52100 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Georgia, Texas, and Nevada. The 

remaining states for which NASS 

reports onion production are New 

Mexico, Idaho, New York, Colorado, 

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona. 

Benefits of the proposed changes 

substantially outweigh the costs. The 

only additional cost borne by packers/ 

shippers, which is expected to be 

minimal, is when ‘‘specialty or mixed 

packs’’ are designated by means of 

labeling. There are no other additional 

costs to packers/shippers or growers 

from this change, and smaller entities 

would not bear a disproportionate cost. 

The proposed change in the standards 

reflects a shift in onion packing/ 

shipping practices that is already 

underway. The additional flexibility in 

the revised standards will facilitate 

additional onion sales, to the benefit of 

growers, packers, and consumers. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This action is not intended to 

have retroactive effect. There are no 

administrative procedures which must 

be exhausted prior to any judicial 

challenge to the provisions of the rule. 

Background and Proposed Rule 

AMS has observed that the industry is 

packing mixed colors of onions, 

primarily in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, 

and Texas. In addition, Marketing Order 

958 for Idaho and Oregon Onions, 

administrated by the Idaho-Eastern 

Oregon Onion Committee, was amended 

November, 2011, to allow pearl onion 

packs and experimental shipments of 

mixed colors. Furthermore, in a May 

2012 meeting with the Marketing Order 

Administration Division, AMS was 

informed that Washington State, which 

is outside of marketing order 958, has 

packed mixed colors of larger Walla 

Walla type onions for Canada. 

Currently, the U.S. onion standards do 

not permit mixing colors in the same 

pack. The proposed revision will 

provide the flexibility for shippers and 

packers to do so. AMS believes that 

permitting mixed colors when 

designated as a specialty or mixed pack 

will facilitate the marketing of onions by 

aligning the standards with current 

marketing practices. Therefore, AMS 

proposes to amend the similar varietal 

characteristic requirement for: 

Onions Other Than BGG and Creole 

Type in Sections 51.2830, 51.2831, and 

51.2832, which affects the U.S. No. 1, 

U.S. Export No. 1, and U.S Commercial 

grades, by adding ‘‘except color when 

designated as a specialty or mixed 

pack.’’ Likewise, AMS proposes to 

amend the one type requirement in 

Section 51.2835, which affects the U.S. 

No. 2 grade, by adding ‘‘except when 

designated as a specialty or mixed 

pack.’’ 

Bermuda-Granex-Grano (BGG) Type 

Onions in Sections 51.3195 and 

51.3197, which affects the U.S. No. 1, 

U.S. Combination, and U.S. No. 2 

grades, by adding ‘‘except color when 

designated as a specialty or mixed 

pack.’’ 

Comments Invited 

AMS proposes to amend the United 

States Standards for Grades of Onions 

(Other Than Bermuda-Granex-Grano 

and Creole Type) and the United States 

Standards for Grades of BermudaGranex-Grano Type Onions. This rule 

provides for a 60-day comment period 

for interested parties to comment on the 

proposed revisions in the standards. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 51 

Agricultural commodities, Food 

grades and standards, Fruits, Nuts, 

Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Trees, Vegetables. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

7 CFR part 51 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 51—FRESH FRUITS, 

VEGETABLES AND OTHER 

PRODUCTS (INSPECTION, 

CERTIFICATION, AND STANDARDS) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. 

■ 2. In § 51.2830, paragraph (a) (1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 51.2830 U.S. No. 1. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Similar varietal characteristics, 

except color when designated as a 

specialty or mixed pack; 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 51.2831, paragraph (a) (1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 51.2831 U.S. Export No. 1 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Similar varietal characteristics, 

except color when designated as a 

specialty of mixed pack; 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 51.2832, paragraph (a) (1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 51.2832 U.S. Commercial 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Similar varietal characteristics, 

except color when designated as a 

specialty or mixed pack; 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 51.2835, paragraph (a) (1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 51.2835 U.S. No. 1 Boilers 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) One type, except when designated 

as a specialty or mixed pack; 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 51.3195, paragraph (a) (1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 51.3195 U.S. No. 1 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Similar varietal characteristics, 

except color when designated as a 

specialty or mixed pack; 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 51.3197, paragraph (a) (1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 51.3197 U.S. No. 2 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Similar varietal characteristics, 

except color when designated as a 

specialty or mixed pack; 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 16, 2013. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20481 Filed 8–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Document Number AMS–NOP–13–0011; 

NOP–13–01PR] 

RIN 0581–AD33 

National Organic Program; Proposed 

Amendments to the National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances 

(Crops and Processing) 

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 May 25, 2012 and October 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52101 

1Petition is available on NOP Web site in 

Petitioned Substances Database under ‘‘B ’’ at 

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

18, 2012. The recommendations 

addressed in this proposed rule pertain 

to establishing exemptions (uses) for 

one substance in organic crop 

production and two substances in 

organic processing. Consistent with the 

recommendations from the NOSB, this 

proposed rule would add the following 

substances, along with any restrictive 

annotations, to the National List: 

biodegradable biobased mulch film; 

Citrus hystrix, leaves and fruit; and 

curry leaves (Murraya koenigii). This 

action also proposes a new definition 

for biodegradable biobased mulch film. 

This proposed rule would also remove 

two listings for nonorganic agricultural 

products on the National List, hops 

(Humulus lupulus) and unmodified rice 

starch, as their use exemptions expired 

on January 1, 2013, and June 21, 2009, 

respectively. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 21, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

comment on the proposed rule using the 

following procedures: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Toni Strother, Agricultural 

Marketing Specialist, National Organic 

Program, USDA–AMS–NOP, 1400 

Independence Ave. SW., Room 2646- 

So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 

20250–0268. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the docket number AMS– 

NOP–13–0011; NOP–13–01PR, and/or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

0581–AD32 for this rulemaking. You 

should clearly indicate the topic and 

section number of this proposed rule to 

which your comment refers. You should 

clearly indicate whether you support 

the action being proposed for the 

substances in this proposed rule. You 

should clearly indicate the reason(s) for 

your position. You should also supply 

information on alternative management 

practices, where applicable, that 

support alternatives to the proposed 

action. You should also offer any 

recommended language change(s) that 

would be appropriate to 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. All comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov. 

AMS is particularly interested in 

comments regarding the applicability of 

the proposed compostability standards 

for biodegradable biobased mulch film, 

and whether guidance on management 

practices is necessary to prevent mulch 

film from accumulating in fields. 

Document: For access to the 

document to read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. 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: 

Melissa Bailey, Ph.D., 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 in sections 

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 

nonagricultural and nonorganic 

agricultural substances that may be used 

in organic handling. The Organic Foods 

Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) (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 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, 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 September 27, 2012 (77 FR 59287). 

This proposed rule would amend the 

National List to reflect three 

recommendations submitted to the 

Secretary by the NOSB on May 25, 2012 

(Citrus hystrix leaves and fruit and curry 

leaves (Murraya koenigii)) and October 

18, 2012 (biodegradable biobased mulch 

film). Based upon their evaluation of 

petitions submitted by industry 

participants, public comments, market 

surveillance, and review of technical 

reports, the NOSB recommended that 

the Secretary add one substance 

(biodegradable biobased mulch film) to 

section 205.601 of the National List for 

organic crop production and add two 

substances to section 205.606 (Citrus 

hystrix leaves and fruit and curry leaves 

(Murraya koenigii)) for organic 

processing. This rule would also remove 

listings for two substances (hops and 

unmodified rice starch) as their use 

exemptions have expired. The 

exemptions for the use of each new 

substance in organic crop production 

and handling were evaluated by the 

NOSB using the criteria specified in 

OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6517–6518). In addition, 

the amendments for two new substances 

proposed for organic handling were also 

evaluated by the NOSB using NOP 

criteria on commercial availability (72 

FR 2167). 

II. Overview of Proposed Amendments 

The following provides an overview 

of the proposed amendments to 

designated sections of the USDA organic 

regulations: 

Section 205.2 Terms defined. 

Section 205.601 Synthetic substances 

allowed for use in organic crop 

production. 

This proposed action would amend 

sections 205.2 and 205.601 by adding 

the following new definition and new 

substance to the National List for 

organic crop production. 

Biodegradable Biobased Mulch Film 

Biodegradable biobased mulch film 

was petitioned to the National List in 

January 2012 for use as synthetic mulch 

for organic crop production.1 This 

substance is also alternatively called 

‘‘bioplastic mulch.’’ 

Biodegradable biobased mulch film is 

used as an alternative to petroleumbased plastic mulches that do not 

biodegrade. Traditional plastic mulches 

require removal at the end of the 

growing or harvest season under OFPA 

and the USDA organic regulations (7 

U.S.C. 6508; §§ 205.206(c)(6) and 

205.601(b)(2)(ii)). Biodegradable 

biobased mulch film is applied to 

agricultural fields as a thin plastic layer 

and is left in the field to biodegrade. 

Like traditional plastic mulches, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52102 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2Technical Evaluation Report, Biodegradable 

Mulch Film Made from Bioplastics, August 2, 2012. 

Available on the NOP Web site at http://www.ams.

usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC

5100029. 

3 Ibid. 

4ASTM refers to ASTM International, formerly 

known as the American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), http://www.astm.org. 

5ASTM refers to ASTM International, formerly 

known as the American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), http://www.astm.org. EN refers 

to the European Committee for Standardization, 

http://www.cen.eu. ISO refers to the International 

Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.

org. 

biodegradable biobased mulch film is 

used to cover the soil, modify soil 

temperatures, retain soil moisture, and 

help control weeds and insect 

problems.2

Mulch film may be made from a 

variety of degradable polymers, 

including polylactic acid (PLA), 

polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and 

aliphatic-aromatic copolymers (AAC). 

Some biodegradable mulch films are 

made from biological sources (i.e., 

biobased), and some are derived from 

fossil fuel sources.3

At its October 15–18, 2012 meeting in 

Providence, RI, the NOSB recommended 

that biodegradable biobased mulch film 

be added to the National List, with 

restrictions, for use in organic crop 

production. The NOSB evaluated 

biodegradable biobased mulch film 

against the evaluation criteria of 7 

U.S.C. 6517 and 6518 of the OFPA, 

received public comment, and 

concluded that the substance is 

consistent with the OFPA evaluation 

criteria. 

The NOSB indicated in its 

recommendation that the use of this 

substance is an opportunity to reduce 

landfilling of traditional plastic mulches 

without sacrificing organic farming 

principles. 

The regulatory text recommended by 

the NOSB is provided in Table 1. The 

NOSB indicated in its recommendation 

that mulch film must meet certain 

criteria for biodegradability, 

compostability, and biobased content 

(Criteria A and B in Table 1). In 

addition, the NOSB recommended 

restrictions on the types of materials 

allowed for the production of biobased 

mulch film (Criterion C). The NOSB also 

indicated that growers must take 

appropriate actions to ensure complete 

degradation (Criterion D). The NOSB 

indicated that criteria A through C are 

intended to apply to certifying agents 

and material evaluation programs that 

will determine allowed products. 

Criterion D was intended to refer to the 

grower’s responsibility. 

As part of this recommendation, the 

NOSB also proposed the following 

definition for the new term biobased: 

‘‘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).’’ 4 The 

NOSB recommended that the term 

‘‘biobased’’ be included in order to 

specifically prohibit products derived 

from petroleum, such as those made 

from aliphatic-aromatic copolymers. 

The Secretary has reviewed and 

proposes to accept the NOSB’s 

recommendation, with some 

modifications. Table 1 provides a 

comparison of the NOSB’s 

recommended regulatory text and the 

action proposed under this rule. 

This proposed rule would amend 

section 205.2 (Terms defined) by adding 

a new definition for ‘‘biodegradable 

biobased mulch film’’ to section 205.2 of 

the USDA organic regulations. 

This action proposes to define 

biodegradable biobased mulch film as a 

synthetic mulch that meets the 

following criteria: (1) Meets the 

compostability standards of ASTM 

D6400 or D6868, or of other equivalent 

international standards, i.e., EN 13432, 

EN 14995, or ISO 17088; (2) 

Demonstrates at least 90% 

biodegradation absolute or relative to 

microcrystalline cellulose in less than 

two years, in soil, according to ISO 

17556 or ASTM D5988 testing methods; 

and (3) Must be biobased with content 

determined using ASTM D6866 testing 

method.5

This proposed rule would also add 

the substance ‘‘biodegradable biobased 

mulch film,’’ with restrictions, to new 

subparagraph (b)(2)(iii) of section 

205.601. The new listing would read as 

follows: ‘‘Biodegradable biobased mulch 

films as defined in section 205.2. Must 

be produced without organisms or 

feedstock derived from excluded 

methods.’’ 

The NOSB recommended that the 

standards for compostability, 

biodegradation, and biobased content be 

included at subparagraph (b)(2)(iii) of 

section 205.601. AMS proposes to 

include the references to these 

standards within a new definition at 

section 205.2 in order to streamline the 

listing of this substance and limit the 

number of subparagraph levels on the 

National List. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF NOSB RECOMMENDATION AND AMS PROPOSED ACTION FOR BIODEGRADABLE BIOBASED

MULCH FILM

Section NOSB Recommendation AMS Proposed action 

205.2 ............................. Add the following new definition to § 205.2: Add the following new definition to § 205.2: 

Biobased. 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).

Biodegradable Biobased Mulch Film. A synthetic mulch 

film that meets the following criteria: 

(1) Meets the compostability standards of ASTM D6400 

or D6868, or of other equivalent international standards, i.e., EN 13432, EN 14995, or ISO 17088; 

(2) Demonstrates at least 90% biodegradation absolute or 

relative to microcrystalline cellulose in less than two 

years, in soil, according to ISO 17556 or ASTM D5988 

testing methods; and 

(3) Must be biobased with content determined using 

ASTM D6866 testing method. 

205.601 ......................... Add the following substance to new subparagraph (iii) of 

§ 205.601(b)(2): ...................................................................

Add the following substance to new subparagraph (iii) of 

§ 205.601(b)(2): 

(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable ................. (b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable 

(2) Mulches ......................................................................... (2) Mulches. 

(iii) Biodegradable biobased mulch films to be reviewed 

meet the following criteria: 

(iii) Biodegradable biobased mulch film as defined in 

§ 205.2. Must be produced without organisms or feedstock derived from excluded methods. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52103 

6USDA BioPreferred® Program product categories 

are available at http://www.biopreferred.gov/

ProductCategories.aspx 

7Established at 7 CFR 2902.56; Final Rule 

published October 18, 2010; 75 FR 63695. 

8Established at 7 CFR 2902.27; Final Rule 

published May 14, 2008; 73 FR 27958. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF NOSB RECOMMENDATION AND AMS PROPOSED ACTION FOR BIODEGRADABLE BIOBASED

MULCH FILM—Continued 

Section NOSB Recommendation AMS Proposed action 

(A) Completely biodegradable as shown by: 

(1) Meeting the requirements of ASTM Standard D6400 

or D6868 specifications, or of other international standard specifications with essentially identical criteria, i.e. 

EN 13432, EN 14995, ISO 17088; and 

(2) Showing at least 90% biodegradation in soil absolute 

or relative to microcrystalline cellulose in less than two 

years, in soil, tested according to ISO 17556 or ASTM 

5988; 

(B) Must be biobased with content determined using the 

ASTM D6866 method; 

(C) Must be produced without organisms or feedstock derived from excluded methods; and 

(D) Grower must take appropriate actions to ensure complete degradation.

The proposed definition for 

‘‘biodegradable biobased mulch film’’ 

includes the third-party standards for 

compostability, biodegradation, and 

biobased content which are included in 

the NOSB recommendation. These 

standards are summarized in Table 2. 

Each standard provides a reference for 

certifying agents and material 

evaluation programs to verify that 

biodegradable biobased much film meet 

certain requirements for compostability, 

biodegradability, and biobased content. 

AMS is specifically interested in 

comments regarding the compostability 

standards included in the definition. 

AMS has noted that when the substance 

is used as recommended by the NOSB 

(i.e., as mulch on the surface of the soil), 

it is not composted according to the 

standards for compost under section 

205.203(c) of the USDA organic 

regulations. In addition, the NOSB did 

not consider or recommend the addition 

of biodegradable biobased mulch film to 

the list of allowed synthetic compost 

feedstocks at section 205.601(c). This 

proposed action includes the 

compostability standards recommended 

by the NOSB, but AMS is interested in 

comments on the applicability of these 

standards for the intended use of the 

petitioned material. AMS is also 

interested in comments on whether the 

two criteria for biodegradation and 

biobased content, without the criteria 

for compostability, would be sufficient 

for review of this substance. 

TABLE 2—TABLE OF APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR COMPOSTABILITY, BIODEGRADATION, AND BIOBASED CONTENT

Standard Title Criteria 

ASTM D6400 ................... Standard Specification for Labeling of Plastics Designed to be Aerobically 

Composted in Municipal or Industrial Facilities.

Compostability. 

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.

Compostability. 

EN 13432 ......................... Proof of compostability of plastic products ................................................... Compostability. 

EN 14995 ......................... Plastics—Evaluation of compostability—Test scheme and specifications Compostability. 

ISO 17088 ....................... Specifications for compostable plastics ........................................................ Compostability. 

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.

Biodegradability. 

ASTM D5988 ................... Standard Test Method for Determining Aerobic Biodegradation of Plastic 

Materials in Soil.

Biodegradability. 

ASTM D6866 ................... Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, 

Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis.

Biobased Content. 

AMS noted that the NOSB did not 

recommend a minimum amount of 

biobased content for biodegradable 

biobased mulch films. AMS considered 

whether a minimum should be included 

in order to ensure that approved 

products will derive most of their 

content from biological sources, as was 

intended by the NOSB. AMS consulted 

with the USDA BioPreferred program to 

inquire whether they have a specific 

category established for biodegradable 

mulch film products, since product 

categories in the USDA BioPreferred 

program include standards (i.e., 

minimums) for products’ biobased 

content.6 The USDA BioPreferred 

program indicated that they do not have 

a specific product category for biobased 

mulch film, and that mulch film does 

not fall within their categories of 

‘‘Mulch and Compost Materials’’ 7 or 

‘‘Films—Non-Durable.’’ 8

(Manufacturers of biobased mulch film 

who wish to certify this product under 

the USDA BioPreferred program would 

classify it in an ‘‘undesignated’’ product 

category; products in this category must 

contain a minimum of 25% biobased 

content as measured by the standard test 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52104 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9The biodegradable films intended by the 

petition are described by the petitioner as 

‘‘produced from bioplastics and meet standards for 

aerobic biodegradation in soil.’’ 

10Petition to remove hops. Available in 

Petitioned Substances Database, under ‘‘H,’’ 

available at the NOP Web site at http://www.ams.

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

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

STELPRDC5085449. 

method.) AMS understands that 

biobased mulch films used by organic 

producers will need to be derived 

primarily from biobased sources in 

order to meet the requirements for 

biodegradation and compostability, so 

we have not proposed a minimum 

biobased content requirement for mulch 

film. Biodegradable mulch films that are 

not biobased, e.g., derived from fossil 

fuel sources, would not be permitted. 

AMS considered the definition for 

‘‘biobased’’ that was recommended by 

the NOSB, and we have not proposed 

the addition of this term to section 

205.2. Instead, AMS proposed a new 

definition for ‘‘biodegradable biobased 

mulch film’’ that incorporates the 

NOSB’s intent of limiting the use of this 

substance to biobased products by 

including a testing standard for 

biobased content. The proposed new 

term ‘‘biodegradable biobased mulch 

film’’ indicates that this substance must 

be biobased with content determined 

using ASTM D6866 testing method. 

Since this testing method has been 

previously established for biobased 

materials using an existing definition for 

‘‘biobased,’’ AMS determined it was not 

necessary to add a separate definition 

for ‘‘biobased’’ to the USDA organic 

regulations. 

AMS also considered whether the 

new definition for ‘‘biodegradable 

biobased mulch film’’ may raise 

questions as to whether certain types of 

paper mulch are intended to be 

included in the new definition. 

Specifically, the petition describes a 

type of paper mulch ‘‘comprised of kraft 

paper coated with cured vegetable oilbased resins,’’ and indicates that these 

materials are not intended to be 

included within its scope. In addition, 

these materials were also not considered 

a part of the petition during the NOSB 

review. As such, AMS does not consider 

these paper mulches to fall within the 

new definition of ‘‘biodegradable 

biobased mulch film,’’ since they were 

not included within the scope of the 

petition and because these products are 

not ‘‘films.’’ 9 This action is also not 

intended to define newspaper or other 

recycled paper as ‘‘biodegradable 

biobased mulch films.’’ The use of 

newspaper or other recycled paper, 

without glossy or colored inks, will 

continue to be allowed as allowed 

synthetic mulch under the current 

listing at section 205.601(b)(2)(i) 

without the additional testing 

requirements for biodegradable biobased 

mulch film outlined under the new 

definition at section 205.2. 

The NOSB also recommended that 

biodegradable biobased mulch film 

must meet the following criteria: ‘‘Must 

be produced without organisms or 

feedstocks derived from excluded 

methods.’’ AMS has reviewed this 

language and has incorporated the text 

into the listing proposed at section 

205.601. 

The NOSB also recommended the 

following additional text for the listing 

for biodegradable biobased mulch film: 

‘‘Grower must take appropriate actions 

to ensure complete degradation.’’ AMS 

has reviewed this language and has not 

incorporated this text into the proposed 

listing as we believe the intent of this 

text is adequately covered under other 

sections of the USDA organic 

regulations. For example, 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 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. 

The NOSB indicated that the 

proposed language was intended to 

clarify the grower’s responsibility and 

what the certifying agent must evaluate. 

The NOSB indicated that NOP, in 

conjunction with the NOSB, should 

develop guidance that explains proper 

practices for use of biodegradable 

biobased mulch film. In addition, the 

NOSB indicated that it expects the 

inspection process and certification 

review to verify that biodegradation of 

the mulch film is occurring so that it 

does not accumulate in the fields where 

it is used. 

AMS understands that the complete 

degradation of mulch film may be 

impacted by a number of factors, 

including climate, soil type, irrigation, 

and other production practices. AMS 

has not determined if there is a 

demonstrated need for guidance on the 

use of mulch film at this time. We 

understand that guidance may be 

needed in the future depending on the 

prevalence of adoption of use of mulch 

film by organic growers and any 

problems observed by certifying agents 

with degradation on organic fields. AMS 

is interested in comments on whether 

guidance on management practices is 

necessary at this time to prevent mulch 

film from accumulating in fields. 

Section 205.606 Nonorganically 

Produced Agricultural Products Allowed 

as Ingredients in or on Processed 

Products Labeled as ‘‘Organic.’’ 

This proposed rule would amend 

section 205.606 by removing paragraph 

(l), removing subparagraph (w)(2), and 

redesignating subparagraph (w)(3) as 

(w)(2), to remove the following 

substances from the National List: 

Hops (Humulus lupulus). Hops 

(Humulus lupulus) was added to the 

National List on June 27, 2007 (72 FR 

35137), to enable brewers to produce 

organic beer with conventionally grown 

hops in the absence of a commercially 

available supply of organically grown 

hops. In December 2009, an organic hop 

grower association petitioned the NOSB 

to remove hops from section 205.606 for 

the purpose of advancing growth in the 

organic hops market.10

In response to the petition, the NOSB 

recommended at its October 2010 public 

meeting that an expiration date of 

January 1, 2013 be added to the listing 

for hops. This recommendation was 

accepted by the Secretary and was 

implemented as a Final Rule published 

June 27, 2012 (77 FR 33290). The listing 

was amended to read as follows: Hops 

(Humulus lupulus) until January 1, 

2013. This action would remove the 

expired listing for hops (Humulus 

lupulus) from section 205.606 at 

paragraph (l), as the use exemption for 

this substance expired on January 1, 

2013. Removal of this substance has no 

new regulatory effect. 

Unmodified Rice Starch 

This proposed rule would amend 

section 205.606 of the National List by 

removing the expired exemption for 

‘‘rice starch, unmodified (CAS 

# 977000–08–0),’’ referred to below as 

‘‘unmodified rice starch.’’ Unmodified 

rice starch was petitioned to the 

National List on February 14, 2007 as a 

gelation agent used in combination with 

other thickeners. The NOSB 

recommended adding unmodified rice 

starch to the National List and also 

indicated that the listing should expire 

two years after the date of publication 

of the final rule. The NOSB 

recommendation was accepted by the 

Secretary, and unmodified rice starch 

was added to the National List effective 

June 21, 2007 by publication of an 

interim final rule on June 27, 2007 (72 

FR 35137). The listing reads as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52105 

11Petition is available in Petitioned Substances 

Database, under ‘‘C,’’ at http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

NOPNationalList. 

12NOSB Formal Recommendation for Citrus 

hystrix leaves and fruit, May 25, 2012. http://www.

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

STELPRDC5098918. 

13Petition is available in Petitioned Substances 

Database, under ‘‘C,’’ at http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

NOPNationalList. 

14NOSB Formal Recommendation for Curry 

Leaves, May 25, 2012, http://www.ams.usda.gov/

AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5098915. 

(2) Rice starch, unmodified (CAS 

# 977000–08–0)—for use in organic 

handling until June 21, 2009. This 

proposed rule would remove the listing 

for unmodified rice starch that expired 

on June 21, 2009. Removal of this 

substance has no new regulatory effect. 

This proposed rule would further 

amend section 205.606 by redesignating 

paragraphs (e) through (aa) as (g) 

through (bb), respectively; and 

redesignating paragraph (d) as 

paragraph (e) for the purposes of adding 

the following new substances at 

paragraphs (d) and (f): 

Citrus Hystrix, Leaves and Fruit 

Leaves and fruit of Citrus hystrix were 

petitioned in August 2011 for use as a 

nonorganic agricultural ingredient in or 

on processed products labeled as 

‘‘organic.’’ 11 C. hystrix leaves and fruit 

are traditional ingredients in Lao, Thai, 

and other Southeast Asian cuisines. The 

tree of C. hystrix is easily identified by 

its distinctively shaped double leaves 

and the fruit is known for its bumpy 

skin. Both the leaves and fruit impart a 

unique intense flavor and aroma in 

foods due to their high concentration of 

essential oils. C. hystrix leaves and fruit 

are harvested, washed, and can be used 

fresh, dried, or frozen. 

At its May 22–25, 2012, meeting in 

Albuquerque, NM, the NOSB accepted 

public comment and recommended 

adding C. hystrix leaves and fruit to the 

National List for use in organic handling 

as a non-organic agricultural ingredient 

where the organic form is commercially 

unavailable.12 In this open meeting, the 

NOSB evaluated C. hystrix leaves and 

fruit against evaluation criteria 

established by 7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518 

of the OFPA evaluation criteria and 

NOP commercial availability criteria (72 

FR 2167). Therefore in response to the 

NOSB recommendation regarding the 

use of C. hystrix in organic handling, the 

Secretary proposes to amend section 

205.606 of the National List regulations 

to allow C. hystrix as a nonorganically 

produced agricultural product allowed 

as an ingredient in or on processed 

products labeled as ‘‘organic.’’ 

Curry Leaves (Murraya koenigii) 

Curry leaves were petitioned in 

August 2011 for use as a nonorganic 

agricultural ingredient in or on 

processed products labeled as 

‘‘organic.’’ 13 Curry leaves, which are 

also known as sweet neem leaves, are 

extremely fragrant and are an important 

ingredient commonly used in Indian, 

Sri Lankan, Malay and other Southeast 

Asian cuisines. Curry leaves impart a 

unique flavor and fragrance which 

cannot be substituted with other 

ingredients. Curry leaves are harvested 

from curry trees, washed, and can be 

used fresh, dried, or frozen. 

At its May 22–25, 2012, public 

meeting in Albuquerque, NM, the NOSB 

accepted public comment and 

recommended adding curry leaves 

(Murraya koenigii) to the National List 

for use in organic handling as a 

nonorganic agricultural ingredient when 

organic curry leaves are commercially 

unavailable.14 The NOSB evaluated 

curry leaves (Murraya koenigii) against 

evaluation criteria established by 7 

U.S.C. 6517 and 6518 of the OFPA 

evaluation criteria and NOP commercial 

availability criteria (72 FR 2167). 

Therefore in response to the NOSB 

recommendation regarding the use of 

curry leaves (Murraya koenigii) in 

organic handling, the Secretary 

proposes to amend section 205.606 of 

the National List regulations to allow 

curry leaves (Murraya koenigii) as a 

nonorganically produced agricultural 

product allowed as an ingredient in or 

on processed products labeled as 

‘‘organic.’’ The listing is proposed as the 

common name of the ingredient, with 

the scientific species name in 

parentheses, to be consistent with the 

listing of other agricultural products on 

National List. 

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 

recommendations included in this 

proposed 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. 

Additional information on substances, 

including petitions, technical reports, 

and NOSB recommendations, are 

available on the NOP Web site at 

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

List. 

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

The OFPA, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 

6501–6522), authorizes the Secretary to 

make amendments to the National List 

based on proposed amendments 

developed by the NOSB. Sections 

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

authorize the NOSB to develop 

proposed amendments to the National 

List for submission to the Secretary and 

establish a petition process by which 

persons may petition the NOSB for the 

purpose of having substances evaluated 

for inclusion on or deletion from the 

National List. The National List petition 

process is implemented under section 

205.607 of the NOP regulations. The 

current petition guidelines (72 FR 2167, 

January 18, 2007) can be accessed 

through the NOP Web site at http://

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

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 the 

OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6514(b)). States are also 

preempted by 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 the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 

6507(b)(2)), a State organic certification 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52106 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

15U.S. Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. October 2012. 2011 

Certified Organic Productions Survey. http://usda

01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/Organic

Production/OrganicProduction-10-04-2012.pdf. 

16Organic Trade Association. 2012. Organic 

Industry Survey. www.ota.com. 

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 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. 601–624), 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 EPA under the FIFRA 

(7 U.S.C. 136–136(y)). 

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. 601–612) 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. 

Small agricultural service firms, 

which include producers, handlers, and 

accredited certifying agents, have been 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) 

as those having annual receipts of less 

than $7,000,000 and small agricultural 

producers are defined as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000. 

According to USDA, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 

certified organic acreage exceeded 3.5 

million acres in 2011.15 According to 

NOP’s Accreditation and International 

Activities Division, the number of 

certified U.S. organic crop and livestock 

operations totaled over 17,281 in 2011. 

AMS believes that most of these entities 

would be considered small entities 

under the criteria established by the 

SBA. The procedures for producing and 

handling certified apiculture products 

will remain essentially the same under 

this proposed rule as they have been 

since ACAs began to certify apiculture 

products organic under the livestock 

regulations. The difference under the 

proposed rule is that the regulation will 

be more specific, and is tailored to 

apiculture production and handling 

requirements. 

U.S. sales of organic food and nonfood have grown from $1 billion in 1990 

to $31.4 billion in 2011. Sales in 2011 

represented 9.5 percent growth over 

2010 sales.16 In addition, the USDA has 

86 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. Certifying agents reported 

approximately 29,000 certified 

operations worldwide in 2011. 

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 the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, and 

Chapter 35. 

E. Executive Order 13175 

This proposed 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. General Notice of Public Rulemaking 

This proposed rule reflects 

recommendations submitted by the 

NOSB to the Secretary to add three 

substances on the National List and to 

remove two expired listings from the 

National List. A 60-day period for 

interested persons to comment on this 

rule is provided and is deemed 

appropriate. 

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 205.2 is amended by adding 

one new term 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 

standards of ASTM D6400 or D6868, or 

of other equivalent international 

standards, i.e., EN 13432, EN 14995, or 

ISO 17088; 

(2) Demonstrates at least 90% 

biodegradation absolute or relative to 

microcrystalline cellulose in less than 

two years, in soil, according to ISO 

17556 or ASTM D5988 testing methods; 

and 

(3) Must be biobased with content 

determined using ATM D6866 testing 

method. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 205.601 is amended 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52107 

feedstock derived from excluded 

methods. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 205.606 is amended by: 

■ A. Removing paragraph (l); 

■ B. Removing paragraph (w)(2); 

■ C. Redesignating paragraph (w)(3) as 

(w)(2); 

■ D. Redesignating paragraphs (e) 

through (aa) as (g) through (bb) 

respectively; 

■ E. Redesignating paragraph (d) as 

paragraph (e); and 

■ F. Adding new paragraphs (d) and (f). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 205.606 Nonorganically produced 

agricultural products allowed as ingredients 

in or on processed products labeled as 

‘‘organic.’’ 

* * * * * 

(d) Citrus hystrix, leaves and fruit. 

* * * * * 

(f) Curry leaves (Murraya koenigii). 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 16, 2013. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20476 Filed 8–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0723; Notice No. 25– 

13–03–SC] 

Special Conditions: Boeing Model 777– 

200, –300, and –300ER Series 

Airplanes; Rechargeable Lithium Ion 

Batteries and Battery Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes special 

conditions for the Boeing Model 777– 

200, –300, and –300ER series airplanes. 

These airplanes as modified by the 

ARINC Aerospace Company will have a 

novel or unusual design feature, 

specifically the rechargeable lithium ion 

batteries and battery system that will be 

used on an International 

Communications Group (ICG) ePhone 

cordless cabin handset. The applicable 

airworthiness regulations do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for this design feature. These proposed 

special conditions contain the 

additional safety standards that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by the existing 

airworthiness standards. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before October 7, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2013–0723 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, 

DC, 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov/, 

including any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot. 

gov/. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nazih Khaouly, FAA, Airplane and 

Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM– 

111, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 

98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2432; 

facsimile 425–227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We may change these special 

conditions based on the comments we 

receive. 

Background 

On August 10, 2012, the ARINC 

Aerospace Company applied for a 

supplemental type certificate for 

installing equipment that uses 

rechargeable lithium ion batteries and 

battery systems in the Boeing Model 

777–200, –300, and –300ER series 

airplanes. The Model 777–200 series 

airplanes are long-range, wide-body, 

twin-engine jet airplanes with a 

maximum capacity of 440 passengers. 

The Boeing Model 777–300 and 777– 

300ER series airplanes have a maximum 

capacity of 550 passengers. The Model 

777–200, –300, and –300ER series 

airplanes have fly-by-wire controls, 

fully software-configurable avionics, 

and fiber-optic avionics networks. 

Existing airworthiness regulations did 

not anticipate the use of lithium ion 

batteries and battery systems on aircraft. 

Lithium ion batteries and battery 

systems have new hazards that were not 

contemplated when the existing 

regulations were promulgated. In Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR) 25.1353, the FAA provided an 

airworthiness standard for lead acid 

batteries and nickel cadmium batteries. 

These special conditions provide an 

equivalent level of safety as that of the 

existing regulation. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 

21.101, the ARINC Aerospace Company 

must show that the Boeing Model 777– 

200, –300, and –300ER series airplanes, 

as changed, continue to meet the 

applicable provisions of the regulations 

incorporated by reference in Type 

Certificate No. T00001SE or the 

applicable regulations in effect on the 

date of application for the change. The 

regulations incorporated by reference in 

the type certificate are commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘original type 

certification basis.’’ The regulations 

incorporated by reference in Type 

Certificate No. T00001SE are as follows: 

part 25, as amended by Amendments 

25–1 through 25–82, except for 

§ 25.571(e)(1), which remains at 

Amendment 25–71 level. In addition, 

the certification basis includes special 

conditions and exemptions that are not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS