[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1555-1559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-165]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 205
[Document Number AMS-NOP-09-0081; TM-09-04]
RIN 0581-AC93
National Organic Program; Proposed Amendments to the National
List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (Crops)
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA's) National List of Allowed and Prohibited
Substances (National List) to reflect recommendations submitted to the
Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) by the National Organic Standards
Board (NOSB) on November 19, 2008, and May 6, 2009. The recommendations
addressed in this proposed rule pertain to amending an annotation for
one exempted material on the National List and establishing an
exemption (use) for another material in organic crop production.
Consistent with the recommendations from the NOSB, this proposed rule
would amend the annotation for a listed substance and add one
substance, along with any restrictive annotation, to the National List.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 15, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may comment on the proposed rule using
the following procedures:
Internet: http://www.regulations.gov.
Mail: Comments may be submitted by mail to: Toni Strother,
Agricultural Marketing Specialist, National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-
TMP-NOP, Room 2646-So., Ag Stop 0268, 1400 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-0268.
Written comments responding to this proposed rule should be
identified with the document number AMS-NOP-09-0081; TM-09-04. You
should identify the topic and section number of this proposed rule to
which your comment refers. You should clearly state whether you support
the amendment of the annotation for the substance on the national list
and/or the exemption for the substance being proposed, with clearly
indicated reason(s) for your position. You should also offer any
recommended language changes that would be appropriate for your
position. Please include relevant information and data to support your
position (e.g. scientific, environmental, manufacturing, industry,
impact information, etc.). Only relevant material supporting your
position should be submitted.
It is USDA's intention to have all comments concerning this
proposed rule, including names and addresses when provided, regardless
of submission procedure used, available for viewing on the
Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) Internet site. Comments
submitted in response to this proposed rule will also be available for
viewing in person at USDA--AMS, National Organic Program, Room 2646-
South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC, from 9
a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday
(except official Federal holidays). Persons wanting to visit the USDA
South building to view comments received in response to this proposed
rule are requested to make an appointment in advance by calling (202)
720-3252.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Nally, Acting Director,
Standards Division, Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax (202) 205-7808.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On December 21, 2000, the Secretary established, within the
National Organic Program (NOP) (7 CFR part 205), the National List
regulations Sec. Sec. 205.600 through 205.607. This National List
identifies the synthetic substances that may be used and the
nonsynthetic (natural) substances that may not be used in organic
production. The National List also identifies synthetic, nonsynthetic
nonagricultural and nonorganic agricultural substances that may be used
in organic handling. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as
amended, (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), (OFPA), and NOP regulations, in Sec.
205.105, specifically prohibit the use of any synthetic substance in
organic production and handling unless the synthetic substance is on
the National List. Section 205.105 also requires that any nonorganic
agricultural and any nonsynthetic nonagricultural substance used in
organic handling be on the National List.
Under the authority of the OFPA, the National List can be amended
by the Secretary based on proposed amendments developed by the NOSB.
Since established, the National List has been amended eleven times:
October 31, 2003, (68 FR 61987); November 3, 2003,
[[Page 1556]]
(68 FR 62215); October 21, 2005, (70 FR 61217), June 7, 2006, (71 FR
32803); September 11, 2006, (71 FR 53299); June 27, 2007, (72 FR
35137); October 16, 2007, (72 FR 58469); December 10, 2007, (72 FR
70479); December 12, 2007, (72 FR 70479); September 18, 2008, (73 FR
59479); October 9, 2008, (73 FR 59479). Additionally, a proposed
amendment to the National List was published on June 3, 2009, (74 FR
26591).
This proposed rule would amend the National List to reflect two
recommendations submitted to the Secretary by the NOSB on November 19,
2008, and May 6, 2009. Based upon their evaluation of petitions
submitted by industry participants, the NOSB recommended that the
Secretary amend Sec. 205.601 of the National List to amend the
annotation for one exempted material (tetracycline) and add one
substance (sulfurous acid) for use in organic crop production. The
amended annotation and the exemption for use of the added substance in
organic production were evaluated by the NOSB using the criteria
specified in OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6517-6518).
II. Overview of Proposed Amendments
The following provides an overview of the proposed amendments to
designated sections of the National List regulations:
Section 205.601 Synthetic Substances Allowed for Use in Organic Crop
Production
This proposed rule would amend Sec. 205.601 of the National List
regulations by: (1) Amending the annotation of paragraph (i)(11) by
eliminating the parenthetical reference to a form of the exempted
material and adding an expiration date; and (2) adding new paragraph
(j)(9), for the purpose of allowing the use of the following
substances:
Tetracycline. Tetracycline, in the form of oxytetracycline calcium
complex, was included in the National List as originally published on
December 21, 2000 (FR 65 80548), for use for fire blight control only.
In October 2007, a petition was submitted to add oxytetracycline
hydrochloride complex for fireblight control in organic crop
production. Tetracycline is a broad-spectrum antibiotic for control of
bacteria, fungi and mycoplasma-like organisms which functions by
inhibiting protein synthesis in bacteria and altering bacterial
membranes so that vital genetic material is leaked. For regulatory
purposes, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses the term
oxytetracycline to refer to pesticides containing either calcium
oxytetracycline or hydroxytetracycline monohydrochloride
(oxytetracycline hydrochloride). Oxytetracycline is registered with the
EPA for the following agronomic uses: fire blight of apples, pears,
peaches and nectarines; pear decline; bacterial spot on peaches and
nectarines; lethal yellowing of coconut palm; and lethal decline of
pritchardia palm.
Oxytetracyclines are derived from the soil bacteria, Streptomyces,
by a fermentation process. Technical grade tetracycline is a pale
yellow to tan crystalline powder, is freely soluble in water, and
decomposes above 180 degrees Celsius. Formulated products containing
the technical grade oxytetracycline calcium complex and oxytetracyline
hydrochloride for fireblight are wettable powders which are spray-
applied using ground or aircraft equipment at early bloom stage, when
fire blight infection usually occurs. In addition to agronomic uses,
oxytetracyclines are also antibiotics used in human and animal drugs.
Per the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 301
et seq.), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA)
(Pub. L. 104-170, August 3, 1996), the EPA established tolerances for
residues of these oxytetracycline pesticides in or on raw apples,
peaches, nectarines, and pears of 0.35 parts per million (ppm) (40 CFR
180.337). In the 2006 Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk
Management Decision (TRED), EPA deemed that the toxicity of the
oxytetracylines would be similar and thus treated oxytetracycline
hydrochloride and oxytetracycline calcium as equivalent for hazard
characterization. In conducting the tolerance reassessment for
oxytetracycline, EPA considered the aggregate risk from exposure via
food and water intake and concluded that the dietary risk for all U.S.
populations was below the level of concern. In regards to ecological
effects, the EPA reported the potential for terrestrial and aquatic
species to be exposed to oxytetracyclines due to use patterns on food
crops, and the potential for acute and/or chronic toxicity. The EPA
concluded that it is unlikely that antibiotic resistance from
pesticidal use of oxytetracycline would result from food exposure, but
could theoretically occur among bacteria in orchards. The EPA is
conducting a registration review of oxytetracycline to ensure that the
intended function is achieved without unreasonable adverse effects on
human health or the environment. That review is scheduled for
completion in 2014.
At its November 18-20, 2008, meeting in Washington, DC, the NOSB
recommended revising the tetracycline listing at 205.601(i)(11) to
remove the qualifying words, ``oxytetracycline calcium complex,'' from
the annotation and, in effect, permit the use of either form of
oxytetracycline, i.e., oxytetracycline calcium complex and
oxytetracycline hydrochloride until October 21, 2012. Both forms of
oxytetracycline have EPA registered uses for fire blight control. In
this open meeting, the NOSB evaluated the available technical forms of
oxytetraclycline against the evaluation criteria of 7 U.S.C. 6517 and
6518 of the OFPA, received public comment, and concluded that the two
forms of tetracycline are comparable, and that allowing the use of both
substances is consistent with the prior decision to allow the use of
oxytetracycline calcium complex.
The NOSB, however, recommended adding an expiration date of October
21, 2012, after which no form of tetracycline could be used in organic
crop production. Therefore, tetracycline will be removed from the
National List by the expiration date rather than through a petition for
removal or sunset. The recommendation to change the annotation for
tetracycline would have reset the sunset date to 5 years from the date
on which the annotation was changed through this rulemaking. The NOSB
did not support prolonging the exemption for tetracycline and
recommended an expiration date to prevent that occurrence. The NOSB did
not find tetracycline to be essential to, nor compatible with, organic
production, but approved the use of oxytetracycline hydrochloride
solely on the basis that a functionally equivalent form is already
allowed for use in organic crop production. The Board was informed
during the meeting, and this information is supported by EPA
references, that oxytetracycline calcium complex and oxytetracycline
hydrochloride are the only forms of oxytetracycline that have
registered agricultural uses. NOSB approval of this petition is not
expected to increase the overall use of tetracycline in organic crop
production, but would allow growers to substitute one form for another
until October 21, 2012.
The NOP engaged in consultations with the EPA and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). The EPA informed the NOP that the proposed
amendment to exempt oxytetracycline hydrochloride for use in organic
crops is consistent with EPA regulations. Concerning the use of
tetracycline, FDA deferred to EPA as the appropriate
[[Page 1557]]
regulatory body. Therefore, after consultation with the EPA and FDA
regarding NOSB's recommendation to amend the annotation for
tetracycline use in organic crops, the Secretary proposes to accept
NSOB's recommendation and amend Sec. 205.601 of the National List by:
(1) Removing the qualifying words in parenthesis from the annotation at
(i)(11) which currently specifies, ``oxytetracycline calcium complex''
to allow either form of oxyetracycline to be used; and, adding the
expiration date, October 21, 2012, after which no tetracycline may be
used in organic crop production for fireblight control.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Report of
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment
Progress and Risk Management Decision (TRED) for Oxytetracycline.
EPA 738-R-06-011. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/oxytetracycline_tred.pdf.
EPA. 2008. Oxytetracycline Summary Document Registration Review:
Initial Docket December 2008 Case 0655. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-
0686. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/oxytetracycline/index.htm.
ICF Consulting. Technical Evaluation Report Tetracycline
(Oxytetracycline Calcium Complex). January 27, 2006. http://tinyurl.com/ygdtys4.
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). Final recommendation on
Tetracycline. November 19, 2008, http://tinyurl.com/y9gds87.
NOSB Meeting Transcripts. November 18, 2008, pp. 185-201.
November 19, 2008, pp. 130-148; 191-213. http://tinyurl.com/ycaqqdq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfurous Acid (CAS -7782-99-2). Sulfurous Acid was
petitioned for use in organic crop production as a soil amendment. It
functions as an acidifying agent to neutralize and reduce the excessive
alkalinity (bicarbonates and carbonates) in soil or water. This
substance also has transient biocide properties that contribute to
keeping irrigation conveyance systems clean by suppressing growth of
bacteria and pathogenic microorganisms. Sulfurous acid is a clear,
nearly colorless solution (6-12%) which has a pungent odor, and is
soluble in water. Sulfurous acid degrades through microbial
decomposition to hydrogen ion and sulfate ion. The hydrogen ions cause
the acidifying effects. The sulfate ion is a nutrient to plants and
micro-organisms as long as the soil is aerobic.
Sulfurous acid is produced through natural and man-made processes
by reacting sulfur dioxide with water. In nature, sulfurous acid is
produced by wild fires, hydro-thermal vents on the ocean floor, vents
on the earth's surface, volcanic eruptions and fumaroles emitting
sulfur dioxide and reacting with water. Sulfur dioxide is also produced
by burning coal to produce heat or electricity. Sulfurous acid can be
manufactured by oxidizing elemental sulfur in a burner chamber with
pressurized water. The sulfur dioxide that is produced is immediately
captured to form an aqueous solution of sulfurous acid which can be
added to the irrigation water stream for application to fields. Within
hours of formation, sulfurous acid degrades to a hydrogen ion and a bi-
sulfite ion and is not sufficiently stable for transporting to a farm
sites for use.
The EPA does not regulate the application of sulfurous acid as a
soil amendment to reduce alkalinity. Sulfurous acid can cause burns
from all routes of exposure and is corrosive. Handlers should have
protective clothing, eyeware and gloves, and respirators may be needed
in some circumstances. Sulfurous acid should be used in a well-
ventilated area. Repeated exposure may cause damage to mucous
membranes, upper respiratory tract, skin and eyes.
Adverse biological or chemical reactions are not likely from the
proposed use in organic crops soil amendment purposes due to the quick
degradation of sulfurous acid, provided, that the sulfurous acid is
applied at the intended use rate and that soil pH is closely monitored.
If anaerobic conditions develop in waterlogged soil, anaerobic bacteria
could convert the sulfate ion to hydrogen sulfide which would be toxic
to the immediate ecosystem.
At its May 4-6, 2009, meeting in Washington, DC, the NOSB
recommended adding sulfurous acid to the National List as a soil
amendment for use in organic crop production, to be generated on-farm
only by burning 99% pure elemental sulfur per Sec. 205.601(j)(2), due
to the transient nature of the sulfurous acid. In this open meeting,
the NOSB evaluated sulfurous acid against the evaluation criteria of 7
U.S.C. 6517 and 6518 of the OFPA, received public comment, and
concluded that the use of the substance, as annotated, is consistent
with the OFPA evaluation criteria. The NOSB explained that the on-farm
generation is necessary because the short half-life of sulfurous acid
would prohibit shipping from off-farm sites. Furthermore, the NOSB
specified elemental sulfur at 99% purity as it is typically available
in this form.
The NOSB also examined whether the addition of sulfurous acid was
necessary in consideration of other substances on the National List,
specifically elemental sulfur and organic acids. The Board indicated
that the controlled application of sulfurous acid via irrigation is
preferable to broadcast applications of elemental sulfur, which acts
slower and can negatively impact the microbial soil life at the
application rates used. Furthermore, the Board determined that relying
upon organic acids, such as citric, would require the importation and
application of such large quantities as to make the use of those
substances impractical.
The NOP engaged in consultations with the EPA and FDA. FDA deferred
to EPA as the appropriate regulatory body. EPA concurred that the use
of this substance as specified would not conflict with EPA regulations.
Therefore, after consultation with the EPA and FDA regarding NOSB's
recommendation to permit the use of sulfurous acid as a soil amendment
in organic crop production when limited to on-farm generation by
burning 99% pure elemental sulfur, the Secretary is proposing to accept
the NOSB's recommendation and amend Sec. 205.601(j) of the National
List by adding sulfurous acid at new paragraph (j)(9) as follows:
Sulfurous acid (CAS -7782-99-2)--from on-farm generation
of substance, by burning only 99% elemental sulfur, exempted at (j)(2)
in this section.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Agricultural Marketing Service Science & Technology Branch.
Technical Evaluation Report Sulfurous Acid. April 3, 2009.
Harmon Systems International, LLC. Petition for sulfurous acid
for inclusion on the National List. July 30, 2008. http://tinyurl.com/yh6wsv9.
NOSB Final Recommendation on sulfurous acid. May 6, 2009. http://tinyurl.com/yf9s6mb.
NOSB Meeting Transcripts. May 5, 2009, pp. 163-173. May 6, 2009,
pp. 34-57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Related Documents
Three notices were published regarding the meetings of the NOSB and
its deliberations on recommendations and substances petitioned for
amending the National List. Substances and recommendations included in
this proposed rule were announced for NOSB deliberation in the
following Federal Register Notices: (1) 73 FR 18491, April 4, 2008
(Tetracycline); (2) 73 FR 54781, September 23, 2008 (Tetracycline); (3)
74 FR 11904, March 20, 2009 (Sulfurous Acid). NOSB meetings are open to
the public and allow for public participation.
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority
The OFPA, as amended [7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.], authorizes the
Secretary to make amendments to the National List based on proposed
amendments developed by the NOSB. Sections 6518(k)(2) and 6518(n) of
the OFPA authorize the NOSB to develop proposed amendments to the
National List for submission to the Secretary and establish a petition
process by which persons may petition the NOSB for the
[[Page 1558]]
purpose of having substances evaluated for inclusion on or deletion
from the National List. The National List petition process is
implemented under Sec. 205.607 of the NOP regulations. The current
petition process (72 FR 2167, January 18, 2007) can be accessed through
the NOP Web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5048809&acct=nopgeninfo.
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been determined not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866, and therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
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 proposed rule
is not intended to have a retroactive effect.
States and local jurisdictions are preempted under the OFPA from
creating programs of accreditation for private persons or State
officials who want to become certifying agents of organic farms or
handling operations. A governing State official would have to apply to
USDA to be accredited as a certifying agent, as described in Sec.
2115(b) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6514(b)). States are also preempted under
Sec. Sec. 2104 through 2108 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6503 through 6507)
from creating certification programs to certify organic farms or
handling operations unless the State programs have been submitted to,
and approved by, the Secretary as meeting the requirements of the OFPA.
Pursuant to Sec. 2108(b)(2) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6507(b)(2)), a
State organic certification program may contain additional requirements
for the production and handling of organically produced agricultural
products that are produced in the State and for the certification of
organic farm and handling operations located within the State under
certain circumstances. Such additional requirements must: (a) Further
the purposes of the OFPA, (b) not be inconsistent with the OFPA, (c)
not be discriminatory toward agricultural commodities organically
produced in other States, and (d) not be effective until approved by
the Secretary.
Pursuant to Sec. 2120(f) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6519(f)), this
proposed 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 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
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 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). The AMS has also considered the economic impact of this action
on small entities. The impact on entities affected by this proposed
rule would not be significant. The effect of this proposed rule would
be to allow the use of additional substances in agricultural
production. This action would relax the regulations published in the
final rule and would provide small entities with more tools to use in
day-to-day operations. The AMS concludes that the economic impact of
this addition of allowed substances, if any, would be minimal to small
agricultural producers and service firms. Accordingly, USDA certifies
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers and
accredited certifying agents, have been defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts
of less than $7,000,000 and small agricultural producers are defined as
those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.
According to USDA, Economic Research Service data based on
information from USDA-accredited certifying agents, the U.S. organic
industry included nearly 6,949 certified organic crop and livestock
operations at the end of 2001. These operations reported certified
acreage totaling more than 2.09 million acres of organic farm
production. By the end of 2005, the number of U.S. certified organic
crop and livestock operations totaled about 8,500 and certified organic
acreage exceeded 4 million acres. ERS, based upon information provided
by domestic accredited certifying agents, estimated the number of
certified handling operations as exceeding 2,790 in 2004. AMS believes
that most of these entities would be considered small entities under
the criteria established by the SBA.
The U.S. sales of organic food and beverages have grown from $1
billion in 1990 to nearly $17 billion in 2006. The organic industry is
viewed as the fasting growing sector of agriculture, representing
almost 3 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, including a 22 percent increase in
2006.
In addition, USDA has 100 accredited certifying agents who 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 accredited certifying agents would be considered small
entities under the criteria established by the SBA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
No additional collection or recordkeeping requirements are imposed
on the public by this proposed rule. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not
required by section 350(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.
The AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires
[[Page 1559]]
Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of
submitting information or transacting business electronically to the
maximum extent possible.
The AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to
promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Animals,
Archives and records, Imports, Labeling, Organically produced products,
Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seals and insignia,
Soil conservation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 205, Subpart
G is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 205--NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 205 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522.
2. Section 205.601 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (i)(ll).
B. Adding new paragraph (j)(9).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop
production.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(11) Tetracycline, for fire blight control only, and for use in
organic crop production only until October 21, 2012.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(9) Sulfurous acid (CAS -7782-99-2) from on-farm
generation of substance by burning only 99% purity elemental sulfur per
Sec. 205.601(j)(2).
* * * * *
Dated: January 5, 2010.
Rayne Pegg,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-165 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P