[Federal Register: June 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 109)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32803-32807]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jn06-1]
========================================================================
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.
========================================================================
[[Page 32803]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 205
[Docket Number: TM-06-06-FR]
RIN 0581-AC60
National Organic Program--Revisions to Livestock Standards Based
on Court Order (Harvey v. Johanns) and 2005 Amendment to the Organic
Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA)
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule revises the National Organic Program (NOP)
regulations to comply with the final judgment in the case of Harvey v.
Johanns (Harvey) issued on June 9, 2005, by the U.S. District Court,
District of Maine, and to address the November 10, 2005, amendment made
to the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq., the
OFPA), concerning the transition of dairy livestock into organic
production.
Further, this final rule revises the NOP regulations to clarify
that only nonorganically produced agricultural products listed in the
NOP regulations may be used as ingredients in or on processed products
labeled as ``organic.'' In accordance with the final judgment in
Harvey, the revision emphasizes that only the nonorganically produced
agricultural ingredients listed in the NOP regulations can be used in
accordance with any specified restrictions and when the product is not
commercially available in organic form.
To comply with the court order in Harvey, USDA is required to
publish final revisions to the NOP regulations within 360 days of the
court order, or by June 4, 2006.
Accordingly, this final rule amends the NOP regulations to
eliminate the use of up to 20 percent nonorganically produced feed
during the first 9 months of the conversion of a whole dairy herd from
conventional to organic production. This final rule also addresses the
amendment made to the OFPA concerning the transition of dairy livestock
into organic production by allowing crops and forage from land,
included in the organic system plan of a dairy farm, that is in the
third year of organic management to be consumed by the dairy animals of
the farm during the 12-month period immediately prior to the sale of
organic milk and milk products.
DATES: Effective June 8, 2006, except for Sec. 205.606, which is
effective on June 9, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Bradley, Associate Deputy
Administrator, Transportation & Marketing Programs, National Organic
Program, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 4008--So., Ag Stop 0268,
Washington, DC 20250. Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax: (202) 205-7808.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In 1990, Congress passed the OFPA, which required the USDA to
develop national standards for organically produced agricultural
products to assure consumers that agricultural products marketed as
organic meet consistent, uniform standards. Based on the requirements
of the OFPA, USDA established the NOP to develop national organic
standards, including a National List of substances approved for and
prohibited from use in organic production and handling, that would
require agricultural products labeled as organic to originate from
farms or handling operations certified by a State or private entity
that has been accredited by USDA. On December 21, 2000, USDA published
the final rule for the NOP in the Federal Register (7 CFR part 205). On
October 21, 2002, the NOP regulations became fully implemented by USDA
as the uniform standard of production and handling for organic
agricultural products in the United States.
In October 2003, Arthur Harvey filed a complaint under the
Administrative Procedure Act in the U.S. District Court, District of
Maine. Mr. Harvey alleged that several subsections of the NOP
regulations violated OFPA, were arbitrary, and not in accordance with
law.
On January 26, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit issued a decision in the case. The court upheld the NOP
regulations in general, but remanded the case to the U.S. District
Court, District of Maine, for, among other things, the entry of a
declaratory judgment that stated 7 CFR 205.606 does not establish a
blanket exemption to the National List requirements specified in 7
U.S.C. 6517, permitting the use of nonorganic agricultural products in
or on processed organic products when their organic form is not
commercially available. The district court ordered the Secretary to
make publicly known within 30 days--through notice in the Federal
Register to all certifying agents and interested parties--that 7 CFR
205.606 shall be interpreted to permit only the use of a nonorganically
produced agricultural product that has been listed in 7 CFR 205.606
pursuant to National List procedures, and when a certifying agent has
determined that the organic form of the agricultural product is not
commercially available. USDA complied with this order on July 1, 2005
(70 FR 38090).
The court also ruled in favor of Mr. Harvey with respect to 7 CFR
205.605(b) of the NOP regulations, concerning the use of synthetic
substances in or on processed products which contain a minimum of 95
percent organic content and are eligible to bear the USDA seal (7 CFR
205.605(b)). The court found Sec. 205.605(b) contrary to the OFPA and
in excess of the Secretary's rulemaking authority.
In addition, the court found in favor of Harvey with respect to 7
CFR 205.236(a)(2)(i) of the NOP regulations. This section creates an
exception to the general requirements for the conversion of whole dairy
herds to organic production. The court found the provisions at 7 CFR
205.236(a)(2)(i) contrary to the OFPA and in excess of the Secretary's
rulemaking authority.
On June 9, 2005, the district court issued its final judgment and
order in the case. A copy of the final judgment and order may be found
at https://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.
Congressional Amendment to the OFPA
After the court issued its final judgment and order, Congress
amended the OFPA. On November 10, 2005,
[[Page 32804]]
Congress amended the OFPA by permitting the addition of synthetic
substances appearing on the National List for use in products labeled
``organic.'' The amendment restores the NOP regulation for organic
processed products containing at least 95 percent organic ingredients
on the National List and their ability to carry the USDA seal.
Therefore, USDA is not revising the NOP regulations to prohibit the use
of synthetic ingredients in processed products labeled as organic nor
restrict these products' eligibility to carry the USDA seal.
Congress also amended the OFPA to allow a special provision for
transitioning dairy livestock to organic production. The NOP
regulations currently provided that when an entire, distinct herd is
converted to organic production, the producer may, for the first 9
months of the year, provide a minimum of 80-percent feed that is either
organic or raised from land included in the organic system plan and
managed in compliance with organic crop requirements. The circuit court
found these provisions to be contrary to the OFPA and in excess of the
Secretary's rulemaking authority.
In the amendments to OFPA, Congress provided a new provision to
allow crops and forage from land included in the organic system plan of
a farm that is in the third year of organic management to be consumed
by the dairy animals of the farm during the 12-month period immediately
prior to the sale of organic milk and milk products. USDA is revising
Sec. 205.236(a)(2) to reflect this amendment to the OFPA in this
rulemaking.
II. Comments Received
We received 13,115 comments, most as form letters (13,020).
Comments were received from consumers, producers, processors, trade
associations, food industry organizations, certifying agents, the
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), and state governments. The
majority of the comments received dealt with the proposed changes to
the dairy animal language in the regulation.
Several comments requested a more lengthy comment period than the
15-day comment period provided. However, the Department determined that
the changes that were mandated by the U.S. District Court to be
completed by June 4, 2006, had been well publicized for over a year, as
the circuit court's decision was published on January 26, 2005. To meet
the mandated court deadline therefore, a shortened comment period was
considered appropriate.
Comments were received dealing with paragraph Sec. 205.606 and how
commercial availability and the National List procedures applies to
products labeled as ``made with organic (ingredients).'' This was an
error in the proposed rule; paragraph Sec. 205.606 should only pertain
to products labeled as ``organic.'' Because products labeled as ``made
with organic (ingredients)'' may, by definition, contain up to 30
percent nonorganic agricultural ingredients, regardless of commercial
availability, we have corrected the language in this final rule.
Commenters requested that changes be made to Sec. 205.600(b),
dealing with the criteria by which materials are evaluated by the
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) for inclusion on the National
List. Specifically, commenters asked to eliminate the words
``processing aids and adjuvants'' in the criteria of synthetics to be
reviewed of handling materials under Sec. 205.600(b). The Department
has no position on this comment at this time, as the comments go beyond
the scope of the proposed rule. These comments will be provided to the
NOSB and the NOSB may consider whether to make a recommendation to the
Department for amending the NOP regulations.
Other commenters discussed the definitions of the terms
``ingredient,'' ``processing aid,'' and ``substance.'' These commenters
suggested that changes in the NOP regulations section of definitions,
or elimination of some words altogether elsewhere in the NOP
regulations, could improve the clarity of the NOP regulations with
respect to how materials are evaluated for inclusion on the National
List.
In response to the commenters' suggestions to improve the clarity
of the NOP regulations by revising aforementioned terms, the Department
welcomes these suggestions. However, these comments will be provided to
the NOSB for consideration of a recommendation to the Department for
amending the NOP regulations through future notice and comment
rulemaking. As noted above, this rulemaking seeks merely to satisfy the
court final order and judgment and implement the Congressional
amendments at this time.
We also received several comments related to the amendment to the
OFPA by Congress that authorized the Secretary to establish procedures
for adding nonorganic agricultural materials to the National List in
the event of an emergency if they are commercially unavailable in
organic form. These commenters asked for a 60-day notice and comment
rulemaking period; commenters also asked when and how the Department
planned to proceed with such rulemaking. Since this amendment to the
OFPA is not part of this rulemaking, the Department will proceed
through normal notice and comment rulemaking procedures and consult
with the NOSB prior to publishing a proposed rule on emergency petition
procedures.
The vast majority of the comments received dealt with subparagraph
Sec. 205.236(a)(i). Most comments were positive for keeping the last
third of gestation for conversion of an entire dairy herd in the
regulation. However, these commenters wanted the last third of
gestation clause to apply to all dairy operations once the operation is
certified as organic, regardless of the number of animals converted, or
whether an entire, distinct herd is converted.
When Congress amended the OFPA, only the feed provision was
addressed, to provide a different method of transition for dairy
animals entering organic production. This final rule implements the
Congressional amendments and the court's final judgment. USDA
recognizes that this change still leaves two methods of replacement of
dairy animals for organic dairy operations and that this is a matter of
concern in the organic community. To address the issue of dairy
replacement animals for all certified organic dairy operations, USDA
will draft an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to invite
public comment on further changes necessary to the NOP regulations
dealing with the origin of dairy livestock under subparagraph Sec.
205.236(a)(2), Dairy Animals.
We received comments that expressed concern that producers would be
able to feed dairy animals feed and forage that had been harvested
earlier than the third year, from land in transition to organic and
that a certifying agent must be able to inspect the records to verify
that this does not occur. This is a valid concern, and commas have been
inserted in the final regulation to make clear that crops and forage
must come from land that is in the third year of transition to organic.
III. Related Documents
Documents related to this final rule include the OFPA, as amended,
(7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), its implementing regulations (7 CFR part 205),
and a Federal Register notice publishing the final judgment and order
in the case of Harvey v. Johanns (70 FR 38090).
[[Page 32805]]
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been determined not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866, and therefore, does not have to be reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget.
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 section 2115 of
the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6514) 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. 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 section 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 section 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 et seq.), the Poultry
Products Inspections Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or the Egg Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.), 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 (EPA) 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 and Paperwork Reduction Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
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, the Agricultural
Marketing Service (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 and has determined that this
final rule would have an 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 $6,500,000 and small agricultural
producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than
$750,000.
The U.S. organic industry at the end of 2001 included nearly 6,949
certified organic crop and livestock operations. These operations
reported certified acreage totaling just over 2 million acres of
organic farm production. Data on the numbers of certified organic
handling operations (any operation that transforms raw product into
processed products using organic ingredients) were not available at the
time of survey in 2001; but they were estimated to be in the thousands.
Based on 2003 data, certified organic acreage had increased to 2.2
million acres. By the end of 2004, the number of certified organic
crop, livestock, and handling operations totaled nearly 11,400
operations, based on reports by certifying agents to NOP as part of
their annual reporting requirements. AMS believes that most of these
entities would be considered small entities under the criteria
established by the SBA.
U.S. sales of organic food and beverages have grown from $1 billion
in 1990 to an estimated $12.2 billion in 2004. Organic food sales are
projected to reach nearly $15 billion for 2005. The organic industry is
viewed as the fastest growing sector of agriculture, representing 2
percent of overall food and beverage sales. Since 1990, organic retail
sales have historically demonstrated a growth rate between 20 to 24
percent each year. This growth rate is projected to decline and fall to
a rate of 5 to 10 percent in the future.
In addition, USDA has accredited 96 certifying agents who have
applied to USDA to be accredited in order to provide certification
services to producers and handlers. A complete list of names and
addresses of accredited certifying agents may be found on the AMS NOP
Web site, at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. AMS believes that most of
these entities would be considered small entities under the criteria
established by the SBA.
Impact of Lawsuit and Congressional Amendment on Dairy
The loss of the 80-20 feed exception can be measured depending on
various feed costs, for average farm sizes, and for the sector as a
whole using 2003 estimates of the number of certified dairy livestock
in the United States--the latest year for which numbers are
available.\1\ Generally, for organic dairy operations, feed and labor
are the most significant cost components, comprising upwards of 50
percent of the total variable costs of the operation.\2\ Organic feed
is significantly more expensive than conventional feed, and various
quotes for organic feed run as high as double the cost of conventional
or nonorganic feed rations. According to
[[Page 32806]]
one study, higher feed cost was the largest and most important
difference between organic and nonorganic dairy production, with the
additional expense of feeding organic dairy costs being 54 percent of
the price differential received for organic milk.\3\ In this study, for
a 48-cow organic herd, purchased feed cost $1,003 per cow, or $298 per
cow more than for a conventional dairy operation. For the entire year,
the average farm spent approximately $49,000 for purchased organic feed
for the 48-cow herd in this study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Greene, Catherine. Certified organic livestock, 2003,
numbers were obtained from the author on permission; forthcoming
from the Economic Research Service (ERS), U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
\2\ Dalton, Timothy J., Lisa A. Bragg, Rick Kersbergen, Robert
Parson, Glenn Rogers, Dennis Kauppila, Qingbin Wang. ``Cost and
Returns to Organic Dairy Farming in Maine and Vermont for 2004,''
University of Maine Department of Resource Economics and Policy
Staff Paper 555, November 23, 2005.
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rough estimate of the loss of the 80-20 feed exception can be
determined using this study's farm cost numbers. Using the estimated
per-cow feed numbers, if a dairy farmer had to switch from using 80
percent organic feed to 100 percent organic feed, and purchased all of
the organic feed, the additional cost to the dairy farmer is $27 per
month, or about 2.7 percent higher than using the 80-20 feed exception.
For the sector, based on ERS's latest estimate of approximately
74,435 certified dairy cows in 2003, the loss of the 80-20 feed
provision using the above cost estimates would amount to around $2
million. But this assumes: (1) All of the dairy cows in the sector are
converted to organic in the same year; (2) all farm operators use the
80-20 feed provision in that same year; and (3) all organic feed was
purchased. Because these assumptions are unlikely, the $2 million
estimated for the sector likely overstates the total cost of the loss
of the 80-20 feed provision. This cost estimate more likely represents
an upper bound estimate based on this farm study's feed cost estimate,
as if all dairy cows were converted to organic at a single point in
time under the above assumptions.
Table 1.--Cost of Losing 80-20 Feed Provision Based on Vermont-Maine
Dairy Study Cost Estimates
Organic feed per cow: $1,003 per year or $84 per month
Nonorganic feed per cow: 795 per year or $66 per month
9 months: 20% nonorganic feed cost: (0.2)x($66)x(9) = $119
80% organic feed costs: (0.8)x($84)x(9) = $605
3 months: 100% organic feed: (1.0)x($84)x(3) = $252
Total Feed Using 80-20: $976
12 months using organic feed only: 12 monthsx$84/cow = $1,003
Difference (loss) of 80-20, 48-cow herd: 12 mox$27/cow loss = $1,296
Instead, an alternative estimate could be derived for a growing
industry that is adding new dairy cows to the industry. According to
ERS, in 2000, there were just over 38,000 certified dairy livestock,
increasing to nearly 49,000 by 2001, and 67,000 in 2002. With reports
of rising milk prices and shortages in the U.S. organic dairy market in
2005, continued growth in organic dairy livestock numbers could be
expected.
Therefore, an alternative estimate of the loss is to calculate the
number of dairy cows added to the sector each year and assume they were
all added to the sector by being converted using the 80-20 feed
transition provision. Using the ERS numbers above, between 2000 and
2001, 11,000 certified dairy cows were added. Another 18,000 cows were
added by 2002, and 7,435 in 2003. On average, 12,145 dairy cows were
added each year since 2000. Based on these numbers from ERS and the
additional cost of $27 per cow from the study above, using the 80-20
feed provision, the loss of the 80-20 provision would have cost dairy
farmers approximately $327,915 per year, or nearly $1 million over the
3-year period.
Different estimates were obtained from discussions with Western
state industry experts in dairy feed and nutrition, and budgets
developed by certifying agents who work with certified dairy
operations.\4\ These estimates resulted in higher costs due to the loss
of the 80-20 feed provision, of as much as $416 per cow annually, or
assuming an addition of approximately 12,000 cows per year to the
sector, a loss of nearly $5 million per year to the sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Information provided in conversations with Pacific
Nutrition-Consulting (PNC) based on USDA-ACA budgets for estimating
the cost of the transition year for dairy farmers using the 80-20
feed provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depending on location, climate, size, and purchased feed, costs may
vary considerably. The west, for example, tends to be a feed-deficit
region where farmers purchase more feed and rely less on feed from on-
farm or nearby sources. The farther the distance a farmer has to go to
obtain feed, the more costly the feed will be, all other things being
equal, making it likely that costs would vary by region or climate.
With higher milk prices, more farmers might be attracted to enter
organic dairy farming. In the short run, this would add to pressure
(due to more competition) on feed supplies. With the loss of the 80-20
feed provision, this could drive up the cost of feed; in the short run,
therefore, there could be additional upward pressure on these cost
estimates.
Regardless, these additional costs would have to be absorbed
somewhere. They must either be passed forward to consumers in the form
of higher fluid milk and dairy product prices--already at high premiums
relative to conventional dairy product prices--or they would have to be
absorbed by farmers.
However, Congress did amend OFPA for transitioning dairy farmers,
by permitting such dairy farmers to graze dairy livestock on land being
converted to organic production during its 3rd year of transition.
Thus, the loss of the 80-20 feed exception is mitigated in part by the
action that Congress took. In effect, a farm transitioning its dairy
cows to organic could put its cows on that farm's pasture being
converted to organic and the milk from those cows would be organic at
the same time as crops being harvested from that land--at the end of
the third year that the land completed organic management.
Congress leveled the playing field for dairy farmers when they
amended OFPA in this area by removing any penalties that dairy farmers
faced with the so-called ``4th year''-- i.e., the additional transition
year that dairy cows underwent due to lactation cycles. And Congress
did not change the basic requirement of OFPA. Dairy cows must be
organically managed for at least 12 months; after these 12 months of
organic management, only her milk and milk products may be represented
as organic.
The status of the dairy cow is a different story. The dairy cow is
only organic if she was raised organically from the last third of the
mother's gestation. When a dairy cow is slaughtered, she cannot be sold
as organic slaughter stock unless she was raised organically from the
last third of the mother's gestation, the same as other slaughter
livestock (except poultry, which must be raised organically beginning
with the second day of life). That remains the same in the NOP
regulation.
In providing the transition language, entry in organic dairying may
become easier, which could ease current milk shortages in the organic
milk market at retail. Certainly it should help smaller dairy farmers
entering the organic industry who may be faced with having to purchase
higher priced organic feed, by allowing them to graze dairy livestock
on their land that is being transitioned to organic certification.
Other changes in this rule merely implement Congressional
amendments and the court's final judgment and order. With respect to
alternatives to
[[Page 32807]]
this rule, as stated above, this rule merely implements language which
Congress has enacted and complies with the court's final judgment and
order.
AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general
to provide the public the option of submitting information or
transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this rule.
No additional collection or recordkeeping requirements are imposed
on the public by this rule. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required
by Sec. 305(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
et seq., or OMB's implementing regulation at 5 CFR part 1320.
Further, given the Congressional amendments, and the court's final
judgment and order, good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 533 for not
postponing the effective date of this rule, except Sec. 205.606, until
30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
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.
0
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. 6501-6522.
0
2. Section 205.236 (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 205.236 Origin of Livestock.
(a) * * *
(2) Dairy animals. Milk or milk products must be from animals that
have been under continuous organic management beginning no later than 1
year prior to the production of the milk or milk products that are to
be sold, labeled, or represented as organic, Except,
(i) That, crops and forage from land, included in the organic
system plan of a dairy farm, that is in the third year of organic
management may be consumed by the dairy animals of the farm during the
12-month period immediately prior to the sale of organic milk and milk
products; and
(ii) That, when an entire, distinct herd is converted to organic
production, the producer may, provided no milk produced under this
subparagraph enters the stream of commerce labeled as organic after
June 9, 2007: (a) For the first 9 months of the year, provide a minimum
of 80-percent feed that is either organic or raised from land included
in the organic system plan and managed in compliance with organic crop
requirements; and (b) Provide feed in compliance with Sec. 205.237 for
the final 3 months.
(iii) Once an entire, distinct herd has been converted to organic
production, all dairy animals shall be under organic management from
the last third of gestation.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 205.606 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as
ingredients in or on processed products labeled as organic.
Only the following nonorganically produced agricultural products
may be used as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as
``organic,'' only in accordance with any restrictions specified in this
section, and only when the product is not commercially available in
organic form.
(a) Cornstarch (native)
(b) Gums--water extracted only (arabic, guar, locust bean, carob bean)
(c) Kelp--for use only as a thickener and dietary supplement
(d) Lecithin--unbleached
(e) Pectin (high-methoxy)
Dated: June 2, 2006.
Barry L. Carpenter,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 06-5203 Filed 6-5-06; 9:14 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P