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

58655 

Vol. 79, No. 189 

Tuesday, September 30, 2014 

1Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, 

Chapter 6: What is Incorporation by Reference, and 

How do I do it? April 2014 Revision. http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/write/handbook/ 

chapter-6.pdf. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Document Number AMS–NOP–13–0011; 

NOP–13–01FR] 

RIN 0581–AD32 

National Organic Program (NOP); 

Amendments to the National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances 

(Crops and Processing) 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA’s) National List of Allowed and 

Prohibited Substances (National List) to 

reflect a recommendation submitted to 

the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) 

by the National Organic Standards 

Board (NOSB) on October 18, 2012, and 

removes two previously expired 

substances. Consistent with the 

recommendation from the NOSB, this 

final rule adds biodegradable biobased 

mulch film to the National List with 

restrictive annotations. This action also 

adds a new definition for biodegradable 

biobased mulch film. This rule also 

removes two listings for nonorganic 

agricultural substances from the 

National List, hops (Humulus lupulus) 

and unmodified rice starch, as their use 

exemptions expired on January 1, 2013, 

and June 21, 2009, respectively. Two 

other substances that were 

recommended by the NOSB to the 

Secretary for addition to the National 

List, Citrus hystrix, leaves and fruit, and 

curry leaves (Murraya koenigii), have 

not been added to the National List 

based on comments received on the 

proposed rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective October 30, 2014. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of October 30, 2014. 

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 National Organic 

Program (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, 

nonagricultural nonsynthetic, 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 USDA organic 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 be on the 

National List. 

Under the authority of OFPA, the 

National List can be amended by the 

Secretary based on proposed 

amendments developed by the NOSB. 

Since established, the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) has published 

multiple amendments to the National 

List beginning on October 31, 2003 (68 

FR 61987). AMS published the most 

recent amendment to the National List 

on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61154). 

This final rule amends the National 

List to enact one recommendation 

submitted to the Secretary by the NOSB 

on October 18, 2012. This rule also 

removes two previously expired 

substances from the National List. Two 

other recommendations that were 

submitted by the NOSB to the Secretary 

on May 25, 2012, have not been 

finalized based on comments received 

on AMS’ August 22, 2013 proposed rule 

(78 FR 52100). 

II. Overview of Amendments 

The following provides an overview 

of the amendments made to designated 

sections of the National List regulations: 

Section 205.2 Terms defined. 

Section 205.3 Incorporation by 

reference. 

Section 205.601 Synthetic substances 

allowed for use in organic crop 

production. 

This final rule amends sections 205.2 

and 205.601 of the National List by 

adding a new definition and new 

substance to the National List for 

organic crop production. In addition, 

section 205.3 has been added to comply 

with incorporation by reference 

requirements. 

Biodegradable Biobased Mulch Film 

This rule adds a new definition for 

biodegradable biobased mulch film that 

includes criteria and third-party 

standards for compostability, 

biodegradability, and biobased content. 

These third-party standards are 

incorporated by reference at new section 

205.3. For the final rule, we have added 

new section 205.3 to specify the current 

versions of the cited third-party 

standards and include information on 

the availability of these standards to 

meet requirements for incorporation by 

reference.1 Additional text regarding the 

availability of these standards has also 

been added to new section 205.3. 

This rule also adds the substance 

‘‘biodegradable biobased mulch film,’’ 

with restrictions, to new subparagraph 

(b)(2)(iii) of section 205.601. The new 

listing reads as follows: ‘‘Biodegradable 

biobased mulch films as defined in 

§ 205.2. Must be produced without 

organisms or feedstock derived from 

excluded methods.’’ 

Section 205.606 Nonorganically 

produced agricultural products 

allowed as ingredients in or on 

processed products labeled as 

‘‘organic.’’ 

This final rule amends section 

205.606 of the National List regulations 

by removing paragraphs (l) and (w)(2) to 

remove two previously expired 

substances, hops (Humulus lupulus) 

and unmodified rice starch, whose use 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
58656 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2 Information about the 2013 List of Certified 

Operations is available on the NOP Web site at: 

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

dDocName=STELPRDC5097484&acct=nopgeninfo. 

3U.S. Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. 2011 Certified 

Organic Production Survey. October 2012. 

Available at: http://bit.ly/2011OrganicSurvey. 

expired on January 1, 2013, and June 21, 

2009, respectively. Further, this final 

rule redesignates paragraph (w)(3) as 

(w)(2) and paragraphs (m) through (aa) 

as (l) through (z). 

III. Related Documents 

Two notices were published regarding 

meetings of the NOSB and its 

deliberations on recommendations and 

substances petitioned for amending the 

National List. Substances and NOSB 

recommendations addressed in this 

final rule were announced for NOSB 

deliberation in the following Federal 

Register notices: (1) 77 FR 21067, April 

9, 2012 (curry leaves and C. hystrix); 

and (2) 77 FR 52679, August 30, 2012 

(biodegradable biobased mulch film). 

The expiration date of January 1, 

2013, for the listing for hops was added 

to the National List on June 27, 2012, by 

a final rule (77 FR 33290) published in 

the Federal Register notice on June 6, 

2012. 

The listing and expiration date of June 

21, 2009 for unmodified rice starch was 

added to the National List on June 21, 

2007, by an interim final rule (72 FR 

35137) published in the Federal 

Register on June 27, 2007. 

The proposal to allow the use of three 

new substances, along with the deletion 

of two expired substances, was 

published as a proposed rule on August 

22, 2013 (78 FR 52100). 

Additional information on substances, 

including petitions, technical reports, 

and NOSB recommendations, are 

available on the NOP Web site at 

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

NOPNationalList. 

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

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 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 on or deletion from the 

National List. The National List petition 

process is implemented under section 

205.607 of the USDA organic 

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 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 OFPA. States are also 

preempted under sections 6503 through 

6507 of 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 OFPA. 

Pursuant to section 6507(b)(2) of 

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 OFPA, (b) not be 

inconsistent with OFPA, (c) not be 

discriminatory toward agricultural 

commodities organically produced in 

other States, and (d) not be effective 

until approved by the Secretary. 

Pursuant to section 6519(f) of 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 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. OFPA also 

provides that the U.S. District Court for 

the district in which a person is located 

has jurisdiction to review the 

Secretary’s decision. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

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

consider the economic impact of each 

rule on small entities and evaluate 

alternatives that would accomplish the 

objectives of the rule without unduly 

burdening small entities or erecting 

barriers that would restrict their ability 

to compete in the market. The purpose 

is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to the action. Section 

605 of the RFA allows an agency to 

certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an 

analysis, if the rulemaking is not 

expected to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) defines small agricultural 

producers and handlers as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000 

(13 CFR 121.201). SBA defines small 

agricultural service firms, which would 

include accredited certifying agents, as 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201). 

The NOP reported that there were 

18,513 certified organic farms and 

processing facilities in the United States 

at the end of 2013.2 According to the 

2011 Certified Organic Production 

Survey, nearly 90% of certified organic 

farms reported annual organic product 

sales of less than $500,000.3 AMS 

believes that most of these entities 

would be considered to be small entities 

under the criteria established by the 

SBA. 

In addition, the USDA has 82 

accredited certifying agents that provide 

certification services to producers and 

handlers; 49 of these are based in the 

United States. 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. 

In accordance with RFA, AMS has 

considered the impact of this action on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 58657 

small entities. The effect of this final 

rule would be to allow the use of one 

additional substance, biodegradable 

biobased mulch film, in organic crop 

production and to remove two 

previously expired substances. The new 

allowance for biodegradable biobased 

mulch film will provide small entities 

with more tools to use in day-to-day 

farming operations. AMS concludes that 

the economic impact of this addition, if 

any, will be minimal and beneficial to 

small agricultural producers. 

Accordingly, AMS certifies that this rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

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 AMS–NOP–13–0011; NOP–13– 

01PR 

AMS received 120 comments on the 

proposed rule. Comments were received 

from organic producers and handlers, 

nonprofit organizations, industry 

groups, trade associations, input 

suppliers, accredited certifying agents, 

and private citizens. 

Most comments addressed the 

proposed allowance of biodegradable 

biobased mulch film and supported its 

use in organic crop production. Thirteen 

comments addressed the proposed 

allowance of two new nonorganic 

ingredients and did not support their 

addition to the National List. Comments 

received for each substance are 

described in more detail below. 

Several comments opposed the 

allowance of any nonorganic material in 

organic crop production and handling, 

but did not provide specific comments 

on the proposed amendments. 

Comments on the proposed removal 

of expired listings for hops and 

unmodified rice starch were supportive 

of this action. Therefore, AMS is 

finalizing the amendments that remove 

these two previously expired substances 

from section 205.606 of the National 

List. 

Biodegradable Biobased Mulch Film 

Over one hundred comments 

addressed the proposed definition and 

allowance for biodegradable biobased 

mulch film. The majority of comments 

received were supportive of the 

proposed action. 

One comment claimed that the 

proposed listing would allow materials 

to be used in ways that were not 

intended by the NOSB recommendation. 

We disagree. The definition and listing 

ensure that mulch film is biobased and 

meets additional standards for 

biodegradability and compostability 

consistent with the NOSB 

recommendation. Additional 

information on these issues is discussed 

in more detail below. 

Two comments requested that other 

materials, herbicidal soaps for food 

crops and synthetic fabric weed barrier 

cloth (non-plastic), be allowed for weed 

control in organic crop production. 

AMS did not propose any action with 

respect to these materials in the 

proposed rule and, therefore, is not 

addressing these materials in this final 

rule. Parties interested in the allowance 

of these materials in organic crop 

production may submit a petition to the 

NOSB. This process can be initiated in 

accordance with the Notice of 

Guidelines on Procedures for 

Submitting National List Petitions (72 

FR 2167). 

Many commenters supported mulch 

film as a more environmentally 

sustainable alternative to traditional 

plastic mulch. Commenters indicated 

that mulch film would reduce landfill 

waste, reduce air pollution from burning 

of traditional plastic mulch, and be 

more sustainable and ecological since it 

uses renewable biobased resources. 

Some commenters also cited farms that 

have voluntarily surrendered their 

organic certification in order to use 

mulch film instead of traditional plastic 

film since they felt the mulch film is 

better for the environment. 

AMS received a number of comments 

from certified organic producers who 

supported the use of biobased mulch 

film. Organic producers cited many 

environmental and economic benefits 

from the use of mulch film including 

reduced plastic landfill waste, reduced 

labor costs, and reduced removal and 

disposal costs. Several producers noted 

that labor costs associated with hand 

weeding are a major expense for their 

operation and that that the use of mulch 

film would reduce these costs. 

Producers also noted that mulch films 

may allow for more effective weed 

control and improved cultivation of 

living mulches and cover crops. 

Comments specifically noted that mulch 

film would be beneficial to organic 

farmers without compromising the 

integrity of organic farming. One 

producer provided limited information 

about a successful on-farm trial using 

mulch film. Another producer noted 

that they used mulch film prior to 

becoming certified organic and 

expressed support for the use of the 

substance. One grower who supported 

the allowance of mulch film indicated 

that organic straw mulch, an alternative 

natural material, is increasingly hard to 

find. 

One producer who supported the use 

of mulch film stated that biodegradable 

mulch films should be required instead 

of plastic mulch, and that biodegradable 

mulch films should be required to be 

tilled into the soil. We have not adopted 

the commenter’s suggestion for required 

tilling, as discussed further below. 

Another commenter also indicated that 

traditional plastic mulch should be 

prohibited in organic agriculture. 

Removing the allowance for traditional 

plastic mulch on the National List is 

outside of the scope of this rulemaking 

action and, therefore, no further action 

was taken on this comment. Parties 

interested in a prohibition for 

traditional plastic mulch may submit a 

petition to the NOSB. This process can 

be initiated in accordance with the 

Notice of Guidelines on Procedures for 

Submitting National List Petitions (72 

FR 2167). 

Two comments supporting the use of 

mulch film indicated that foreign 

operations certified to other organic 

standards can currently use mulch films 

and export their certified organic 

products into the United States; which 

puts domestic growers as at competitive 

disadvantage. This rulemaking action to 

allow the use of mulch film would 

address this concern. 

Many comments indicated their 

support of the proposed listing at 

section 205.601 that prohibits mulch 

films made from or with excluded 

methods (i.e., genetically modified 

organisms or GMOs) because GMOs are 

not allowed for use in organic 

production. Several comments 

supported the use of mulch only if it 

does not contain any genetically 

modified material. Another comment 

stated that the proposed rule was 

unclear about biodegradable film that 

may contain genetically modified 

organisms and requested that the final 

rule require the mulch to be GMO free. 

One comment requested additional 

clarification on how far back in the 

production process that the use of 

excluded methods must be verified. One 

comment supported the prohibition on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
58658 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

4NOSB Recommendation. Guidance Document— 

Engineered Nanomaterials in Organic Production, 

Processing and Packaging. October 28, 2010. 

Available on the NOP Web site at http://

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

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5087795&acct=nosb. 

5Memorandum for the Chairperson of the 

National Organic Standards Board, National 

Organic Program, December 17, 2010. Available on 

the NOP Web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/

AMSv1.0/

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5088266&acct=nosb. 

6OFPA, 7 U.S.C. 6518(m). 

7NOSB Materials Subcommittee Proposal: 

Research Priorities for 2013. December 10, 2013. 

Available on the NOP Web site at http://

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

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5106662. 

excluded methods but did not feel that 

it was necessary to specify the exclusion 

at section 205.601 since excluded 

methods are generally prohibited in 

organic production and handling. The 

comment indicated that targeting a 

single material with this restriction may 

lead to inconsistent certification 

decisions. 

AMS has considered these comments 

and has retained the text that was 

proposed at section 205.601 that 

requires that mulch film must be 

produced without organisms or 

feedstock derived from excluded 

methods. There may be questions about 

whether the use of mulch film derived 

from genetically modified organisms 

should be interpreted as the use of an 

excluded method as prohibited under 

section 205.105(e), particularly if the 

manufacturing process eliminates any 

genetically engineered traits that are 

only detectible in the raw agricultural 

feedstock. Our intention is to implement 

the NOSB recommendation to prohibit 

the use of genetically engineered 

feedstock or organisms in the 

production of mulch film, regardless of 

whether the genetically engineered trait 

is retained or detectible in the finished 

product. We also note that the NOSB 

indicated in its recommendation some 

concerns about consistency in the 

review of soil inputs for excluded 

methods and noted that it did not 

intend for this annotation to be 

interpreted as applying to other soil 

inputs. 

Consistent with the NOSB 

recommendation and with the listing 

finalized at section 205.601, certifying 

agents and material evaluation programs 

will need to verify that mulch films are 

produced without organisms or 

feedstock derived from excluded 

methods. This includes verification that 

feedstock, including plant materials, 

microorganisms, enzymes, or other 

additives, are not genetically engineered 

or derived from genetically modified 

organisms. We have retained the 

language of ‘‘derived from excluded 

methods,’’ rather than ‘‘produced using 

excluded methods,’’ as suggested by one 

commenter, as we feel the proposed 

regulatory text is adequate to describe 

the intent. 

Two comments that did not support 

the allowance of mulch film requested 

that, if approved, that the regulations 

should explicitly state that engineered 

nanomaterials are prohibited in this 

material. We have not adopted by the 

commenters’ suggestion on this issue. 

AMS acknowledges that the NOSB 

considers engineered nanomaterials to 

be synthetic and prohibited under the 

organic regulations, and that the NOSB 

issued a separate recommendation on 

this topic in 2010.4 On December 17, 

2010, NOP responded to this NOSB 

recommendation that (1) it would be 

difficult to identify and verify the 

absence of nanomaterials in organic 

products; and (2) NOP needed more 

information about how nanomaterials 

are defined, regulated and used in 

agricultural products.5 Since this time, 

AMS continues to analyze information 

received from various sources on this 

issue to determine next steps. We also 

noted that the NOSB recommendation 

for mulch film specifically indicates 

that a proposed clause prohibiting 

nanomaterials was omitted from the 

final recommendation due to the lack of 

a legal definition. For these reasons, 

AMS has not accepted the commenters’ 

suggestion to amend the annotation for 

mulch film to specifically prohibit 

nanomaterials. 

One comment from an accredited 

certifying agent requested clarification 

on the allowance of mulch film as a 

compost feedstock. The certifying agent 

indicated that they have received 

requests from producers about 

compostable cutlery and plates and 

encouraged further consideration by 

AMS of whether these materials may be 

used as a compost feedstock. The NOSB 

did not consider the use of mulch film 

or compostable cutlery and plates as a 

compost feedstock in its 

recommendation on mulch film and is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking 

action. Parties interested in a broader 

allowance for compostable bioplastic 

materials, such as compostable cutlery, 

may submit a petition to the NOSB. This 

process can be initiated in accordance 

with the Notice of Guidelines on 

Procedures for Submitting National List 

Petitions (72 FR 2167). 

Several comments raised concerns 

about the potential adverse 

environmental impacts from use of this 

material. Comments cited concerns 

about accumulation of polymer 

fragments and mulch additives, such as 

dyes, fillers, and other synthetic film 

additives that may not completely 

biodegrade. Comments stated that 

inadequate data are available regarding 

potential long-term accumulation of 

additives that remain in the soil and 

provided details or references in 

support of these claims. One comment 

opposed the allowance of mulch films 

because potential adverse impacts on 

wildlife and soil microbial 

communities. One comment claimed 

that AMS should not approve the use of 

mulch film in organics because the 

environmental impacts are largely 

unknown and due to a lack of 

ecotoxicological studies to test for 

potential residues or harmful 

compounds. Another comment asked a 

question about microbiological risk, but 

did not provide additional details about 

their concerns. One comment expressed 

concerns about the potential for 

inadvertent spread of mulch pieces from 

farms to adjacent ecosystems and 

indicated a need for further research in 

this area to assess risks to wildlife, 

aquatic life, and adjacent ecosystems. 

Another comment indicated that the 

question of residue left by the mulch 

film should be weighed against the tiny 

scraps of broken and stretched plastic 

that remain in the field after removal of 

traditional plastic mulch, despite efforts 

for complete removal. 

AMS has considered the comments 

about the potential adverse 

environmental impacts from the use of 

mulch film and considered this issue in 

comparison to the current use of 

traditional plastic mulches. In addition, 

the NOSB evaluated this substance 

against the criteria in OFPA, which 

includes consideration of the potential 

for detrimental chemical interaction 

with materials used in organic farming 

systems; the persistence and areas of 

concentration in the environment of the 

substance and its breakdown products 

or other contaminants; the probability of 

environmental contamination during 

manufacture, use, misuse or disposal of 

the substance; the effects of the 

substance on biological and chemical 

interactions in the agroecosystem; and 

available alternatives.6 We understand 

that additional studies may be helpful 

on these topics and that the NOSB 

Materials Subcommittee has proposed 

that this topic be added to the NOSB’s 

list of research priorities.7 At this time, 

however, we believe that the 

environmental benefits gained by the 

use of mulch film that were raised by 

the majority of commenters outweigh 

the potential benefits from delaying a 

decision until more studies are 

completed. In consideration of the 

comment on ecotoxicological effects, we 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 58659 

8NOP Policy Memo 11–4 on Evaluation of 

Materials is available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5088949. 

have retained the criteria for 

compostability in the definition of 

biodegradable biobased mulch film 

since it provides a screen for ecotoxic 

effects via plant growth and seedling 

germination tests in soil, as further 

discussed below. 

In addition, we believe that the 

potential inadvertent spread of mulch 

film can be adequately addressed by 

certifiers under the existing regulations 

at section 205.200, which require that 

the operation implement production 

practices that maintain or improve the 

natural resources of the operation, 

including soil and water quality. If an 

operation allows materials to negatively 

impact soil or water quality, certifying 

agents must address this issue as a 

noncompliance under section 205.200. 

Several comments raised questions 

about the biodegradability of mulch 

films. One comment claimed that 

complete degradation is required to 

ensure that mulch meets the 

requirement under OFPA that synthetic 

mulches be ‘‘removed’’ at the end of the 

growing season and did not believe that 

this requirement was met by the 

proposed listing. 

Section 6508(c)(2) of OFPA prohibits 

the use of plastic mulches, unless such 

mulches are removed at the end of each 

growing or harvest season. This 

provision is implemented under the 

USDA organic regulations at sections 

205.206(c)(6) and 205.601(b)(2)(ii). As 

supported by comments, AMS considers 

biodegradation of biofilm mulch as a 

form of removal at the end of the 

growing or harvest season. If an 

operation uses practices that does not 

allow mulch to biodegrade, and, 

therefore, it accumulates over time, 

certifying agents must address this issue 

as noncompliance under sections 

205.200, 205.206(c)(6), and 

205.601(b)(2)(iii). 

One comment indicated that more 

investigation is needed on the different 

types of biodegradable mulches and 

claimed that not all are biodegradable. 

Another comment cited a study that 

showed that none of the biodegradable 

plastic mulches tested fully biodegraded 

in the soil after a two year period of soil 

incorporation following a cropping 

season. 

One comment indicated that the 

NOSB recommendation is inadequate to 

ensure that biofilm mulches have 

completely biodegraded at the end of 

the growing or harvest season. Two 

comments indicated that complete 

degradation is necessary to qualify as 

‘‘removal’’ at the end of the growing or 

harvest season, as required by OFPA 

under section 6508(c)(2). Another 

commenter posed questions on what the 

mulch film may degrade to. 

Two comments did not support the 

rule and indicated that more research is 

needed to ensure adequate breakdown 

of mulch films. One comment indicated 

that it is not yet possible to establish 

adequate criteria that can be 

implemented by material review 

organizations, certifiers, and growers, 

while another commenter stated that no 

products currently exist in the 

marketplace that have been proven to 

fully degrade. Comments also cited a 

forthcoming ASTM standard that 

addresses aerobically biodegradable 

plastics in the soil environment. One 

comment suggested that AMS withdraw 

the proposed rule and postpone 

approval until an applicable standard is 

identified and products are developed 

that meet biodegradability requirements. 

AMS has considered these comments. 

As explained in the proposed rule, we 

agree that growers will need to take 

appropriate actions to ensure complete 

degradation. These actions may be sitespecific and be impacted by a number 

of factors, including climate, soil type, 

pH, soil microbial activity, irrigation, 

and other production practices. Section 

205.200 requires that production 

practices maintain or improve the 

natural resources of the operation, 

including soil and water quality. In 

addition, section 205.203 requires that 

the producer select and implement 

practices that maintain or improve the 

physical, chemical, and biological 

condition of soil. Thus, the use of a 

mulch film in a manner that causes it to 

accumulate in the field and not 

biodegrade over time would not be 

compliant with the existing 

requirements at sections 205.200 and 

205.203. We believe the definition and 

criteria for biodegradable biobased 

mulch film as finalized at section 205.2 

provide an adequate baseline for 

biodegradability. Additionally, the 

existing requirements at sections 

205.200 and 205.203 provide adequate 

safeguards against misuse. If misuse is 

identified, certifying agents may 

reference these standards when issuing 

notices of noncompliance to operations 

as required under section 205.662. 

Another comment raised questions 

about possible to changes to product 

formulations and indicated that 

manufacturers change formulations 

frequently based on costs of available 

feedstock. Supplier and ingredient 

substitution is not unique to mulch film 

manufacturing and occurs with other 

formulated inputs products, such as 

blended fertilizers and soil amendments 

that are marketed for organic 

production. As part of the review 

process for input products, certifying 

agents and material evaluation programs 

must continue to ensure that any 

alternate formulations of approved 

mulch film products comply with any 

annotations provided on the National 

List. 

Definition at Section 205.2 

This rule adds a new definition for 

biodegradable biobased mulch film that 

includes criteria and third-party 

standards for compostability, 

biodegradability, and biobased content. 

One comment indicated that 

certifying agents may not have the 

resources to perform the testing 

methods referenced in the proposed 

definition and recommended that AMS 

require separate third-party verification 

to these standards and allow certifying 

agents to accept their verification. They 

also requested that AMS identify which 

third-party verifications can be 

accepted. AMS does not expect that 

certifying agents have equipment or 

resources to perform the tests referenced 

at section 205.2. Instead, as with review 

of any input used in organic production 

or handling, certifying agents and 

material evaluation programs that 

review these materials must have 

sufficient expertise to determine 

whether the appropriate tests have been 

conducted by the manufacturer or party 

seeking review. Alternatively, certifying 

agents may accept reviews (i.e., thirdparty verifications) conducted by other 

certifying agents or other approved third 

parties as explained under NOP Policy 

Memo 11–4.8

One commenter suggested that AMS 

use the word ‘‘plastic’’ in the definition 

to clarify that the rule is intended to 

regulate biodegradable bioplastic mulch 

film. We have not adopted the 

commenter’s suggestion, as the term 

‘‘biodegradable biobased mulch film’’ is 

adequate to describe the intended 

material. In addition, the term used is 

consistent with the name used in the 

petition and the NOSB 

recommendation. 

Compostability 

In the proposed rule, AMS 

specifically requested comments on the 

applicability of the proposed 

compostability standards for 

biodegradable biobased mulch film. 

Many comments supported the 

definition proposed at section 205.2 and 

indicated that all three testing 

standards—compostability, 

biodegradation, and biobased—that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
58660 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

9This work item, ASTM WK29802, has since 

been renamed as ‘‘New Specification for plastics 

that are innately biodegradable in soil under aerobic 

conditions,’’ http://www.astm.org. Accessed August 

4, 2014. 

10ASTM D5988–12, Standard Test Method for 

Determining Aerobic Biodegradation of Plastic 

Materials in Soil. ASTM International. http://

www.astm.org. 

define biodegradable biobased mulch 

film are necessary because they ensure 

that the material is compatible with 

good soil management and principles. 

One comment supported the inclusion 

of this standard since it provides 

additional evidence that approved 

mulch films will break down through 

biological processes. 

Several comments indicated that both 

the compostability standards and 

biodegradability testing requirements 

serve an important screening purpose. 

The comments noted that the 

compostability standard provides an 

initial rejection point earlier in the 

timeline of reviewing mulch film and 

confirms the absence of any ecotoxic 

effects via plant growth and seedling 

germination tests in soil. 

Three comments did not support the 

reference to the compostability testing, 

stating that it is designed for 

commercial composting and does not 

correlate between conditions found in 

the field or environmental conditions 

present on farms, which have lower 

achievable temperatures. 

We have considered these comments 

and have retained the standards for 

compostability. We agree with the 

comments that compostability testing is 

important as an initial screen for 

ecotoxity which is not otherwise 

addressed by the other criteria for 

biodegradability and biobased content; 

therefore, we have retained the 

compostability standards recommended 

by the NOSB and included in the 

proposed rule. The text was updated to 

cite the current version of this standard 

to meet incorporation by reference 

requirements. 

Biodegradation 

Some commenters noted that a new 

ASTM work item, ASTM WK29802, is 

under development with the working 

title, ‘‘New Specification for Aerobically 

Biodegradable Plastics in Soil 

Environment in the Temperate Zone.’’ 

This work item was initiated by ASTM 

on July 29, 2010.9 According to several 

commenters, this new specification is 

expected to be a better fit for testing the 

biodegradability of mulch film in a soil 

environment when compared to ASTM 

D5988.10 Since this new standard has 

not yet been published, we are unable 

to fully consider this alternative. Once 

the standard has been published, parties 

interested in further consideration of 

this alternative standard may submit a 

petition to the NOSB. This process can 

be initiated in accordance with the 

Notice of Guidelines on Procedures for 

Submitting National List Petitions (72 

FR 2167). 

One comment noted that a label of a 

commercial product which references 

ASTM D5988 only implies that the 

product was tested, but does guarantee 

any level to which the product actually 

degraded. We believe this comment is 

addressed through the definition for 

biodegradable biobased mulch film 

which states that the substance 

‘‘demonstrates at least 90% 

biodegradation absolute or relative to 

microcrystalline cellulose in less than 

two years, in soil.’’ This requirement 

provides a baseline for biodegradability 

which is consistent with the NOSB 

recommendation. 

One commenter indicated that it was 

unclear whether the biodegradability 

specifications (i.e., ASTM D5988) apply 

to mulches received from the vendor, or 

mulches exposed to weathering, or both. 

AMS intends for the specifications 

provided under section 205.2 to apply 

to mulch films as received from the 

manufacturer or supplier by the 

producer. 

One commenter indicated that the 

biodegradation standard ASTM D5988 

was inappropriate because it is a 

laboratory test performed under a 

controlled environment and it does not 

address the wide variety of conditions 

found on organic farms. In addition, the 

comment indicated the standard ASTM 

D5988 is insufficient because it does not 

require complete degradation of mulch. 

Instead, the standard only requires 

demonstrating 90% biodegradation in 

testing, which does not address residual 

components of mulch that could build 

up in soils over time. The commenter 

also indicated that different rates may 

be observed in different climates and 

soil conditions. 

Two additional comments cited 

research studies and ongoing field 

studies that found that several 

biodegradable mulches that comply 

with the ASTM biodegradation 

standards showed variable levels of 

decomposition during the growing 

season. 

AMS understands that the complete 

degradation of mulch film may be 

impacted by a number of factors, 

including climate, soil type, pH, 

irrigation, and other production 

practices. The two referenced standards 

for biodegradability, ISO 17556 and 

ASTM D5988, are intended to provide a 

baseline that any mulch film must meet. 

These standards do not exempt the 

producer from other parts of the USDA 

organic regulations that require 

production practices that maintain or 

improve soil quality and other 

environmental conditions, as discussed 

earlier. 

Biobased Content 

One comment indicated that there is 

no correlation between the percentage of 

biobased content and rate of complete 

biodegradation. The commenter stated 

that biobased infers that materials are 

being used that have renewable content, 

but nothing more. We have not 

amended the regulatory text in response 

to this comment since the requirement 

for biobased content is intended to 

ensure that feedstock is derived from 

renewable materials, rather than fossil 

fuel sources, to be consistent with the 

NOSB recommendation. We understand 

that some minor additives, e.g., 

plasticizers, colorants, etc., may not be 

available in biobased form; however, we 

expect that the feedstock will be 

biobased and that content will 

determined using ASTM D6866 testing 

methods. If there are questions about 

whether a particular formula is in 

compliance, AMS encourages certifying 

agents and material evaluation programs 

that review these materials to contact 

NOP prior to making decisions on 

materials and products that are 

potentially problematic or controversial. 

One comment suggested an 

amendment to the language for biobased 

content to read as follows (suggested 

text italicized): ‘‘Must be biobased with 

all carbon derived from a renewable 

resource via biological processes, with 

content determined using ASTM D6866 

testing method.’’ The commenter claims 

that the NOSB recommendation stated 

that all the carbon must be ‘‘derived 

from a renewable resource via a 

biological process.’’ The comment 

further states that, by not explicitly 

including this component, AMS would 

be broadening the use allowance for 

mulch film beyond that which was 

recommended by NOSB. 

We have reviewed the comment 

against the NOSB recommendation and 

noted that the NOSB recommended a 

definition for biobased as ‘‘organic 

material in which carbon is derived 

from a renewable resource via biological 

processes. Biobased materials include 

all plant and animal mass derived from 

carbon dioxide recently fixed via 

photosynthesis, per definition of a 

renewable resource (ASTM).’’ As 

previously explained in the proposed 

rule, we have not incorporated a 

separate definition for biobased and 

believe that the definition of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 58661 

11http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6866.htm. 

12Section 6517(d)(2) states: No additions.—The 

Secretary may not include exemptions for the use 

of specific synthetic substances in the National List 

other than those exemptions contained in the 

Proposed National List or Proposed Amendments to 

the National List. 

‘‘biodegradable biobased mulch film’’ 

incorporates the intent of the NOSB on 

this issue. Therefore, we have not 

adopted the commenter’s suggestion. 

The ASTM D6866 testing method is a 

standard test method to quantify the 

biobased content of samples. The test 

methods directly discriminate between 

product carbon resulting from 

contemporary carbon input and that 

derived from fossil-based input.11 We 

have not included the term ‘‘all carbon,’’ 

as suggested by the comment, to account 

for trace amounts of carbon that may be 

present from additives (e.g., plasticizers, 

colorants including carbon black, etc.) 

used in the manufacturing process. The 

suggested text could also cause 

confusion in interpretation when a 

margin of error is reported as part of 

testing results. In addition, we have not 

included the term ‘‘carbon derived from 

a renewable resource via biological 

testing methods’’ since it is redundant 

with the term ‘‘biobased’’ and the 

testing criteria for biobased content. 

AMS believes that the proposed 

definition meets use the intended use 

that was recommended by the NOSB. As 

this use was recommended by the NOSB 

and was included in a proposed 

amendment to the National List 

published August 22, 2013 (78 FR 

52100), the allowance for biodegradable 

biobased mulch film is consistent with 

the authority granted by AMS under 

OFPA.12

One comment indicated that the 

biobased definition provides inadequate 

information regarding what types of 

products will be allowed and what will 

be prohibited. The comment indicated 

that the ‘‘biobased’’ definition from the 

USDA BioPreferred® program only 

requires that a product have a minimum 

of 25% biobased content, allows GMO 

biobased feedstocks, and does not 

provide clear information on what is 

allowable for the remaining balance of 

the content. The comment requested 

that AMS provide names of specific 

polymers that can be synthesized from 

renewable sources and are proven to be 

biodegradable in the soil. 

AMS expects that all feedstock for 

biobased mulch films will be biobased 

and that content will be determined 

using ASTM D6866 testing methods. We 

understand that the criteria included in 

the USDA organic regulations may 

exclude some products that are defined 

as ‘‘biobased’’ under the USDA 

BioPreferred® program, which allows a 

lower percentage of biobased content 

and may contain petroleum or fossil fuel 

derived feedstock, and allows 

genetically modified organisms. We 

understand that some minor additives, 

e.g., plasticizers, colorants, etc., used in 

mulch film allowed under this rule may 

not be available in biobased form; 

however, we expect that the feedstock 

for the mulch film will be derived from 

biobased sources. The use of feedstock 

derived from excluded methods is 

specifically excluded under the listing 

at section 205.601. 

At this time, AMS is not prepared to 

issue a specific list of polymers that are 

available from renewable (e.g., biobased) 

resources. We noted that the NOSB 

intended to define biobased so that this 

category would not allow products 

derived from petroleum. Based on 

review of the petition and NOSB 

recommendation, we understand this to 

mean that mulch films derived from 

aliphatic aromatic copolymers (AACs), 

e.g. synthesized from adipic acid, 

terephthalic acid, and 1,4-butanediol, 

would be prohibited. Further guidance 

in this area may be more appropriate for 

other organizations or agencies with 

specialized technical expertise in this 

area. We note that this list may need to 

be updated over time in response to 

advances in technology. We believe that 

the criteria outlined under sections 

205.2 and 205.601 provide adequate 

guidance to certifying agents and 

material evaluation programs that will 

review these types of products for 

compliance with the USDA organic 

regulations. Certifying agents would not 

review products to the USDA 

BioPreferred® program criteria, which 

are established for biobased products. 

One comment stated that the 

proposed standard for measuring 

biobased content, ASTM D6866, is a 

poor measurement tool for measuring 

biobased content in reference to starch. 

The comment requested that AMS 

recognize this shortcoming and grant a 

special consideration for starch, since 

some mulch films are starch based. The 

comment indicated that special 

consideration has been granted in 

Europe, but did not provide additional 

information in support of this claim. We 

have considered this comment but have 

not amended the text in response. In the 

absence of an alternative third-party 

testing standard for biobased content, 

we have retained the biobased testing 

method, ASTM D6866, cited in the 

original petition and recommended by 

the NOSB. We have amended the text 

for the final rule to specify the current 

version of this standard to comply with 

incorporation by reference 

requirements. Due to lack of additional 

information on this issue, parties 

interested in further consideration of 

this topic may submit a petition to the 

NOSB. This process can be initiated in 

accordance with the Notice of 

Guidelines on Procedures for 

Submitting National List Petitions (72 

FR 2167). 

Additional Guidance 

In the proposed rule, AMS 

specifically requested comments on 

whether guidance on management 

practices is necessary to prevent mulch 

film from accumulating in fields. 

Two comments indicated that 

additional guidance was unnecessary at 

this time if manufacturer’s instructions 

are followed and with the knowledge 

that each organic farmer has about their 

soil and climate conditions. 

One comment indicated that guidance 

could be useful since growers will be 

eager to use this new material, but did 

not provide additional details on the 

need or scope of the guidance. Another 

commenter supported the creation of a 

guidance document to ensure that the 

biodegradable mulch films are not 

accumulating in the soil and indicated 

that it would help to prevent 

accumulation issues from occurring due 

to a lack of experience. 

One comment provided additional 

background on the rationale for NOSB 

recommending the development of 

guidance so that growers would 

understand what actions are needed to 

ensure complete degradation. 

One comment indicated that 

regulations must be promulgated that 

detail best management practices for 

using and degrading mulch film. The 

commenter indicated that AMS should 

not wait until problems arise with 

respect to the use and incomplete 

degradation of mulch film before 

mandating best management practices 

since this would compromise organic 

integrity. 

AMS has considered the comments 

and determined not to move forward 

with additional guidance on this topic 

at this time. As explained above, we 

agree that growers may need to take 

appropriate actions to ensure complete 

degradation. These actions may be sitespecific and be impacted by a number 

of factors, including climate, soil type, 

pH, soil microbial activity, irrigation, 

and other production practices. AMS 

encourages parties with specific 

technical expertise in this area, such as 

product manufacturers and university 

research programs, to continue to 

provide technical assistance to 

producers on this topic. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
58662 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

13One example cited: http://

english.doolnews.com/curry-leaf-laced-with-deadlypesticides-kerala-news-10453-10453.html. 

Substances Not Added to the National 

List 

Citrus hystrix, Leaves and Fruit 

Curry Leaves (Murraya koenigii) 

Thirteen comments addressed the 

proposed allowance of two nonorganic 

ingredients in organic processing: Citrus 

hystrix, leaves and fruit, and curry 

leaves (Murraya koenigii). These 

substances were proposed to be added 

to section 205.606 of the National List 

based on two NOSB recommendations. 

Several comments opposed the 

allowance of any nonorganic ingredients 

in organic processing, including 

nonorganic Citrus hystrix and curry 

leaves. Several comments opposed the 

specific allowance of Citrus hystrix and 

curry leaves due to concerns about 

pesticide residues, particularly on 

imported ingredients, since the majority 

of production occurs outside of the 

United States.13 One comment opposed 

the import of any food into the United 

States, which is outside of the scope of 

this action. One comment raised 

questions about whether these 

ingredients would be checked for 

pesticides, other substances, or 

evaluated for purity and another 

commenter raised questions on how the 

nonorganic ingredients were produced. 

One comment indicated that these 

plants are relatively easy to cultivate 

and that companies need to contact 

growers to see if they are willing to grow 

organic forms of these ingredients. One 

producer indicated that their farm 

produces organic curry leaves in 

Hawaii, but did not provide details on 

the amounts produced. Several 

comments raised questions about 

organic search requirements for 

commercial availability and claimed 

that allowing nonorganic ingredients 

would decrease the incentive for 

developing organic sources of these 

ingredients. Another comment 

supported the allowance of the 

nonorganic ingredients only under an 

alternative labeling program whereby 

the products would not be labeled as 

organic and only if the allowance of 

nonorganic ingredients met additional 

criteria. These additional criteria are 

beyond the scope of the USDA organic 

regulations. 

After consideration of the comments, 

AMS has not amended section 205.606 

to include Citrus hystrix and curry 

leaves. We noted a lack of comments in 

support of the proposed rule to allow 

these ingredients in organic handling. 

While an organic handler originally 

submitted the petition for these 

ingredients for review by the NOSB, no 

handlers commented on the need for 

nonorganic Citrus hystrix and curry 

leaves. In the absence of comments in 

support of their allowance, we have not 

determined at this time that these 

substances are necessary to the 

production or handling of an 

agricultural product, as required by 

section 6517 of OFPA; therefore, we 

have not added these substances to the 

National List. 

However, AMS believes that the 

majority of issues raised by commenters 

that opposed the inclusion of curry 

leaves and Citrus hystrix do not 

uniquely apply to these ingredients 

when compared to other ingredients 

that are eligible for inclusion on section 

205.606 of the National List. For 

example, demonstrating that an organic 

form is not commercially available is 

required prior to use of any nonorganic 

substance listed at section 205.606. In 

addition, the use of imported 

ingredients listed at section 205.606 is 

allowed, provided that the ingredients 

comply with any food safety 

requirements under the authorities of 

the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services under the Federal Food, Drug 

and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301–399) 

or 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)) that apply to all food. 

In addition, we specifically note that 

this action does not change the 

eligibility of processed products that are 

labeled ‘‘made with organic (specified 

ingredients or food group(s))’’ to contain 

nonorganic forms of Citrus hystrix or 

curry leaves, as allowed under section 

205.304 of the USDA organic 

regulations. Handlers interested in using 

nonorganic forms of these ingredients 

continue to be eligible for the ‘‘made 

with organic (specified ingredients or 

food group(s))’’ label claim, provided 

that all other requirements under the 

USDA organic regulations are met. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Agriculture, Animals, 

Archives and records, Incorporation by 

reference, Imports, Labeling, 

Organically produced products, Plants, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seals and insignia, Soil 

conservation. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 205 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 205 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522. 

Subpart A—Definitions 

■ 2. Amend § 205.2 by adding a new 

definition for ‘‘Biodegradable biobased 

mulch film’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 205.2 Terms defined. 

* * * * * 

Biodegradable biobased mulch film. A 

synthetic mulch film that meets the 

following criteria: 

(1) Meets the compostability 

specifications of one of the following 

standards: ASTM D6400, ASTM D6868, 

EN 13432, EN 14995, or ISO 17088 (all 

incorporated by reference; see § 205.3); 

(2) Demonstrates at least 90% 

biodegradation absolute or relative to 

microcrystalline cellulose in less than 

two years, in soil, according to one of 

the following test methods: ISO 17556 

or ASTM D5988 (both incorporated by 

reference; see § 205.3); and 

(3) Must be biobased with content 

determined using ASTM D6866 

(incorporated by reference; see § 205.3). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add § 205.3 to subpart A to read as 

follows: 

§ 205.3 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

we must publish notice of change in the 

Federal Register and the material must 

be available to the public. All approved 

material is available for inspection at 

the USDA Agricultural Marketing 

Service, National Organic Program, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720–3252, 

and is available from the sources listed 

below. It is also available for inspection 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(b) ASTM International, 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; phone 1– 

877–909–2786; http://www.astm.org/. 

(1) ASTM D5988–12 (‘‘ASTM 

D5988’’), ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Determining Aerobic Biodegradation of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 58663 

Plastic Materials in Soil,’’ approved May 

1, 2012, IBR approved for § 205.2. 

(2) ASTM D6400–12 (‘‘ASTM 

D6400’’), ‘‘Standard Specification for 

Labeling of Plastics Designed to be 

Aerobically Composted in Municipal or 

Industrial Facilities,’’ approved May 15, 

2012, IBR approved for § 205.2. 

(3) ASTM D6866–12 (‘‘ASTM 

D6866’’), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for 

Determining the Biobased Content of 

Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples 

Using Radiocarbon Analysis,’’ approved 

April 1, 2012, IBR approved for § 205.2. 

(4) ASTM D6868–11 (‘‘ASTM 

D6868’’), ‘‘Standard Specification for 

Labeling of End Items that Incorporate 

Plastics and Polymers as Coatings or 

Additives with Paper and Other 

Substrates Designed to be Aerobically 

Composted in Municipal or Industrial 

Facilities,’’ approved February 1, 2011, 

IBR approved for § 205.2. 

(c) European Committee for 

Standardization; Avenue Marnix, 17–B– 

1000 Brussels; phone 32 2 550 08 11; 

www.cen.eu. 

(1) EN 13432:2000:E (‘‘EN 13432’’), 

September, 2000, ‘‘Requirements for 

packaging recoverable through 

composting and biodegradation—Test 

scheme and evaluation criteria for the 

final acceptance of packaging,’’ IBR 

approved for § 205.2. 

(2) EN 14995:2006:E (‘‘EN 14995’’), 

December, 2006, ‘‘Plastics—Evaluation 

of compostability—Test scheme and 

specifications,’’ IBR approved for 

§ 205.2. 

(d) International Organization for 

Standardization, 1, ch. de la VoieCreuse, CP 56, CH–1211 Geneva 20, 

Switzerland; phone 41 22 749 01 11; 

www.iso.org. 

(1) ISO 17088:2012(E), (‘‘ISO 17088’’), 

‘‘Specifications for compostable 

plastics,’’ June 1, 2012, IBR approved for 

§ 205.2. 

(2) ISO 17556:2012(E) (‘‘ISO 17556’’), 

‘‘Plastics—Determination of the ultimate 

aerobic biodegradability of plastic 

materials in soil by measuring the 

oxygen demand in a respirometer or the 

amount of carbon dioxide evolved,’’ 

August 15, 2012, IBR approved for 

§ 205.2. 

Subpart G—Administrative 

■ 4. Amend § 205.601 by adding 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed 

for use in organic crop production. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Biodegradable biobased mulch 

film as defined in § 205.2. Must be 

produced without organisms or 

feedstock derived from excluded 

methods. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 205.606 by: 

■ A. Removing paragraph (l); 

■ B. Redesignating paragraphs (m) 

through (aa) as (l) through (z) 

respectively; 

■ C. Removing newly redesignated 

paragraph (v)(2); and 

■ D. Further redesignating newly 

redesignated paragraph (v)(3) as (v)(2). 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23135 Filed 9–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 905 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–14–0041; FV14–905–2 

FIR] 

Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and 

Tangelos Grown in Florida; Relaxing 

Grade Requirements on Valencia and 

Other Late Type Oranges 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as 

final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a 

final rule, without change, an interim 

rule that changed the minimum grade 

requirements prescribed under the 

marketing order for oranges, grapefruit, 

tangerines, and tangelos grown in 

Florida (order). The interim rule 

reduced the minimum grade 

requirement for Valencia and other late 

type oranges shipped to interstate 

markets from a U.S. No. 1 to a U.S. No. 

1 Golden from May 15 through June 14 

each season and to a U.S. No.2 external/ 

U.S. No. 1 internal from June 15 through 

August 31 each season. This rule 

provides additional Valencia and other 

late type oranges for late season 

markets, helping to maximize fresh 

shipments. 

DATES: Effective October 1, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Corey E. Elliott, Marketing Specialist, or 

Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, 

Southeast Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324– 

3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email: 

Corey.Elliott@ams.usda.gov or 

Christian.Nissen@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may obtain 

information on complying with this and 

other marketing order regulations by 

viewing a guide at the following Web 

site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide; 

or by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email: 

Jeffrey.Smutny@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Order No. 

905, as amended (7 CFR part 905), 

regulating the handling of oranges, 

grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos 

grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective 

under the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 13175. 

The handling of oranges, grapefruit, 

tangerines, and tangelos grown in 

Florida is regulated by 7 CFR part 905. 

Prior to this change, the minimum grade 

requirement for Valencia and other late 

type oranges was a U.S. No. 1 from 

August 1 through June 14 each season 

and a U.S. No. 2 external/U.S. No. 1 

internal from June 15 through July 31 

each season. The Committee reviewed 

the effects of a temporary grade change 

for the 2012–13 season and concluded 

that the change had provided handlers 

the opportunity to sell additional fruit 

without affecting overall consumer 

demand for Valencia and other late type 

oranges. Consequently, the Committee 

recommended continuing the relaxation 

in the minimum grade for the 2013–14 

season and subsequent seasons. 

Therefore, this rule continues in effect 

the rule that reduced the minimum 

grade requirement for Valencia and 

other late type oranges shipped to 

interstate markets from a U.S. No. 1 to 

a U.S. No. 1 Golden from May 15 

through June 14 each season and to a 

U.S. No. 2 external/U.S. No. 1 internal 

from June 15 through August 31 each 

season. 

In an interim rule published in the 

Federal Register on May 28, 2014, and 

effective on May 23, 2014, (79 FR 30439, 

Doc. No. AMS–FV–14–0041, FV14–905– 

2 IR), § 905.306 was amended by 

changing the minimum grade 

requirement for Valencia and other late 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES