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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

57985 

Vol. 77, No. 182 

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Document Number AMS–NOP–11–0063; 

NOP–11–11FR] 

RIN 0581–AD018 

National Organic Program (NOP); 

Amendment to the National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances 

(Livestock) 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) National List of Allowed and 

Prohibited Substances (National List) to 

enact one recommendation submitted to 

the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) 

by the National Organic Standards 

Board (NOSB) on April 29, 2010. This 

final rule revises the annotation for one 

substance on the National List, 

methionine, to reduce the maximum 

levels of synthetic methionine allowed 

in organic poultry production after 

October 1, 2012. This final rule permits 

the use of synthetic methionine at the 

following maximum levels per ton of 

feed after October 1, 2012: laying and 

broiler chickens—2 pounds; turkeys and 

all other poultry—3 pounds. This action 

also corrects the Chemical Abstracts 

Service (CAS) numbers for the allowable 

forms of synthetic methionine. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on October 2, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Bailey, Ph.D., Director, 

Standards Division, National Organic 

Program, Telephone: (202) 720–3252; 

Fax: (202) 205–7808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On December 21, 2000, the Secretary 

established within the NOP (7 CFR part 

205) the National List regulations 

sections 205.600 through 205.607. The 

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 

nonagricultural synthetic, nonsynthetic 

nonagricultural and nonorganic 

agricultural substances that may be used 

in organic handling. The Organic Foods 

Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as 

amended, (7 U.S.C. 6501–6522), and 

NOP regulations, in section 205.105, 

specifically prohibit the use of any 

synthetic substance in organic 

production and handling unless the 

synthetic substance is on the National 

List. Section 205.105 also requires that 

any nonorganic agricultural and any 

nonsynthetic nonagricultural substance 

used in organic handling must also 

appear on the National List. 

Under the authority of the OFPA, the 

National List can be amended by the 

Secretary based on recommendations 

developed by the National Organic 

Standards Board (NOSB). Since 

established, the NOP has published 

multiple amendments to the National 

List: October 31, 2003 (68 FR 61987); 

November 3, 2003 (68 FR 62215); 

October 21, 2005 (70 FR 61217); June 7, 

2006 (71 FR 32803); September 11, 2006 

(71 FR 53299); June 27, 2007 (72 FR 

35137); October 16, 2007 (72 FR 58469); 

December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69569); 

December 12, 2007 (72 FR 70479); 

September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54057); 

October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59479); July 6, 

2010 (75 FR 38693); August 24, 2010 (75 

FR 51919); December 13, 2010 (75 FR 

77521); March 14, 2011 (76 FR 13504); 

August 3, 2011 (76 FR 46595); February 

14, 2012 (77 FR 8089); May 15, 2012 (77 

FR 28472); June 6, 2012 (77 FR 33290); 

and August 2, 2012 (77 FR 45903). 

Additionally, a proposed amendment to 

the National List was published on 

January 12, 2012 (77 FR 1980). 

This final rule amends the National 

List to enact a recommendation 

submitted to the Secretary by the NOSB 

on April 29, 2010. 

II. Overview of Amendment 

The following provides an overview 

of the amendment made to the 

designated section of the National List 

regulations: 

Section 205.603 Synthetic Substances 

Allowed for Use in Organic Livestock 

Production 

This final rule amends the listing for 

synthetic methionine at section 

205.603(d)(1) of the National List 

regulations by removing the expiration 

date ‘‘October 1, 2012’’, revising the 

maximum levels of synthetic 

methionine allowed per ton of feed for 

organic poultry, and correcting the 

Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) 

numbers in the annotation as follows: 

(d)(1) DL-Methionine, DL-Methioninehydroxy analog, and DL-Methioninehydroxy analog calcium (CAS #’s 59– 

51–8, 583–91–5, 4857–44–7, and 922– 

50–9)—for use only in organic poultry 

production at the following maximum 

levels of synthetic methionine per ton of 

feed: laying and broiler chickens—2 

pounds; turkeys and all other poultry— 

3 pounds. 

Methionine is classified as an 

essential amino acid for poultry because 

it is needed to maintain viability and 

must be acquired through the diet. 

Methionine is required for proper cell 

development and feathering in poultry. 

Natural feed sources with a high 

percentage of methionine include blood 

meal, fish meal, crab meal, corn gluten 

meal, alfalfa meal, and sunflower seed 

meal. Synthetic methionine is also used 

in poultry feed. This substance is a 

colorless or white crystalline powder 

that is soluble in water. It is regulated 

as an animal feed nutritional 

supplement by the Food and Drug 

Administration (21 CFR 582.5475). 

In 2001, the NOSB evaluated a 

technical advisory panel analysis of 

methionine against the criteria provided 

in the OFPA, and determined that the 

use of synthetic methionine in organic 

poultry feed is compatible with a system 

of organic poultry production. Based on 

multiple NOSB recommendations, AMS 

has amended section 205.603 of the 

National List to allow methionine as a 

synthetic substance for use in organic 

poultry production four times (68 FR 

61987, 70 FR 61217, 73 FR 54057, and 

75 FR 51919). AMS published a 

complete account of the past NOSB 

recommendations and rulemaking 

pertaining to methionine in the interim 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on August 24, 2010 (75 FR 51919) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57986 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1NOSB recommendation on Methionine, April 

2010. Retrieved from the NOP Web site at: http:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=

STELPRDC5085081&acct=nosb. 

2The technical report and the petition for 

synthetic methionine, submitted by Dave Matinelli 

on behalf of the Methionine Task Force on July 

2009, is retrievable from the NOP Web site in the 

Petitioned Substances Database under 

‘‘Methionine’’ at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=

STELPRDC5084508&acct=nopgeninfo. 

3There is an incorrect statement about the April 

2010 NOSB recommendation in the proposed rule 

(77 FR 5717). On page 5718, the proposed rule 

states that ‘‘the second NOSB recommendation from 

April 2010 * * * proposed reduced maximum 

levels of synthetic methionine after October 1, 

2015’’. The date in this statement is incorrect. This 

statement should have read ‘‘the second NOSB 

recommendation from April 2010 * * * proposed 

reduced maximum levels of synthetic methionine 

after October 1, 2012’’ (emphasis added). 

4On February 29, 2012, AMS published a 

correction to the proposed rule addressing this 

NOSB recommendation (77 FR 12216). This 

correction removed the October 2, 1012 date from 

the amendatory language for synthetic methionine 

which was proposed in the proposed rule. This date 

was included in error. 

5A petition to change the annotation for 

methionine was submitted by the Methionine Task 

Force on April 8, 2011. The petition is retrievable 

from the NOP Web site in the Petitioned Substances 

Database under ‘‘Methionine’’ at: http://www.ams.

usda.gov/NOPPetitionedSubstancesDatabase. The 

NOSB is currently reviewing the petition. 

(finalized on March 14, 2011 (76 FR 

13501)). 

On July 31, 2009, the Methionine 

Task Force (MTF), which is comprised 

of organic poultry producers, submitted 

a new petition requesting to extend the 

allowance for synthetic methionine for 

five years until October 2014. In 

addition, the MTF proposed that the 

total amount of synthetic methionine in 

the diet remain below the following 

levels, calculated as the average pounds 

per ton of 100% synthetic methionine 

over the life of the bird: laying 

chickens—4 pounds; broiler chickens— 

5 pounds; and, turkey and all other 

poultry—6 pounds. In consideration of 

the July 2009 petition and public 

comments, the NOSB issued two 

recommendations on April 29, 2010. 

These recommendations acknowledged 

a need for the continued allowance of 

synthetic methionine, and conveyed the 

intent to decrease the amount of 

synthetic methionine allowed in organic 

poultry production and encourage 

development of natural alternatives. 

One recommendation proposed to allow 

synthetic methionine in organic poultry 

production until October 1, 2012, at the 

following maximum levels per ton of 

feed: laying chickens—4 pounds; broiler 

chickens—5 pounds; and turkey and all 

other poultry—6 pounds. The first 

recommendation was implemented 

through a final rule published on March 

14, 2011 (76 FR 13501). 

This final rule addresses the second 

NOSB recommendation on synthetic 

methionine from April 2010.1 This 

recommendation was based upon their 

evaluation of a petition submitted by the 

Methionine Task Force, a group of 

organic poultry producers, a third party 

technical review, and public comments 

received as part of their April 2010 

public meeting.2 In their deliberations, 

the NOSB conveyed that the intent of 

this recommendation was to balance 

various interests including: (i) Providing 

for the basic maintenance requirements 

of organic poultry; (ii) satisfying 

consumer preference to reduce the use 

of synthetic methionine in organic 

poultry production; and (iii) motivating 

the organic poultry industry to continue 

the pursuit of commercially sufficient 

sources of allowable natural sources of 

methionine. A detailed discussion of the 

NOSB recommendation is available in 

the proposed rule which was published 

in the Federal Register on February 6, 

2012 (77 FR 5717).3

This NOSB recommendation from 

April 2010 recommended that AMS 

delete the expiration date from the 

substance’s current restrictive 

annotation to provide for use of 

synthetic methionine in organic 

production after its current expiration 

date, October 1, 2012.4 In response to 

the NOSB recommendation and public 

comment, this final rule removes the 

October 1, 2012 expiration date from the 

listing for synthetic methionine on the 

National List. In effect, removal of the 

expiration date from the current 

restrictive annotation provides for the 

use of synthetic methionine until it is 

reviewed again by the NOSB as part of 

either the substance’s next sunset 

review or through the petition process.5

The NOSB also recommended a 

reduction in the maximum levels of 

synthetic methionine allowed in organic 

poultry feed as part of their April 2010 

recommendation. In response to this 

recommendation, this final rule amends 

the listing for synthetic methionine by 

reducing the maximum levels of the 

substance allowed per ton of feed for 

organic poultry from ‘‘laying chickens— 

4 pounds; broiler chickens—5 pounds; 

turkeys and all other poultry—6 

pounds’’ to ‘‘laying and broiler 

chickens—2 pounds; turkeys and all 

other poultry—3 pounds’’. 

Through this final rule, AMS is also 

correcting the CAS numbers for the 

forms of synthetic methionine specified 

on the National List. CAS numbers are 

numeric identifiers which are used to 

uniquely identify substances. As 

discussed in the proposed rule, two of 

the three CAS numbers in the current 

listing for synthetic methionine are not 

appropriately specified in the regulation 

(77 FR 5719). An overview of the 

changes is provided in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—OVERVIEW OF CORRECTIONS TO CAS NUMBERS FOR ALLOWED FORMS OF SYNTHETIC METHIONINE

CAS # Substance name 

Is substance name 

included in current 

regulations? 

Is CAS # included in 

current regulations? 

Are CAS # and substance 

name included in final 

rule? 

59–51–8 ............................. DL-Methionine ................... yes ..................................... yes ..................................... yes. 

348–67–4 ........................... D-Methionine ..................... no ...................................... yes ..................................... no. 

63–68–3 ............................. L-Methionine ..................... no ...................................... yes ..................................... no. 

583–91–5 ........................... DL-Methionine-hydroxy 

analog.

yes ..................................... no ...................................... yes. 

4857–44–7 and 922–50–9 DL-Methionine-hydroxy 

analog calcium.

yes ..................................... no ...................................... yes. 

III. Related Documents 

A notice was published in the Federal 

Register announcing a meeting of the 

NOSB and its planned deliberations to 

address a petition pertaining to the use 

of methionine in organic poultry 

production on March 17, 2010 (75 FR 

12723). 

The current listing for methionine 

was codified through publication of an 

interim rule with request for comments 

in the Federal Register on August 24, 

2010 (75 FR 51919), and reaffirmed by 

a final rule published on March 14, 

2011 (76 FR 13501). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 57987 

6U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. 2009. Data Sets: U.S. Certified 

Organic Farmland Acreage, Livestock Numbers and 

Farm Operations, 1992–2008. http://www.ers.usda.

gov/Data/Organic/. 

7 Ibid. 

8U.S. Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. 2010. The 2007 

Census of Agriculture, Organic Production Survey 

(2008): Volume 3, Special Studies, Part 2, AC–07– 

SS–2, Tables 10 & 11, pp 69–91. http://www.

agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_

Highlights/Organics/ORGANICS.pdf. 

The proposal to allow the use of 

methionine as specified in this final rule 

was published as a proposed rule on 

February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5717). 

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

The OFPA authorizes the Secretary to 

make amendments to the National List 

based on proposed amendments 

developed by the NOSB. Sections 

6518(k)(2) and 6518(n) of the OFPA 

authorize the NOSB to develop 

proposed amendments to the National 

List for submission to the Secretary and 

establish a petition process by which 

persons may petition the NOSB for the 

purpose of having substances evaluated 

for inclusion or deletion from the 

National List. The National List petition 

process is implemented under section 

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/nop. 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This action has been determined not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866, and therefore, has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

B. Executive Order 12988 

Executive Order 12988 instructs each 

executive agency to adhere to certain 

requirements in the development of new 

and revised regulations in order to avoid 

unduly burdening the court system. 

This final rule is not intended to have 

a retroactive effect. 

States and local jurisdictions are 

preempted under the OFPA from 

creating programs of accreditation for 

private persons or State officials who 

want to become certifying agents of 

organic farms or handling operations. A 

governing State official would have to 

apply to USDA to be accredited as a 

certifying agent, as described in section 

6514(b) of the OFPA. States are also 

preempted under section 6503 through 

6507 of the OFPA 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 6507(b)(2) of the 

OFPA, 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 6519(f) of the 

OFPA, this final rule would not alter the 

authority of the Secretary under the 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 

601–624), the Poultry Products 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451–471), or 

the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 

U.S.C. 1031–1056), concerning meat, 

poultry, and egg products, nor any of 

the authorities of the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services under the Federal 

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

301–399), nor the authority of the 

Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide 

Act (7 U.S.C. 136–136(y)). 

Section 6520 of the OFPA 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 

final decision. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires agencies to 

consider the economic impact of each 

rule on small entities and evaluate 

alternatives that would accomplish the 

objectives of the rule without unduly 

burdening small entities or erecting 

barriers that would restrict their ability 

to compete in the market. The purpose 

is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to the action. Section 

605 of the RFA allows an agency to 

certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an 

analysis, if the rulemaking is not 

expected to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in the RFA, AMS performed an 

economic impact analysis on small 

entities in the final rule published in the 

Federal Register on December 21, 2000 

(65 FR 80548). AMS has also considered 

the economic impact of this action on 

small entities. The impact on entities 

affected by this final rule would not be 

significant. The effect of this final rule 

is to continue the allowance of synthetic 

methionine in poultry production, 

which would otherwise expire in 

October 2012. While the rule will 

reduce the rates of synthetic methionine 

allowed in organic poultry feed, this 

action amends the regulations such that 

small entities will continue to have 

access to a substance for use in organic 

poultry production. AMS concludes that 

the economic impact of extending the 

allowance for synthetic methionine in 

organic poultry production, if any, will 

be minimal to small agricultural service 

firms. Accordingly, AMS certifies that 

this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Small agricultural service firms, 

which include producers, handlers, and 

accredited certifying agents, have been 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) 

as those having annual receipts of less 

than $7,000,000, and small agricultural 

producers are defined as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000. 

According to NOP’s Accreditation and 

International Activities Division, the 

number of certified U.S. organic crop 

and livestock operations totaled over 

17,000 in 2010. Based on USDA data 

from the Economic Research Service 

(ERS) in 2008, these operations 

contained more than 4.8 million 

certified acres consisting of 2,665,382 

acres of cropland and 2,160,577 acres of 

pasture and rangeland.6 The total 

acreage under organic management 

represents a twelve percent increase 

from 2007. Organic poultry production 

has steadily contributed to the overall 

growth in the organic food market. ERS 

estimated that there were 5,538,011 

laying chickens and 9,015,984 broiler 

chickens raised under organic 

management in 2008.7 ERS estimated 

the number of certified organic turkeys 

raised in the United States in 2008 at 

398,531. Based on the USDA data 

reported by the National Agricultural 

Statistical Service (NASS), the US 

market value for organic eggs, and 

laying and broiler chickens was 

calculated at $352,831,850 in 2008.8 In 

addition to being sold as whole 

products, organic eggs and poultry byproducts are used in the production of 

organic processed products including 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57988 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

9Organic Trade Association. 2011. Organic 

Industry Survey. www.ota.com. 

10The NRC is a branch of the National Academy 

of Sciences. The NRC determines the nutritional 

requirements for livestock species in various phases 

of production based upon a compilation of 

scientific studies. 

soups, broths, prepared meals, ice 

cream, and egg nog. U.S. sales of organic 

food and beverages have grown from $1 

billion in 1990 to $26.7 billion in 2010. 

Sales in 2010 represented 7.7 percent 

growth over 2009 sales.9

In addition, USDA has 93 accredited 

certifying agents who provide 

certification services to producers and 

handlers under the NOP. 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 final rule. 

Accordingly, OMB clearance is not 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, Chapter 35. 

E. Executive Order 13175 

This final rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. The review reveals that 

this regulation will not have substantial 

and direct effects on Tribal governments 

and will not have significant Tribal 

implications. 

F. Comments Received on Proposed 

Rule NOP–11–11 

AMS received 38 comments on the 

proposed rule. Comments were received 

from organic livestock producers, 

consumers, accredited certifying agents, 

trade associations, non-profit 

organizations, advocacy groups, and a 

methionine manufacturer. The majority 

of comments supported a continued 

allowance for synthetic methionine in 

organic poultry production after its 

current expiration date, October 1, 2012. 

Nine comments specifically supported 

the amendment as proposed. Seven of 

these nine comments further stated their 

support for the proposed action because 

it will meet the intent of the NOSB to 

phase out the use of synthetic 

methionine in organic poultry 

production over time. Three 

commenters opposed the proposed rule 

as they wanted no synthetic methionine 

to be included in organic poultry diets. 

Changes Requested But Not Made 

Many commenters stated that the 

proposed reduction in the maximum 

levels of synthetic methionine allowed 

per ton of feed could pose issues for 

some organic producers. These 

commenters described their concerns 

with the proposed reduction, including 

the lack of commercially available 

natural sources of methionine, and 

considerations pertaining to animal 

health and welfare and the 

environment. 

Commenters stated that natural 

alternatives to compensate for the 

reduction in synthetic methionine are 

not commercially available at quantities 

that would meet the nutritional 

requirements of the birds. Commenters 

acknowledged that research was 

ongoing to identify high methionine 

feeds, but noted that these alternatives 

are not produced in sufficient quantities 

to meet the demand of the organic 

poultry market. Some commenters 

stated that, in the absence of natural 

alternatives, synthetic methionine 

continues to be important for overall 

production output, increased flock 

uniformity and reduced feed costs. 

Some commenters noted that poultry 

diets are corn and soybean based and 

suggested that producers may need to 

meet the nutritional requirement for 

methionine by overfeeding protein with 

extra soybean meal. A commenter 

questioned if a sufficient quantity of 

organic soybeans were available for this 

strategy of overfeeding soybean meal to 

compensate for reduced synthetic 

methionine levels. One commenter also 

suggested that feed costs could rise by 

20% if producers opt to overfeed 

protein sources in response to the 

reduced levels. 

Some commenters cited scientific 

literature and National Research 

Council (NRC) 10 recommendations on 

the quantity of methionine needed in a 

poultry diet to optimize animal health. 

The commenters stated that the 

nutritional requirements for birds 

change over time with greater 

methionine demand early in life and 

early in the laying period, and that the 

proposed reduction in synthetic 

methionine would not align with the 

nutritional demands of the birds during 

certain life stages. Commenters also 

referenced the benefits to animal 

welfare when the nutritional 

requirement for methionine is met. 

Commenters noted that diets with 

inadequate amounts of methionine 

could lead to increased feather pecking 

and cannibalism. 

Some commenters also raised 

concerns about the environmental 

impacts of poultry diets with lower 

levels of synthetic methionine. These 

commenters stated that studies show 

that inclusion of synthetic methionine 

in poultry diets reduced greenhouse gas 

production, reduced nitrogen waste and 

required less land be cultivated to 

produce the same amount of poultry 

products as those without methionine 

supplementation. Other commenters 

noted that producers may choose to 

meet the methionine needs of the birds 

by overfeeding protein. These 

commenters stated that increased 

protein in the diet has been shown to 

lead to more nitrogen excretion and an 

increase in ammonia levels in poultry 

houses. 

To address these concerns, 

commenters recommended alternatives 

to the proposed reduction in the levels 

of synthetic methionine. Some 

commenters suggested that the 

annotation on synthetic methionine 

should align with the methionine 

recommendation from the National 

Research Council. Some commenters 

stated that the maximum levels of 

methionine per ton of feed should 

remain at the levels currently codified 

(i.e. for laying chickens—4 pounds; for 

broiler chickens—5 pounds; and turkey 

and all other poultry—6 pounds). Other 

commenters suggested that, if the 

proposed reduction in synthetic 

methionine levels is finalized at 2 

pounds for laying and broiler chickens 

and at 3 pounds for turkeys and all 

other poultry, then the annotation 

should specify that these levels be based 

upon an average amount of synthetic 

methionine per ton of feed fed over the 

life of the birds. These commenters 

noted that this latter approach would be 

consistent with the request of the 2011 

petition submitted by the Methionine 

Task Force. 

Consistent with the NOSB 

recommendation, AMS is maintaining 

the proposed amendment to allow 

synthetic methionine in organic poultry 

production after October 1, 2012, at 

reduced levels. The NOSB received 

numerous public comments at their 

April 2010 public meeting regarding the 

use of synthetic methionine in organic 

poultry production. During their 

deliberations, the NOSB also reviewed 

technical information on synthetic 

methionine in accordance with the 

criteria in OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6517–6518) 

and the NOP regulations for synthetic 

substances on the National List 

(§ 205.600). As part of their decision 

making, the NOSB is mandated by 

OFPA to evaluate whether alternative 

practices make the use of a substance 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 57989 

11The 2011 petition is available on line at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5090283&

acct=nopgeninfo. This petition requests an 

allowance for synthetic methionine as follows: The 

allowed maximum average pounds per ton of 100% 

synthetic methionine (MET) in the diet over the life 

of the bird be at the following levels: Laying 

chickens—2.5 lbs; Broiler chickens—3 lbs; Turkeys 

and all other poultry—3 lbs. 

such as synthetic methionine 

unnecessary. The NOSB recommended 

an allowance for lower levels of 

synthetic methionine based on their 

perspective that implementing 

management strategies and different 

housing practices should lessen or 

eliminate the need for synthetic 

methionine in organic production. The 

NOSB also believed that a reduction in 

the levels allowed after October 1, 2012, 

will stimulate further market 

development of natural alternatives and 

drive management changes in the 

organic poultry industry. Amending the 

listing for this substance on the National 

List to allow higher levels of the 

substance than recommended by the 

NOSB would not meet the intent of the 

NOSB to phase out the use of this 

synthetic methionine in organic poultry 

production over time. Therefore, 

consistent with the NOSB 

recommendation, AMS is codifying the 

amendment to synthetic methionine 

through this final rule as proposed. 

One commenter suggested that 

poultry diets without synthetic 

methionine may not be in compliance 

with the Association of American Feed 

Control Officials’ Model Feed Bill and 

Regulations which have been adopted in 

18 states. This rule allows for synthetic 

methionine in organic poultry feed in 

accordance with its restrictive 

annotation on the National List. This 

action is not requiring the formulation 

of organic poultry feed without 

synthetic methionine. 

Some commenters questioned the 

process through which the NOSB made 

its April 2010 recommendation to the 

NOP. Commenters reiterated that 

methionine requirements for poultry 

and the commercial availability of 

natural sources of methionine have not 

changed since the NOSB began its 

deliberations on the allowance for 

synthetic methionine in organic 

production. Therefore, commenters 

questioned, with the same information, 

the NOSB decision to further restrict the 

use of synthetic methionine in their 

April 2010 recommendation. One 

commenter also stated that the NOSB 

should have accepted additional public 

comment at the April 2010 meeting on 

the reduced levels of the substance in 

their recommendation prior to voting. 

One commenter disputed the 

information provided to the NOSB 

Livestock Committee by anonymous 

feed mills and scientific experts about 

the feed requirements for poultry. 

On March 17, 2010, a notice was 

published in the Federal Register 

announcing a meeting of the NOSB and 

its planned deliberations to address a 

petition pertaining to the use of 

methionine in organic poultry 

production (75 FR 12723). In response 

to this notice, the NOSB accepted both 

written and oral public comment on this 

issue in advance of making their 

recommendation. All comments were 

considered alongside the technical 

information as part of the NOSB’s 

recommendation on synthetic 

methionine to the Secretary. 

Two commenters suggested that, if 

organic poultry were produced using 

synthetic substances, then the organic 

poultry products from these poultry 

should be labeled as produced through 

use of a synthetic. The NOP regulations 

authorize the use of synthetic 

substances that have been 

recommended by the NOSB and 

included on the National List by the 

Secretary. Requiring labeling for the use 

of synthetic inputs as suggested by the 

commenters is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Several commenters provided 

comments in reference to the petition 

submitted in 2011 by the Methionine 

Task Force.11 A few comments 

regarding the 2011 petition addressed 

the potential for increased audit times 

based on upon the petitioner’s request 

and the need for NOSB to consider use 

of a natural omnivorous diet as an 

alternative to the petitioner’s request. 

Other comments supported the 2011 

petition and urged the NOSB to review 

it as soon as possible. These comments 

are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

The NOSB is currently reviewing this 

petition and would accept comments on 

any NOSB proposal to address this 

petition as part of a future NOSB 

meeting. 

AMS specifically requested comments 

on proposed corrections to the CAS 

numbers for the allowed forms of 

methionine. One comment was received 

from a trade association on this issue. 

The commenter stated that correcting 

the CAS numbers (348–67–4 for DMethionine and 63–68–3 for LMethionine) would not impact any 

poultry feeds currently on the market, 

but noted that the correction would 

prevent the addition of D-methionine or 

L-methionine in future feed 

formulations. AMS is retaining the 

corrections as proposed to ensure that 

the appropriate CAS numbers are 

reflected in the annotation for synthetic 

methionine on the National List. Forms 

of synthetic methionine which are not 

indicated by their CAS number on the 

National List at section 205.603 would 

need to be petitioned for review by the 

NOSB. 

G. General Notice of Public Rulemaking 

This final rule reflects a 

recommendation submitted to the 

Secretary by the NOSB for extending the 

use of synthetic methionine in organic 

poultry production. The NOSB 

evaluated this substance using criteria 

in the OFPA in response to a petition. 

The NOSB has determined that while 

wholly natural substitute products exist, 

they are not presently available in 

sufficient supplies to meet poultry 

producer needs. Therefore, some 

allowance for synthetic methionine is a 

necessary component of a nutritionally 

adequate diet for organic poultry. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is found and 

determined upon good cause that it is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest to give preliminary notice prior 

to putting this rule into effect in order 

to ensure the continued use of synthetic 

methionine after October 1, 2012, and 

avoid any disruption to the organic 

poultry market. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Agriculture, Animals, 

Archives and records, Imports, Labeling, 

Organically produced products, Plants, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seals and insignia, Soil 

conservation. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 205, subpart G is 

amended as follows: 

PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 205 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522. 

■ 2. Section 205.603(d)(1) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 205.603 Synthetic substances allowed 

for use in organic livestock production. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) DL-Methionine, DL-Methioninehydroxy analog, and DL-Methioninehydroxy analog calcium (CAS #’s 59– 

51–8, 583–91–5, 4857–44–7, and 922– 

50–9)—for use only in organic poultry 

production at the following maximum 

levels of synthetic methionine per ton of 

feed: Laying and broiler chickens—2 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57990 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

pounds; turkeys and all other poultry— 

3 pounds. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 13, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23083 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Part 741 

RIN 3133–AD66 

Interest Rate Risk Policy and Program 

Correction 

In rule document 2012–02091, 

appearing on pages 55155–5167 in the 

issue of Thursday, February 2, 2012, 

make the following corrections: 

1. On page 5157, in the second 

column, in the first line, the text entry 

‘‘by asset size cohort at year-end 2010, 

as depicted in Table 1:’’ is deleted. 

2. On page 5164, in the second 

column, under the heading ‘‘Account 

Attributes’’ on the second line, 

‘‘P\principal’’ should read ‘‘Principal’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2012–2091 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0645; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–052–AD; Amendment 

39–17190; AD 2012–18–13] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

all The Boeing Company Model 737– 

100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 

series airplanes. That AD currently 

requires repetitive inspections to detect 

cracking in the web of the aft pressure 

bulkhead at body station 1016 at the aft 

fastener row attachment to the ‘‘Y’’ 

chord, and corrective actions if 

necessary. This new AD adds various 

inspections for discrepancies at the aft 

pressure bulkhead, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. This AD was prompted by 

several reports of fatigue cracking at that 

location. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct such fatigue cracking, 

which could result in rapid 

decompression of the fuselage. 

DATES: This AD is effective October 24, 

2012. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of October 24, 2012. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain other publications listed in 

this AD as of May 10, 1999 (64 FR 

19879, April 23, 1999). 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://www.regulations.

gov; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 

917–6450; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: 

alan.pohl@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 99–08–23, 

Amendment 39–11132 (64 FR 19879, 

April 23, 1999). That AD applies to the 

specified products. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38547). That 

NPRM proposed to continue to require 

repetitive inspections to detect cracking 

in the web of the aft pressure bulkhead 

at body station 1016 at the aft fastener 

row attachment to the ‘‘Y’’ chord, and 

corrective actions if necessary. That 

NPRM also proposed to require adding 

various inspections for discrepancies at 

the aft pressure bulkhead, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

have considered the comments received. 

Boeing supports the NPRM (77 FR 

38547, June 28, 2012). Aviation Partners 

Boeing stated that it has reviewed the 

NPRM and has determined that the 

installation of winglets per 

supplemental type certificate 

ST01219SE does not affect the NPRM. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

as proposed. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 566 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection [retained actions from AD 

99-08–23, Amendment 39–11132 (64 

FR 19879, April 23, 1999)].

8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 ..... $0 $680 ....................... $384,880. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES