In
response, the NOSB received public comments indicating the substance
was no longer necessary and generally supporting its removal. The NOSB
concluded there are numerous alternative methods and materials to
oxytocin and that the use of oxytocin no longer meets the criteria at 7
U.S.C. 6518(m)(6). Additionally, the NOSB noted that oxytocin is a
synthetic hormone and that hormones are not otherwise permitted in
organic production (Sec. Sec. 205.237(b)(1) and 205.238(c)(3)).
Comments Received
AMS received several comments in response to the proposed sunset
removal of oxytocin from the National List.
General opposition. A certifying agent (``certifier'') noted that
35 of the organic dairies they certify include the substance in their
Organic System Plans for use in post-parturition therapeutic
applications. The commenter stated that those operations use oxytocin
for various uses, including uterine care, milk letdown for first-time
heifers or as a mastitis treatment, retained placenta, and strained
labor treatment. The commenter noted they do not allow routine or
repeated use of oxytocin nor permit operations to use oxytocin to
promote milk production. The commenter requested that any prohibition
of the substance occur following the 2022 spring birthing season.
A dairy manufacturer requested retention for oxytocin on the
National List due to a lack of alternatives. The commenter also stated
oxytocin is a veterinary control drug that should only be administered
or prescribed under veterinary instruction. The commenter recognized
alternatives can assist with topical inflammation; however, for uses to
assist with inflammation caused by animals withholding milk or to
assist with uterine cleaning, the commenter stated there were no
compliant alternatives. Another commenter also requested oxytocin to
remain an allowed substance on account of its effectiveness as a post-
parturition therapeutic to transition a dry cow to a lactating cow.
General agreement. A comment stated that natural alternatives are
available to address certain post-parturition complications that can
arise in organic dairy cattle and that use of oxytocin would prevent
organic producers from claiming their products are ``hormone-free.''
The commenter requested an implementation period of 12 months to
[[Page 10933]]
allow for industry time to comply with the final rule.
AMS Response
After reviewing public comments, AMS is renewing the listing for
oxytocin in this final rule. The substance will remain on the National
List, with a new sunset date of March 15, 2027. AMS agrees with
commenters that synthetic oxytocin remains essential to organic
livestock production in the absence of alternative nonsynthetic
(natural) medical treatments for post-parturition emergency treatments
(i.e., treatment for severe complications resulting from labor). AMS
notes that under current FDA regulations, ``Federal law restricts
[oxytocin] to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.'' (21
CFR 522.1680(c)(3)). Although some annotations on the National List for
animal drugs specify that they may be used only by or on the order of a
veterinarian, the absence of this phrasing in the annotation for
oxytocin would not alter a producer's obligations to comply with other
federal laws.
By retaining oxytocin on the National List, organic livestock
producers will continue to be permitted to use the drug to treat
specific conditions within a limited timeframe following parturition
without forfeiting the animal's organic status. Additional discussion
of the permitted uses of the substance in organic production follows.
Annotation Discussion
AMS is aware there is some confusion around what uses comply with
the annotation for oxytocin that reads, ``use in postparturition
therapeutic treatments'' (Sec. 205.603(a)(22)). This discussion is
meant to inform certifying agents and organic operations of AMS's
current thinking on uses that comply with the annotation.
The current annotation allows producers to use oxytocin to treat
conditions related to labor and to an animal's postpartum survival. Its
use is not permitted on a routine basis (i.e., as protocol). Instead,
it is available for emergency situations and severe complications in
the immediate postpartum (following birth of young) period. It may not
be administered to increase an animal's milk production (volume) or for
milk letdown. As previously noted in this document, Federal law
restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed
veterinarian (21 CFR 522.1680(c)(3)).
AMS's interpretation of the annotation for oxytocin at Sec.
205.603, ``for postparturition therapeutic applications,'' is informed
and supported by its prior discussion of oxytocin in its March 13, 2000
proposed rule (65 FR 13511). AMS believes that discussion is relevant
to the meaning of the current annotation in the USDA organic
regulations. In the discussion in the proposed rule, AMS noted that
oxytocin, ``has some uses that do not involve lactation but are instead
related to an animal's postpartum survival'' and that oxytocin was
permitted by some certifiers for ``animals that experience severe
complications resulting from labor,'' and described those as
``emergency situations'' (65 FR 13511, 13588).
AMS's expectation is that certifiers will always review an organic
operation's use of oxytocin to ensure it is used only in
postparturition therapeutic applications.
Procaine (Sec. 205.603)
This final rule amends the National List to remove procaine at 7
CFR 205.603(b)(9) and prohibit its use in organic livestock production.
NOSB Review and Recommendation
Following the sunset review of procaine, the NOSB recommended
removing procaine from the National List. As described in the
Background section, the sunset process is a system of regular
evaluation of National List substances against criteria in the OFPA. If
a substance is found to no longer satisfy these criteria, the NOSB may
recommend removal of the substance.
In support of their sunset review, the NOSB solicited public
comment over two meetings on use of procaine and whether procaine can
be sourced without prohibited antibiotics. The comments stated procaine
is rarely used, is only available in drug formulations that are
combined with prohibited antibiotics, and is not as effective as
lidocaine (allowed for organic livestock use at Sec. 205.603(b)(5)).
After their review, the NOSB recommended removal of procaine from the
National List.
Comments Received
AMS received no comments opposed to removing procaine from the
National List. A certifying agent noted the importance of pain
relievers but stated that procaine was not an active ingredient in any
product currently used by organic operations that it certifies. Another
comment highlighted that procaine products are already prohibited for
use because they are always formulated with antibiotics that are
prohibited in organic livestock production. One commenter requested an
implementation timeline of 12 months to allow industry time to comply
with the final rule.
AMS Response
As the NOSB referenced in their recommendation, procaine is not
available on its own (i.e., not compounded with an antibiotic). A
search of the FDA's animal drug database (<a href="https://animaldrugsatfda.fda.gov/">https://animaldrugsatfda.fda.gov/</a>) indicates that all 16 of the FDA approved
drugs that contain procaine also contain an antibiotic (e.g.,
Penicillin G Procaine). Furthermore, another National List material,
lidocaine, could be used to perform the same function (as a local
anesthetic). This information supports that procaine is not currently
used in organic production and no longer meets the exemption
requirement (7 U.S.C. 6517(c)(1)(A)(ii)). AMS agrees with commenters
and the NOSB that procaine is not essential to organic livestock
production. AMS is finalizing the removal of synthetic procaine from
the National List at Sec. 205.603(b)(9) to prohibit its use in organic
livestock production. As specified in the DATES section, organic
livestock producers will have until March 15, 2023, to comply with this
change.
Alginic Acid (Sec. 205.605)
This final rule amends the National List to remove alginic acid at
7 CFR 205.605(b) and prohibit its use in organic processed products.
NOSB Review and Recommendation
Following the sunset review of alginic acid, the NOSB recommended
removing alginic acid from the National List. As described in the
Background section, the sunset process is a system of regular
evaluation of National List substances against criteria in the OFPA. If
a substance is found to no longer satisfy these criteria, the NOSB may
recommend removal of the substance.
In support of their sunset review of alginic acid, the NOSB
received a third-party technical report in 2015 and solicited public
comment at their Spring 2019 meeting.\7\ The NOSB received no comments
in support of continuing the allowance of, or stating use of, alginic
acid. In addition, no certifying agents (``certifiers'') reported this
material in use by their certified operations. Further, the 2015
technical report cited other National List materials (including agar-
agar, carrageenan, gellan gum, and xanthan gum) as possible
alternatives to alginic acid. Based on this, the NOSB
[[Page 10934]]
determined that there are readily available alternatives and
recommended removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ OMRI, Technical Evaluation Report: Alginic Acid, <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Alginic%20Acid%20TR.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Alginic%20Acid%20TR.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received
AMS received no comments in favor of retaining alginic acid on the
National List. One comment agreed with the NOSB's rationale for
removing alginic acid from the National List and requested a 24-month
implementation period to comply with the final rule.
AMS Response
Given that there were no reports of operations using alginic acid
and the availability of possible alternatives on the National List (as
referenced in the technical report), this substance no longer appears
to meet the requirements for inclusion on the National List at 7 U.S.C.
6517(c)(1)(A)(ii). AMS is finalizing the removal of alginic acid from
the National List at Sec. 205.605(b) to prohibit its use in organic
processed products. As identified in the DATES section, organic
processors will have until March 15, 2024, to comply with this change.
Colors (Sec. 205.606)
This final rule amends the National List to remove eight nonorganic
colors from the National List at Sec. 205.606(d):
<bullet> Black currant juice color--derived from Ribes nigrum L.;
<bullet> Blueberry juice color--derived from blueberries (Vaccinium
spp.);
<bullet> Carrot juice color--derived from Daucus carota L.;
<bullet> Cherry juice color--derived from Prunus avium (L.) L. or
Prunus cerasus L.;
<bullet> Grape juice color--derived from Vitis vinifera L.;
<bullet> Paprika color--derived from dried powder or vegetable oil
extract of Capsicum annuum L.;
<bullet> Pumpkin juice color--derived from Cucurbita pepo L. or
Cucurbita maxima Duchesne;
<bullet> Turmeric extract color--derived from Curcuma longa L.
NOSB Review and Recommendation
The NOSB recommended the removal of these colors at their Fall 2020
meeting.\8\ The effect of these removals means that only organic forms
of these colors will be allowed in organic handling. The NOSB solicited
public comments in support of their sunset review of these colors at
the Spring and Fall 2020 meetings. The NOSB noted these public comments
were mixed regarding the availability and necessity of these colors.
Additionally, in the case of carrot juice color and grape juice color,
the NOSB noted that the availability of these crops in organic forms
should provide an adequate supply of organic carrot juice and organic
grape juice for color production and cited that as a reason for their
recommended removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Organic Standards Board, 2022 Sunset Reviews--
Handling (Sec. Sec. 205.605, 205.606), <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/HS2022SunsetRecs_webpost.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/HS2022SunsetRecs_webpost.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received
AMS received few comments in response to the proposed removal of
eight nonorganic colors from the National List.
General opposition. A comment requested retaining turmeric extract
color on the National List because there is no readily available
organic alternative in the marketplace. Another comment requested
retaining paprika color on the National List as there are no
commercially-available, organic alternatives for the color; however,
the commenter stated there are readily-available, organic raw materials
that may allow an organic version of the color to be developed. The
commenter estimated a two-year implementation period would provide
enough time for color development, shelf-life trials, and
commercialization.
General agreement. A certifier noted limited use of the nonorganic
colors in this final rule among the organic handlers they certify. The
comment noted there is limited use of nonorganic paprika color, grape
juice color, and cherry juice powder. A certifying agent was
particularly concerned about an insufficient supply of blueberry juice
color, carrot juice color, paprika color, and turmeric extract color.
The commenter cited an internal survey (of organic operations) that
indicated the supply of organic colors is fragile and that removal from
the National List may be premature, especially without a substantial
implementation period. The commenter requested an implementation
timeline of 24 months to allow industry time to comply with the final
rule.
AMS Response
In the rule proposing removal of these colors, AMS requested
comments regarding whether any of these colors are necessary and
whether there are enough organic versions available to meet demand.
Comments received suggested there may not be sufficient supplies of
certain organic colors but that supply would likely develop over the
course of the 24-month implementation period. None of these comments
suggested an inability to produce or develop organic versions of these
colors, given sufficient time. As such, AMS is finalizing the removal
of these non-organic colors from the National List at Sec. 205.606(d).
To support the development of an adequate supply of organic colors, as
requested by commentors, organic processors will have until March 15,
2024 (a 24-month implementation period) to comply with these changes.
Kelp (Sec. 205.606)
This final rule amends the National List to remove kelp at 7 CFR
205.606(k) and prohibit its use. Wakame seaweed and Pacific kombu
remain allowed in Sec. 205.606 in organic processed products.
NOSB Review and Recommendation
Following the sunset review of kelp at their Fall 2020 meeting, the
NOSB recommended removing kelp from the National List. Only organic
forms of kelp (other than wakame seaweed and Pacific kombu, which
remain allowed in Sec. 205.606), would be allowed in organic handling.
As described in the Background section, the sunset process is a system
of regular evaluation of National List substances against criteria in
the OFPA. If a substance is found to no longer satisfy these criteria,
the NOSB may recommend removal of the substance.
During its sunset review, the NOSB received comments in support of
removing, as well as relisting, kelp. The NOSB determined that there
were alternatives to kelp on the National List (namely Pacific kombu
and wakame) and therefore recommended removing kelp from the National
List in Sec. 205.606.
Comments Received
AMS received no comments in favor of retaining nonorganic kelp on
the National List for organic handling. A comment requested an
implementation period of 24 months to allow industry time to comply
with the final rule.
AMS Response
According to the Organic Integrity Database, there are currently
104 certified crop, wild crop, and handling operations that list
``kelp'' as a certified organic product.\9\ Organic kelp appears to be
commercially available; therefore, this substance is no longer
necessary and no longer meets the requirements for inclusion on the
National List at 7 U.S.C. 6517(c)(1)(A)(ii). AMS did not receive any
comments challenging this conclusion and is finalizing the removal of
non-organic kelp from the National List at Sec. 205.606(k). As
identified in the
[[Page 10935]]
DATES section, organic processors will have until March 15, 2024, to
comply with this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Organic Integrity Database, accessed January 5, 2022:
<a href="https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/Search.aspx">https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/Search.aspx</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konjac Flour (Sec. 205.606)
This final rule amends the National List to remove konjac flour at
7 CFR 205.606(l) and prohibit its use in organic processed products.
NOSB Review and Recommendation
Following the sunset review of konjac flour at their Fall 2017
meeting, the NOSB recommended removing konjac flour from the National
List. As described in the Background section, the sunset process is a
system of regular evaluation of National List substances against
criteria in the OFPA. If a substance is found to no longer satisfy
these criteria, the NOSB may recommend removal of the substance.
In support of their recommendation, the NOSB solicited public
comment regarding the use and necessity of konjac flour in organic
handling as well as the availability of organic konjac flour. The NOSB
received little feedback from industry in response. One trade
organization reported one organic producer using konjac flour but was
unsure if it was for products sold as ``organic.'' Several certifiers
stated they had not received any feedback from their clients regarding
the need for, or use of, nonorganic konjac flour in their products.
Ultimately, the NOSB voted to recommend removal of konjac flour from
the National List at Sec. 205.606(l) due to available alternatives.
Comments Received
AMS received no comments in favor of retaining nonorganic konjac
flour on the National List for organic handling. A comment requested an
implementation period of 24 months to allow industry time to comply
with the final rule.
AMS Response
A search in the Organic Integrity Database for ``konjac'' shows 30
operations with some form of certified organic konjac products (e.g.,
powder, starch, konjac tubers).\10\ Given the lack of reported use of,
or need for, nonorganic konjac flour, and the availability of organic
konjac flour and konjac tubers, nonorganic konjac flour no longer meets
the requirements for inclusion on the National List at 7 U.S.C.
6517(c)(1)(A)(ii). AMS did not receive any comments challenging this
conclusion and, as such, is finalizing the removal of non-organic
konjac flour from the National List at Sec. 205.606(l). As identified
in the DATES section, organic processors will have until March 15,
2024, to comply with this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Organic Integrity Database, accessed January 5, 2022:
<a href="https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/Search.aspx">https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/Search.aspx</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweet Potato Starch (Sec. 205.606)
This final rule amends the National List to remove sweet potato
starch at 7 CFR 205.606(s)(2) and prohibit the use of non-organic sweet
potato starch in organic products.
NOSB Review and Recommendation
Following the sunset review of sweet potato starch at their Fall
2020 meeting, the NOSB recommended removing sweet potato starch from
the National List. As described in the Background section, the sunset
process is a system of regular evaluation of National List substances
against criteria in the OFPA. If a substance is found to no longer
satisfy these criteria, the NOSB may recommend removal of the
substance.
During its sunset review, the NOSB solicited public comment on the
use and necessity of sweet potato starch but received little feedback.
The comments suggested there is scant use of nonorganic sweet potato
starch, that alternatives are readily available, and that organic sweet
potato starch is available. Further, comments noted that the continued
listing of nonorganic sweet potato starch is inhibiting production of
organic forms of sweet potato starch. Based on this information, the
NOSB recommended the removal of this substance due to available
alternatives.
Comments Received
AMS received no comments in favor of retaining nonorganic sweet
potato starch on the National List for organic handling. A comment
requested an implementation period of 24 months to allow industry time
to comply with the final rule.
AMS Response
A search in the Organic Integrity Database for ``potato starch''
shows 60 operations with some form of certified organic potato starch
and another 27 operations with some form of certified organic pea
starch, a cited alternative to sweet potato starch.\11\ Given the low
reported use of nonorganic sweet potato starch and the availability of
organic sweet potato starch and organic pea starch, nonorganic sweet
potato starch no longer meets the requirements for inclusion on the
National List at 7 U.S.C. 6517(c)(1)(A)(ii). AMS did not receive any
comments challenging this conclusion and, as such, is finalizing the
removal of non-organic sweet potato starch from the National List at
Sec. 205.606(s)(2). As identified in the DATES section, organic
processors will have until March 15, 2024, to comply with this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Organic Integrity Database, accessed January 5, 2022:
<a href="https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/Search.aspx">https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/Search.aspx</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turkish Bay Leaves (Sec. 205.606)
This final rule amends the National List to remove Turkish bay
leaves at 7 CFR 205.606(v) to prohibit its use in organic products.
NOSB Review and Recommendation
Following the sunset review of Turkish bay leaves at their Fall
2020 meeting, the NOSB recommended removing Turkish bay leaves from the
National List. As described in the Background section, the sunset
process is a system of regular evaluation of National List substances
against criteria in the OFPA. If a substance is found to no longer
satisfy these criteria, the NOSB may recommend removal of the
substance.
During its sunset review, the NOSB received many comments
supporting the removal of Turkish bay leaves due to the availability of
organic versions. The NOSB called attention to one comment received at
its Fall 2020 meeting from an organic producer who uses Turkish bay
leaves in a wide range of organic canned soups. This food manufacturer
noted that organic forms of Turkish bay leaves are readily available.
Further comments from certifiers indicated that few, if any, of their
operations use nonorganic Turkish bay leaves. Based on this
information, the NOSB recommended the removal of this substance due to
available alternatives.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ National Organic Standards Board, 2022 Sunset Reviews--
Handling (Sec. Sec. 205.605, 205.606), <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/HS2022SunsetRecs_webpost.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/HS2022SunsetRecs_webpost.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received
AMS received no comments in favor of retaining nonorganic Turkish
bay leaves on the National List for organic handling. A commenter noted
that the NOSB received multiple comments supporting the removal of
Turkish bay leaves from the National List during the 2020 sunset
review. The commenter stated that Turkish bay leaves only remained on
the National List after the NOSB's Fall 2015 meeting due to the lack of
available, organic alternatives.
AMS Response
Previously, AMS proposed removing Turkish bay leaves from Sec.
205.606 following a Fall 2015 NOSB
[[Page 10936]]
recommendation.\13\ At the time, AMS received comments stating organic
whole Turkish bay leaves were not available in the quantity or quality
to meet organic handling needs. As a result, AMS did not finalize
removing Turkish bay leaves (82 FR 31241, July 6, 2017), and its sunset
date was extended five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ National Organic Standards Board, Sunset 2017 NOSB Final
Review Handling Substances, <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/HS%202017%20Sunset%20Final%20Rvw%20605%28a%29_%28b%29_606_final%20rec.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/HS%202017%20Sunset%20Final%20Rvw%20605%28a%29_%28b%29_606_final%20rec.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A search in the Organic Integrity Database for ``bay leaves'' shows
143 crop and handling operations with some form of certified organic
bay leaves. A search using the term ``Turkish bay leaves'' shows six
operations, as it appears that only one certifying agent identifies bay
leaves with that level of specificity in the Organic Integrity
Database.\14\ Given that comments to the NOSB indicated organic Turkish
bay leaves are readily available in all forms and the high number of
operations reported in the Organic Integrity Database with organic bay
leaves (of which a subset are Turkish bay leaves), nonorganic Turkish
bay leaves no longer meet the requirements for inclusion on the
National List at 7 U.S.C. 6517(c)(1)(A)(ii). During this current
rulemaking, AMS received no comments challenging this conclusion and is
removing non-organic Turkish bay leaves from the National List at Sec.
205.606(v). As identified in the DATES section, organic processors will
have until March 15, 2024, to comply with this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Organic Integrity Database, accessed January 5, 2022:
<a href="https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/Search.aspx">https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/Search.aspx</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whey Protein Concentrate (Sec. 205.606)
This final rule amends the National List to remove whey protein
concentrate at 7 CFR 205.606(x) and prohibit its use in organic
processed products.
NOSB Review and Recommendation
Following the sunset review of whey protein concentrate at their
Fall 2020 meeting, the NOSB recommended removing whey protein
concentrate from the National List. As described in the Background
section, the sunset process is a system of regular evaluation of
National List substances against criteria in the OFPA. If a substance
is found to no longer satisfy these criteria, the NOSB may recommend
removal of the substance.
During this sunset review, the NOSB received many comments
supporting the removal of whey protein concentrate due to the
availability of organic versions. The NOSB highlighted several
commenters, who demonstrated that they produce a robust supply of
organic whey protein concentrate in several forms and sell excess to
the conventional market. A comment noted that the international supply
chain of organic whey-based products is also robust. Further comments
from at least one certifier indicated that none of their operations are
using nonorganic whey protein concentrate. Based on this information,
the NOSB recommended the removal of this substance based on available
alternatives.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ National Organic Standards Board, 2022 Sunset Reviews--
Handling (Sec. Sec. 205.605, 205.606),<a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/HS2022SunsetRecs_webpost.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/HS2022SunsetRecs_webpost.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received
AMS received no comments in favor of retaining nonorganic whey
protein concentrate on the National List for organic handling. A
certifier noted that an organic operation they certify previously used
non-organic whey protein concentrate but no longer does. Another
commenter noted that the NOSB received many comments supporting the
removal of whey protein from the National List during the 2020 sunset
review, including from several manufacturers who demonstrated they
produce a robust supply of organic whey protein concentrate. The
commenter noted that removing the allowance of a nonorganic form will
help support organic cheese manufacturers. A comment requested an
implementation period of 24 months to allow industry time to comply
with the final rule.
AMS Response
Previously, AMS proposed removing whey protein concentrate from
Sec. 205.606, following a Fall 2015 NOSB recommendation.\16\ At that
time, AMS received comments stating organic whey protein concentrate
was essential for organic processed products and that there were no
commercially available, organic products. As a result, AMS did not
finalize the removal of whey protein concentrate from the National List
(82 FR 31241, July 6, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ National Organic Standards Board, Sunset 2017 NOSB Final
Review Handling Substances, <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/HS%202017%20Sunset%20Final%20Rvw%20605%28a%29_%28b%29_606_final%20rec.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/HS%202017%20Sunset%20Final%20Rvw%20605%28a%29_%28b%29_606_final%20rec.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A search in the Organic Integrity Database for ``whey protein
concentrate'' shows 23 operations with some form of certified organic
whey protein concentrate. The NOSB also received comments suggesting a
substantial supply of all forms of organic whey protein concentrate and
cited the diversion of some quantity to the conventional market as
evidence that there is enough supply to meet the demand for organic
whey protein concentrate. Given the comments submitted to the NOSB
outlining the lack of use and stated abundance of supply, nonorganic
whey protein concentrate no longer meets the requirement for inclusion
on the National List at 7 U.S.C. 6517(c)(1)(A)(ii). During this current
rulemaking, AMS received no comments challenging this conclusion and is
removing non-organic whey protein concentrate from the National List at
Sec. 205.606(x). As identified in the DATES section, organic
processors will have until March 15, 2024, to comply with this change.
III. Related Documents
AMS published notices in the Federal Register to announce the NOSB
meetings where the Board discussed these substances. The notices
invited public comments on the NOSB recommendations addressed in this
final rule. Transcripts of the meetings, along with the NOSB
recommendations, can be found on the AMS website at: <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/meetings">https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/meetings</a>. The AMS
proposed rule that preceded this final rule was published on August 24,
2021 (86 FR 47242).
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority
The OFPA authorizes the Secretary to make amendments to the
National List based on recommendations developed by the NOSB. The OFPA
authorizes the NOSB to develop recommendations for submission to the
Secretary to amend the National List and establish a process by which
persons may petition the NOSB for the purpose of having substances
evaluated for inclusion on or deletion from the National List (7 U.S.C.
6518(k) and (n)). Section 205.607 of the USDA organic regulations
permits any person to petition to add or remove a substance from the
National List and directs petitioners to obtain the petition procedures
from USDA (7 CFR 205.607). The current petition procedures published in
the Federal Register (81 FR 12680, March 10, 2016) for amending the
National List can be accessed through the NOP Handbook on the NOP
website as document NOP 3011 at <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/handbook">https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/handbook</a>.
[[Page 10937]]
A. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule does not meet the criteria of a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 as supplemented by
Executive Order 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has not reviewed this rule under those Orders.
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 of
the RFA 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.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) sets size criteria for each
industry described in the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) to delineate which operations qualify as small businesses.\17\
The SBA classifies small agricultural producers that engage in crop and
animal production as those with average annual receipts of less than
$1,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201). Handlers are involved in a broad spectrum
of food production activities and fall into various categories in the
NAICS Food Manufacturing sector. The small business thresholds for food
manufacturing operations are based on the number of employees and range
from 500 to 1,250 employees, depending on the specific type of
manufacturing. Certifying agents fall under the NAICS subsector ``all
other professional, scientific, and technical services.'' For this
category, the small business threshold is average annual receipts of
less than $16.5 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North
American Industry Classification System Codes,'' U.S. Small Business
Administration, August 19, 2019, <a href="https://www.naics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SBA_Size_Standards_Table.pdf">https://www.naics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SBA_Size_Standards_Table.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producers. AMS has considered the economic impact of this final
rulemaking on small agricultural entities. Data collected by the USDA
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the NOP indicate
most of the certified organic production operations in the United
States would be considered small entities. According to the 2017 Census
of Agriculture, 16,585 organic farms in the United States reported
sales of organic products and total farmgate sales more than $9.9
billion.\18\ Based on that data, organic sales average just under
$600,000 per farm. Assuming a normal distribution of producers, we
expect that most of these producers would fall under the $1,000,000
sales threshold to qualify as a small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``2019 Organic Survey,'' 2017 Census of Agriculture, U.S.
Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service,
table 1, <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Organics/ORGANICS.pdf">https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Organics/ORGANICS.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handlers. According to the NOP's Organic Integrity Database (OID),
there are 10,971 U.S.-based organic handlers that are certified under
the USDA organic regulations.\19\ The Organic Trade Association's 2020
Organic Industry Survey has information about employment trends among
organic manufacturers. The reported data are stratified into three
groups by the number of employees per company: Fewer than 5; 5 to 49;
and 50 plus. These data are representative of the organic manufacturing
sector and the lower bound (50) of the range for the larger
manufacturers is significantly smaller than the SBA's small business
thresholds (500 to 1,250). Therefore, AMS expects that most organic
handlers would qualify as small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Organic Integrity Database, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
accessed October 27, 2021, <a href="https://organic.ams.usda.gov/Integrity">https://organic.ams.usda.gov/Integrity</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certifying agents. The SBA defines ``all other professional,
scientific, and technical services,'' which include certifying agents,
as those having annual receipts of less than $16,500,000 (13 CFR
121.201). There are currently 76 USDA-accredited certifying agents,
based on a query of the OID database, who provide organic certification
services to producers and handlers. While many certifying agents are
small entities that would be affected by this final rule, we do not
expect that these certifying agents would incur significant costs as a
result of this action as certifying agents already must comply with the
current regulations (e.g., maintaining certification records for
organic operations).
AMS does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact
on entities affected by this rule. Alternatives exist to the substances
that this rule prohibits, as determined by the NOSB and AMS.
Additionally, AMS is providing a 12- to 24-month implementation period,
depending on the substance or ingredient, to allow affected entities
time to modify practices.
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. Accordingly, to prevent
duplicative regulation, states and local jurisdictions are preempted
under 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 the USDA to be accredited as a certifying agent, as described
in the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6514(b)). States are also preempted 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 (7 U.S.C. 6503-6507).
Pursuant to the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6507(b)(2)), a state organic
certification program that has been approved by the Secretary may,
under certain circumstances, contain additional requirements for the
production and handling of agricultural products organically produced
in the state and for the certification of organic farm and handling
operations located within the state. Such additional requirements must:
(a) Further the purposes of OFPA, (b) not be inconsistent with OFPA,
(c) not be discriminatory toward agricultural commodities organically
produced in other States, and (d) not be effective until approved by
the Secretary.
In addition, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 6519(c)(6), this final rule does
not supersede or 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,
respectively, 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 EPA under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
No additional collection or recordkeeping requirements are imposed
on the public by this final rule. Accordingly, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) clearance is not required
[[Page 10938]]
by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, Chapter
35.
D. Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175--
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Executive
Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with
tribes on a government-to-government basis on: (1) Policies that have
tribal implication, including regulation, legislative comments, or
proposed legislation; and (2) other policy statements or actions that
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes.
AMS has assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian tribes and
determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that
require consultation under Executive Order 13175. AMS hosts a quarterly
teleconference with tribal leaders where matters of mutual interest
regarding the marketing of agricultural products are discussed.
Information about the proposed changes to the regulations are shared
during quarterly calls with Tribal leaders, who have the opportunity to
submit comments. AMS works with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to
ensure meaningful consultation is provided as needed with regards to
the NOP regulations.
E. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule
as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
F. General Notice of Public Rulemaking
This final rule reflects recommendations submitted by the NOSB to
the Secretary to remove fourteen nonorganic ingredients and two
substances from the National List. This final rule retains (or
``renews'') two substances on the National List.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities,
Agriculture, Animals, Archives and records, Fees, 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 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. 6501-6524.
0
2. Amend Sec. 205.601 by revising paragraph (j)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop
production.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(9) Vitamins, C and E.
* * * * *
Sec. 205.603 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 205.603 by removing paragraph (b)(9) and redesignating
paragraphs (b)(10) through 12 as paragraphs (b)(9) through (11).
Sec. 205.605 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 205.605(b) by removing the words ``Alginic acid (CAS
#9005-32-7)''.
0
5. Amend Sec. 205.606 by revising paragraphs (d) through (t) and
removing paragraphs (u) through (w).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed
as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as ``organic.''
* * * * *
(d) Colors derived from agricultural products--Must not be produced
using synthetic solvents and carrier systems or any artificial
preservative.
(1) Beet juice extract color--derived from Beta vulgaris L., except
must not be produced from sugarbeets.
(2) Beta-carotene extract color--derived from carrots (Daucus
carota L.) or algae (Dunaliella salina).
(3) Black/purple carrot juice color--derived from Daucus carota L.
(4) Chokeberry, aronia juice color--derived from Aronia arbutifolia
(L.) Pers. or Aronia melanocarpa (Michx.) Elliott.
(5) Elderberry juice color--derived from Sambucus nigra L.
(6) Grape skin extract color--derived from Vitis vinifera L.
(7) Purple sweet potato juice color--derived from Ipomoea batatas
L. or Solanum tuberosum L.
(8) Red cabbage extract color--derived from Brassica oleracea L.
(9) Red radish extract color--derived from Raphanus sativus L.
(10) Saffron extract color--derived from Crocus sativus L.
(e) Cornstarch (native).
(f) Fish oil (Fatty acid CAS #'s: 10417-94-4, and 25167-62-8)--
stabilized with organic ingredients or only with ingredients on the
National List, Sec. Sec. 205.605 and 205.606.
(g) Fructooligosaccharides (CAS # 308066-66-2).
(h) Gelatin (CAS # 9000-70-8).
(i) Glycerin (CAS # 56-81-5)--produced from agricultural source
materials and processed using biological or mechanical/physical methods
as described under Sec. 205.270(a).
(j) Gums--water extracted only (Arabic; Guar; Locust bean; and
Carob bean).
(k) Inulin--oligofructose enriched (CAS # 9005-80-5).
(l) Lecithin--de-oiled.
(m) Orange pulp, dried.
(n) Orange shellac--unbleached (CAS # 9000-59-3).
(o) Pectin (non-amidated forms only).
(p) Potassium acid tartrate.
(q) Seaweed, Pacific kombu.
(r) Tamarind seed gum.
(s) Tragacanth gum (CAS # 9000-65-1).
(t) Wakame seaweed (Undaria pinnatifida).
* * * * *
Erin Morris,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-03851 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 28, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.