Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 1555 

DHS is currently considering, 

however, and seeks comments on, 

whether it is feasible to refine existing 

models or develop a new model for 

uncontained pool fires (i.e., where the 

contents of one or more gasoline storage 

tanks escape from secondary 

containment), so that such a model 

could be used for future consequence 

assessments for gasoline terminals—in 

lieu of or in addition to the modified 

VCE model. 

IV. Issues for Commenters 

Comments that will provide the most 

assistance to DHS should address the 

following issues and questions. 

Commenters should include 

explanations and relevant supporting 

materials with their comments 

whenever possible. 

a. Comments on the inclusion of 6 

CFR 27.203(b)(1)(v) (counting of 

Release-COI in gasoline, diesel, 

kerosene, or jet fuel in aboveground 

storage tanks) and 6 CFR 27.204(a)(2) 

(the flammable mixtures rule), as they 

apply to gasoline terminals. 

b. Comments on the applicability of 

the modified VCE model to gasoline 

terminals, including: whether the 

reduction of the vapor yield for gasoline 

from ten percent (as in EPA’s VCE 

model) to one percent reasonably 

reflects the potential consequences for a 

vapor cloud explosion from gasoline (as 

compared to other liquid flammable 

chemicals); and whether a different 

yield factor adjustment might better 

reflect the potential consequences for a 

vapor cloud explosion from gasoline. 

c. Comments on whether a reasonable 

model exists or should be developed for 

future use that would allow DHS to 

estimate the plausible worst-case 

consequences of an uncontained pool 

fire resulting from a successful attack on 

gasoline terminals. 

Dated: January 4, 2010. 

Rand Beers, 

Under Secretary for National Protection and 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–234 Filed 1–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Document Number AMS–NOP–09–0081; 

TM–09–04] 

RIN 0581–AC93 

National Organic Program; Proposed 

Amendments to the National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances 

(Crops) 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

amend the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances 

(National List) to reflect 

recommendations submitted to the 

Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) by 

the National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB) on November 19, 2008, and May 

6, 2009. The recommendations 

addressed in this proposed rule pertain 

to amending an annotation for one 

exempted material on the National List 

and establishing an exemption (use) for 

another material in organic crop 

production. Consistent with the 

recommendations from the NOSB, this 

proposed rule would amend the 

annotation for a listed substance and 

add one substance, along with any 

restrictive annotation, to the National 

List. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

comment on the proposed rule using the 

following procedures: 

• Internet: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: Comments may be submitted 

by mail to: Toni Strother, Agricultural 

Marketing Specialist, National Organic 

Program, USDA–AMS–TMP–NOP, 

Room 2646–So., Ag Stop 0268, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20250–0268. 

Written comments responding to this 

proposed rule should be identified with 

the document number AMS–NOP–09– 

0081; TM–09–04. You should identify 

the topic and section number of this 

proposed rule to which your comment 

refers. You should clearly state whether 

you support the amendment of the 

annotation for the substance on the 

national list and/or the exemption for 

the substance being proposed, with 

clearly indicated reason(s) for your 

position. You should also offer any 

recommended language changes that 

would be appropriate for your position. 

Please include relevant information and 

data to support your position (e.g. 

scientific, environmental, 

manufacturing, industry, impact 

information, etc.). Only relevant 

material supporting your position 

should be submitted. 

It is USDA’s intention to have all 

comments concerning this proposed 

rule, including names and addresses 

when provided, regardless of 

submission procedure used, available 

for viewing on the Regulations.gov 

(http://www.regulations.gov) Internet 

site. Comments submitted in response to 

this proposed rule will also be available 

for viewing in person at USDA—AMS, 

National Organic Program, Room 2646– 

South Building, 1400 Independence 

Ave., SW., Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. 

to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday (except official 

Federal holidays). Persons wanting to 

visit the USDA South building to view 

comments received in response to this 

proposed rule are requested to make an 

appointment in advance by calling (202) 

720–3252. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shannon Nally, Acting Director, 

Standards Division, Telephone: (202) 

720–3252; Fax (202) 205–7808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On December 21, 2000, the Secretary 

established, within the National Organic 

Program (NOP) (7 CFR part 205), the 

National List regulations §§ 205.600 

through 205.607. This National List 

identifies the synthetic substances that 

may be used and the nonsynthetic 

(natural) substances that may not be 

used in organic production. The 

National List also identifies synthetic, 

nonsynthetic nonagricultural and 

nonorganic agricultural substances that 

may be used in organic handling. The 

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 

as amended, (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), 

(OFPA), and NOP regulations, in 

§ 205.105, specifically prohibit the use 

of any synthetic substance in organic 

production and handling unless the 

synthetic substance is on the National 

List. Section 205.105 also requires that 

any nonorganic agricultural and any 

nonsynthetic nonagricultural substance 

used in organic handling be on the 

National List. 

Under the authority of the OFPA, the 

National List can be amended by the 

Secretary based on proposed 

amendments developed by the NOSB. 

Since established, the National List has 

been amended eleven times: October 31, 

2003, (68 FR 61987); November 3, 2003, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

1556 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(68 FR 62215); October 21, 2005, (70 FR 

61217), June 7, 2006, (71 FR 32803); 

September 11, 2006, (71 FR 53299); June 

27, 2007, (72 FR 35137); October 16, 

2007, (72 FR 58469); December 10, 

2007, (72 FR 70479); December 12, 

2007, (72 FR 70479); September 18, 

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

(73 FR 59479). Additionally, a proposed 

amendment to the National List was 

published on June 3, 2009, (74 FR 

26591). 

This proposed rule would amend the 

National List to reflect two 

recommendations submitted to the 

Secretary by the NOSB on November 19, 

2008, and May 6, 2009. Based upon 

their evaluation of petitions submitted 

by industry participants, the NOSB 

recommended that the Secretary amend 

§ 205.601 of the National List to amend 

the annotation for one exempted 

material (tetracycline) and add one 

substance (sulfurous acid) for use in 

organic crop production. The amended 

annotation and the exemption for use of 

the added substance in organic 

production were evaluated by the NOSB 

using the criteria specified in OFPA (7 

U.S.C. 6517–6518). 

II. Overview of Proposed Amendments 

The following provides an overview 

of the proposed amendments to 

designated sections of the National List 

regulations: 

Section 205.601 Synthetic Substances 

Allowed for Use in Organic Crop 

Production 

This proposed rule would amend 

§ 205.601 of the National List 

regulations by: (1) Amending the 

annotation of paragraph (i)(11) by 

eliminating the parenthetical reference 

to a form of the exempted material and 

adding an expiration date; and (2) 

adding new paragraph (j)(9), for the 

purpose of allowing the use of the 

following substances: 

Tetracycline. Tetracycline, in the form 

of oxytetracycline calcium complex, 

was included in the National List as 

originally published on December 21, 

2000 (FR 65 80548), for use for fire 

blight control only. In October 2007, a 

petition was submitted to add 

oxytetracycline hydrochloride complex 

for fireblight control in organic crop 

production. Tetracycline is a broadspectrum antibiotic for control of 

bacteria, fungi and mycoplasma-like 

organisms which functions by inhibiting 

protein synthesis in bacteria and 

altering bacterial membranes so that 

vital genetic material is leaked. For 

regulatory purposes, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) uses the term 

oxytetracycline to refer to pesticides 

containing either calcium 

oxytetracycline or hydroxytetracycline 

monohydrochloride (oxytetracycline 

hydrochloride). Oxytetracycline is 

registered with the EPA for the 

following agronomic uses: fire blight of 

apples, pears, peaches and nectarines; 

pear decline; bacterial spot on peaches 

and nectarines; lethal yellowing of 

coconut palm; and lethal decline of 

pritchardia palm. 

Oxytetracyclines are derived from the 

soil bacteria, Streptomyces, by a 

fermentation process. Technical grade 

tetracycline is a pale yellow to tan 

crystalline powder, is freely soluble in 

water, and decomposes above 180 

degrees Celsius. Formulated products 

containing the technical grade 

oxytetracycline calcium complex and 

oxytetracyline hydrochloride for 

fireblight are wettable powders which 

are spray-applied using ground or 

aircraft equipment at early bloom stage, 

when fire blight infection usually 

occurs. In addition to agronomic uses, 

oxytetracyclines are also antibiotics 

used in human and animal drugs. 

Per the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 301 et 

seq.), as amended by the Food Quality 

Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 

104–170, August 3, 1996), the EPA 

established tolerances for residues of 

these oxytetracycline pesticides in or on 

raw apples, peaches, nectarines, and 

pears of 0.35 parts per million (ppm) (40 

CFR 180.337). In the 2006 Tolerance 

Reassessment Progress and Risk 

Management Decision (TRED), EPA 

deemed that the toxicity of the 

oxytetracylines would be similar and 

thus treated oxytetracycline 

hydrochloride and oxytetracycline 

calcium as equivalent for hazard 

characterization. In conducting the 

tolerance reassessment for 

oxytetracycline, EPA considered the 

aggregate risk from exposure via food 

and water intake and concluded that the 

dietary risk for all U.S. populations was 

below the level of concern. In regards to 

ecological effects, the EPA reported the 

potential for terrestrial and aquatic 

species to be exposed to 

oxytetracyclines due to use patterns on 

food crops, and the potential for acute 

and/or chronic toxicity. The EPA 

concluded that it is unlikely that 

antibiotic resistance from pesticidal use 

of oxytetracycline would result from 

food exposure, but could theoretically 

occur among bacteria in orchards. The 

EPA is conducting a registration review 

of oxytetracycline to ensure that the 

intended function is achieved without 

unreasonable adverse effects on human 

health or the environment. That review 

is scheduled for completion in 2014. 

At its November 18–20, 2008, meeting 

in Washington, DC, the NOSB 

recommended revising the tetracycline 

listing at 205.601(i)(11) to remove the 

qualifying words, ‘‘oxytetracycline 

calcium complex,’’ from the annotation 

and, in effect, permit the use of either 

form of oxytetracycline, i.e., 

oxytetracycline calcium complex and 

oxytetracycline hydrochloride until 

October 21, 2012. Both forms of 

oxytetracycline have EPA registered 

uses for fire blight control. In this open 

meeting, the NOSB evaluated the 

available technical forms of 

oxytetraclycline against the evaluation 

criteria of 7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518 of the 

OFPA, received public comment, and 

concluded that the two forms of 

tetracycline are comparable, and that 

allowing the use of both substances is 

consistent with the prior decision to 

allow the use of oxytetracycline calcium 

complex. 

The NOSB, however, recommended 

adding an expiration date of October 21, 

2012, after which no form of 

tetracycline could be used in organic 

crop production. Therefore, tetracycline 

will be removed from the National List 

by the expiration date rather than 

through a petition for removal or sunset. 

The recommendation to change the 

annotation for tetracycline would have 

reset the sunset date to 5 years from the 

date on which the annotation was 

changed through this rulemaking. The 

NOSB did not support prolonging the 

exemption for tetracycline and 

recommended an expiration date to 

prevent that occurrence. The NOSB did 

not find tetracycline to be essential to, 

nor compatible with, organic 

production, but approved the use of 

oxytetracycline hydrochloride solely on 

the basis that a functionally equivalent 

form is already allowed for use in 

organic crop production. The Board was 

informed during the meeting, and this 

information is supported by EPA 

references, that oxytetracycline calcium 

complex and oxytetracycline 

hydrochloride are the only forms of 

oxytetracycline that have registered 

agricultural uses. NOSB approval of this 

petition is not expected to increase the 

overall use of tetracycline in organic 

crop production, but would allow 

growers to substitute one form for 

another until October 21, 2012. 

The NOP engaged in consultations 

with the EPA and Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA). The EPA 

informed the NOP that the proposed 

amendment to exempt oxytetracycline 

hydrochloride for use in organic crops 

is consistent with EPA regulations. 

Concerning the use of tetracycline, FDA 

deferred to EPA as the appropriate 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 1557 

1EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

2006. Report of the Food Quality Protection Act 

(FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk 

Management Decision (TRED) for Oxytetracycline. 

EPA 738–R–06–011. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/ 

REDs/oxytetracycline_tred.pdf. 

EPA. 2008. Oxytetracycline Summary Document 

Registration Review: Initial Docket December 2008 

Case #0655. EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0686. http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/ 

oxytetracycline/index.htm. 

ICF Consulting. Technical Evaluation Report 

Tetracycline (Oxytetracycline Calcium Complex). 

January 27, 2006. http://tinyurl.com/ygdtys4. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). Final 

recommendation on Tetracycline. November 19, 

2008, http://tinyurl.com/y9gds87. 

NOSB Meeting Transcripts. November 18, 2008, 

pp. 185–201. November 19, 2008, pp. 130–148; 

191–213. http://tinyurl.com/ycaqqdq. 

2Agricultural Marketing Service Science & 

Technology Branch. Technical Evaluation Report 

Sulfurous Acid. April 3, 2009. 

Harmon Systems International, LLC. Petition for 

sulfurous acid for inclusion on the National List. 

July 30, 2008. http://tinyurl.com/yh6wsv9. 

NOSB Final Recommendation on sulfurous acid. 

May 6, 2009. http://tinyurl.com/yf9s6mb. 

NOSB Meeting Transcripts. May 5, 2009, pp. 

163–173. May 6, 2009, pp. 34–57. 

regulatory body. Therefore, after 

consultation with the EPA and FDA 

regarding NOSB’s recommendation to 

amend the annotation for tetracycline 

use in organic crops, the Secretary 

proposes to accept NSOB’s 

recommendation and amend § 205.601 

of the National List by: (1) Removing the 

qualifying words in parenthesis from 

the annotation at (i)(11) which currently 

specifies, ‘‘oxytetracycline calcium 

complex’’ to allow either form of 

oxyetracycline to be used; and, adding 

the expiration date, October 21, 2012, 

after which no tetracycline may be used 

in organic crop production for fireblight 

control.1

Sulfurous Acid (CAS #–7782–99–2). 

Sulfurous Acid was petitioned for use in 

organic crop production as a soil 

amendment. It functions as an 

acidifying agent to neutralize and 

reduce the excessive alkalinity 

(bicarbonates and carbonates) in soil or 

water. This substance also has transient 

biocide properties that contribute to 

keeping irrigation conveyance systems 

clean by suppressing growth of bacteria 

and pathogenic microorganisms. 

Sulfurous acid is a clear, nearly 

colorless solution (6–12%) which has a 

pungent odor, and is soluble in water. 

Sulfurous acid degrades through 

microbial decomposition to hydrogen 

ion and sulfate ion. The hydrogen ions 

cause the acidifying effects. The sulfate 

ion is a nutrient to plants and microorganisms as long as the soil is aerobic. 

Sulfurous acid is produced through 

natural and man-made processes by 

reacting sulfur dioxide with water. In 

nature, sulfurous acid is produced by 

wild fires, hydro-thermal vents on the 

ocean floor, vents on the earth’s surface, 

volcanic eruptions and fumaroles 

emitting sulfur dioxide and reacting 

with water. Sulfur dioxide is also 

produced by burning coal to produce 

heat or electricity. Sulfurous acid can be 

manufactured by oxidizing elemental 

sulfur in a burner chamber with 

pressurized water. The sulfur dioxide 

that is produced is immediately 

captured to form an aqueous solution of 

sulfurous acid which can be added to 

the irrigation water stream for 

application to fields. Within hours of 

formation, sulfurous acid degrades to a 

hydrogen ion and a bi-sulfite ion and is 

not sufficiently stable for transporting to 

a farm sites for use. 

The EPA does not regulate the 

application of sulfurous acid as a soil 

amendment to reduce alkalinity. 

Sulfurous acid can cause burns from all 

routes of exposure and is corrosive. 

Handlers should have protective 

clothing, eyeware and gloves, and 

respirators may be needed in some 

circumstances. Sulfurous acid should be 

used in a well-ventilated area. Repeated 

exposure may cause damage to mucous 

membranes, upper respiratory tract, skin 

and eyes. 

Adverse biological or chemical 

reactions are not likely from the 

proposed use in organic crops soil 

amendment purposes due to the quick 

degradation of sulfurous acid, provided, 

that the sulfurous acid is applied at the 

intended use rate and that soil pH is 

closely monitored. If anaerobic 

conditions develop in waterlogged soil, 

anaerobic bacteria could convert the 

sulfate ion to hydrogen sulfide which 

would be toxic to the immediate 

ecosystem. 

At its May 4–6, 2009, meeting in 

Washington, DC, the NOSB 

recommended adding sulfurous acid to 

the National List as a soil amendment 

for use in organic crop production, to be 

generated on-farm only by burning 99% 

pure elemental sulfur per 

§ 205.601(j)(2), due to the transient 

nature of the sulfurous acid. In this 

open meeting, the NOSB evaluated 

sulfurous acid against the evaluation 

criteria of 7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518 of the 

OFPA, received public comment, and 

concluded that the use of the substance, 

as annotated, is consistent with the 

OFPA evaluation criteria. The NOSB 

explained that the on-farm generation is 

necessary because the short half-life of 

sulfurous acid would prohibit shipping 

from off-farm sites. Furthermore, the 

NOSB specified elemental sulfur at 99% 

purity as it is typically available in this 

form. 

The NOSB also examined whether the 

addition of sulfurous acid was necessary 

in consideration of other substances on 

the National List, specifically elemental 

sulfur and organic acids. The Board 

indicated that the controlled application 

of sulfurous acid via irrigation is 

preferable to broadcast applications of 

elemental sulfur, which acts slower and 

can negatively impact the microbial soil 

life at the application rates used. 

Furthermore, the Board determined that 

relying upon organic acids, such as 

citric, would require the importation 

and application of such large quantities 

as to make the use of those substances 

impractical. 

The NOP engaged in consultations 

with the EPA and FDA. FDA deferred to 

EPA as the appropriate regulatory body. 

EPA concurred that the use of this 

substance as specified would not 

conflict with EPA regulations. 

Therefore, after consultation with the 

EPA and FDA regarding NOSB’s 

recommendation to permit the use of 

sulfurous acid as a soil amendment in 

organic crop production when limited 

to on-farm generation by burning 99% 

pure elemental sulfur, the Secretary is 

proposing to accept the NOSB’s 

recommendation and amend 

§ 205.601(j) of the National List by 

adding sulfurous acid at new paragraph 

(j)(9) as follows: 

Sulfurous acid (CAS #–7782–99–2)— 

from on-farm generation of substance, 

by burning only 99% elemental sulfur, 

exempted at (j)(2) in this section.2

III. Related Documents 

Three notices were published 

regarding the meetings of the NOSB and 

its deliberations on recommendations 

and substances petitioned for amending 

the National List. Substances and 

recommendations included in this 

proposed rule were announced for 

NOSB deliberation in the following 

Federal Register Notices: (1) 73 FR 

18491, April 4, 2008 (Tetracycline); (2) 

73 FR 54781, September 23, 2008 

(Tetracycline); (3) 74 FR 11904, March 

20, 2009 (Sulfurous Acid). NOSB 

meetings are open to the public and 

allow for public participation. 

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

The OFPA, as amended [7 U.S.C. 6501 

et seq.], authorizes the Secretary to 

make amendments to the National List 

based on proposed amendments 

developed by the NOSB. Sections 

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

authorize the NOSB to develop 

proposed amendments to the National 

List for submission to the Secretary and 

establish a petition process by which 

persons may petition the NOSB for the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

1558 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

purpose of having substances evaluated 

for inclusion on or deletion from the 

National List. The National List petition 

process is implemented under § 205.607 

of the NOP regulations. The current 

petition process (72 FR 2167, January 

18, 2007) can be accessed through the 

NOP Web site at http://

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

dDocName=STELPRDC5048809&acct=

nopgeninfo. 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This action has been determined not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866, and therefore, has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

B. Executive Order 12988 

Executive Order 12988 instructs each 

executive agency to adhere to certain 

requirements in the development of new 

and revised regulations in order to avoid 

unduly burdening the court system. 

This proposed rule is not intended to 

have a retroactive effect. 

States and local jurisdictions are 

preempted under the OFPA from 

creating programs of accreditation for 

private persons or State officials who 

want to become certifying agents of 

organic farms or handling operations. A 

governing State official would have to 

apply to USDA to be accredited as a 

certifying agent, as described in 

§ 2115(b) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 

6514(b)). States are also preempted 

under §§ 2104 through 2108 of the 

OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6503 through 6507) 

from creating certification programs to 

certify organic farms or handling 

operations unless the State programs 

have been submitted to, and approved 

by, the Secretary as meeting the 

requirements of the OFPA. 

Pursuant to § 2108(b)(2) of the OFPA 

(7 U.S.C. 6507(b)(2)), a State organic 

certification program may contain 

additional requirements for the 

production and handling of organically 

produced agricultural products that are 

produced in the State and for the 

certification of organic farm and 

handling operations located within the 

State under certain circumstances. Such 

additional requirements must: (a) 

Further the purposes of the OFPA, (b) 

not be inconsistent with the OFPA, (c) 

not be discriminatory toward 

agricultural commodities organically 

produced in other States, and (d) not be 

effective until approved by the 

Secretary. 

Pursuant to § 2120(f) of the OFPA (7 

U.S.C. 6519(f)), this proposed rule 

would not alter the authority of the 

Secretary under the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

the Poultry Products Inspections Act (21 

U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or the Egg Products 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.), 

concerning meat, poultry, and egg 

products, nor any of the authorities of 

the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services under the Federal Food, Drug 

and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et 

seq.), nor the authority of the 

Administrator of the EPA under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). 

Section 2121 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 

6520) provides for the Secretary to 

establish an expedited administrative 

appeals procedure under which persons 

may appeal an action of the Secretary, 

the applicable governing State official, 

or a certifying agent under this title that 

adversely affects such person or is 

inconsistent with the organic 

certification program established under 

this title. The OFPA also provides that 

the U.S. District Court for the district in 

which a person is located has 

jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s 

decision. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies 

to consider the economic impact of each 

rule on small entities and evaluate 

alternatives that would accomplish the 

objectives of the rule without unduly 

burdening small entities or erecting 

barriers that would restrict their ability 

to compete in the market. The purpose 

is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to the action. Section 

605 of the RFA allows an agency to 

certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an 

analysis, if the rulemaking is not 

expected to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in the RFA, the AMS performed an 

economic impact analysis on small 

entities in the final rule published in the 

Federal Register on December 21, 2000 

(65 FR 80548). The AMS has also 

considered the economic impact of this 

action on small entities. The impact on 

entities affected by this proposed rule 

would not be significant. The effect of 

this proposed rule would be to allow the 

use of additional substances in 

agricultural production. This action 

would relax the regulations published 

in the final rule and would provide 

small entities with more tools to use in 

day-to-day operations. The AMS 

concludes that the economic impact of 

this addition of allowed substances, if 

any, would be minimal to small 

agricultural producers and service firms. 

Accordingly, USDA certifies that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Small agricultural service firms, 

which include handlers and accredited 

certifying agents, have been defined by 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having 

annual receipts of less than $7,000,000 

and small agricultural producers are 

defined as those having annual receipts 

of less than $750,000. 

According to USDA, Economic 

Research Service data based on 

information from USDA-accredited 

certifying agents, the U.S. organic 

industry included nearly 6,949 certified 

organic crop and livestock operations at 

the end of 2001. These operations 

reported certified acreage totaling more 

than 2.09 million acres of organic farm 

production. By the end of 2005, the 

number of U.S. certified organic crop 

and livestock operations totaled about 

8,500 and certified organic acreage 

exceeded 4 million acres. ERS, based 

upon information provided by domestic 

accredited certifying agents, estimated 

the number of certified handling 

operations as exceeding 2,790 in 2004. 

AMS believes that most of these entities 

would be considered small entities 

under the criteria established by the 

SBA. 

The U.S. sales of organic food and 

beverages have grown from $1 billion in 

1990 to nearly $17 billion in 2006. The 

organic industry is viewed as the fasting 

growing sector of agriculture, 

representing almost 3 percent of overall 

food and beverage sales. Since 1990, 

organic retail sales have historically 

demonstrated a growth rate between 20 

to 24 percent each year, including a 22 

percent increase in 2006. 

In addition, USDA has 100 accredited 

certifying agents who provide 

certification services to producers and 

handlers. A complete list of names and 

addresses of accredited certifying agents 

may be found on the AMS NOP Web 

site, at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. 

AMS believes that most of these 

accredited certifying agents would be 

considered small entities under the 

criteria established by the SBA. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

No additional collection or 

recordkeeping requirements are 

imposed on the public by this proposed 

rule. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not 

required by section 350(h) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or OMB’s 

implementing regulation at 5 CFR part 

1320. 

The AMS is committed to compliance 

with the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 1559 

Government agencies in general to 

provide the public the option of 

submitting information or transacting 

business electronically to the maximum 

extent possible. 

The AMS is committed to complying 

with the E-Government Act to promote 

the use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Agriculture, Animals, 

Archives and records, Imports, Labeling, 

Organically produced products, Plants, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seals and insignia, Soil 

conservation. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 205, Subpart G is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC 

PROGRAM 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 205 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522. 

2. Section 205.601 is amended by: 

A. Revising paragraph (i)(ll). 

B. Adding new paragraph (j)(9). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed 

for use in organic crop production. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(11) Tetracycline, for fire blight 

control only, and for use in organic crop 

production only until October 21, 2012. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(9) Sulfurous acid (CAS #–7782–99–2) 

from on-farm generation of substance by 

burning only 99% purity elemental 

sulfur per § 205.601(j)(2). 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 5, 2010. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–165 Filed 1–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 32 

[Docket No. PRM–32–6; NRC–2009–0547] 

Association of State and Territorial 

Solid Waste Management Officials; 

Notice of Receipt of Petition for 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice 

of receipt. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has received and 

requests public comment on a petition 

for rulemaking dated November 6, 2009, 

filed by the Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management 

Officials (ASTSWMO) (petitioner). The 

petition was docketed by the NRC and 

has been assigned Docket No. PRM–32– 

6. The petitioner requests that the NRC 

amend its regulations and/or guidance 

to improve the labeling and 

accountability of tritium exit signs. 

DATES: Submit comments by March 29, 

2010. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the NRC is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2009–0547 in the subject line of 

your comments. Comments submitted in 

writing or in electronic form will be 

posted on the NRC Web site and on the 

Federal rulemaking Web site 

Regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. 

You may submit comments by any 

one of the following methods: 

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2009–0547. Comments may be 

submitted electronically through this 

Web site. Address questions about NRC 

dockets to Carol Gallagher 301–492– 

3668; e-mail Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at 301–415–1677. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

Federal workdays. (Telephone 301–415– 

1677). 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this document 

using the following methods: 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2009–0547. 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1 

F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

You may also obtain a copy of the 

petition from ADAMS under accession 

number ML093410012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking 

and Directives Branch, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Telephone 301–492–3663, toll 

free 800–368–5642, 

Michael.Lesar@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitioner 

The petitioner is an organization 

representing the managers of solid 

waste, hazardous waste, remediation, 

and underground storage tank programs 

of the States and territories. The 

petitioner states it is tasked with 

identifying national level radiation 

issues of concern and promoting 

partnerships between States and Federal 

agencies to address these issues. The 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS