This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

38693 

Vol. 75, No. 128 

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Document Number AMS–NOP–09–0081; 

TM–09–04 FR] 

RIN 0581–AC93 

National Organic Program; 

Amendments to the National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances 

(Crops) 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA’s) National List of Allowed and 

Prohibited Substances (National List) to 

enact two recommendations submitted 

to the Secretary of Agriculture 

(Secretary) by the National Organic 

Standards Board (NOSB) on November 

19, 2008, and May 6, 2009. This final 

rule revises the annotation for 

tetracycline to eliminate the 

parenthetical reference and add an 

expiration date, and adds sulfurous 

acid, along with a restrictive annotation, 

to the National List for use in organic 

crop production. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule 

becomes effective July 7, 2010. 

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 

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

seq.), 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 must also 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, 

(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, amendments 

to the National List, proposed on June 

3, 2009 (74 FR 26591), are currently 

pending. 

This final rule amends the National 

List to enact two recommendations 

submitted to the Secretary by the NOSB 

on November 19, 2008, and May 6, 

2009. 

II. Overview of Amendments 

The following provides an overview 

of the amendments to § 205.601 of the 

National List regulations: 

Section 205.601 Synthetic Substances 

Allowed for Use in Organic Crop 

Production 

This final rule amends 

§ 205.601(i)(11) of the National List 

regulations by eliminating the 

parenthetical reference and adding an 

expiration date to read as follows: 

Tetracycline, for fire blight control 

only and for use only until October 21, 

2012. 

This final rule amends § 205.601 of 

the National List regulations by adding 

a new paragraph (j)(9) to read as follows: 

Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782–99–2) for 

on-farm generation of substance 

utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur 

per § 205.601(j)(2). 

III. Related Documents 

Three notices have been published 

announcing the meetings of the NOSB 

and its planned deliberations on 

recommendations involving the use of 

tetracycline in organic crop production. 

The two notices were published in the 

Federal Register as follows: (1) 73 FR 

18491, April 4, 2008 (to consider a 

recommendation to add oxytetracycline 

hydrochloride as plant disease control 

for all diseases on the crops registered 

by EPA), (2) 73 FR 54781, September 23, 

2008 (to consider a recommendation to 

add oxytetracycline hydrochloride for 

fire blight control), and (3) 71 FR 14493, 

March 22, 2006 (to consider the sunset 

recommendation for the continued 

listing of oxytetracycline calcium 

complex for fire blight control). 

Tetracycline (oxytetracycline calcium 

complex for fire blight control) was 

added to the National List by final rule 

in the Federal Register on December 21, 

2000 (65 FR 80548). The listing of 

tetracycline (oxytetracycline calcium 

complex for fire blight control) was due 

to sunset on October 21, 2007. In 2006, 

during the sunset review process, the 

NOSB reviewed the listing of 

tetracycline and streptomycin for fire 

blight control and recommended the 

renewal of tetracycline and 

streptomycin on April 20, 2006, by a 

vote of 7 in favor and 4 against. 

Tetracycline (oxytetracycline calcium 

complex), for fire blight control was 

renewed by final rule in the Federal 

Register on October 16, 2007 (72 FR 

58469). A proposal to amend the 

annotation for tetracycline was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 12, 2010 (74 FR 1555). One 

notice has been published announcing 

the meeting of the NOSB and its 

planned deliberations on a 

recommendation involving sulfurous 

acid in organic crop production. The 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on March 20, 2009 (74 FR 

11904). Sulfurous acid was first 

proposed for addition to the National 

List on January 12, 2010 (74 FR 1555). 

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

The OFPA authorizes the Secretary to 

make amendments to the National List 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
38694 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Dimitri, C., and L. Oberholtzer. 2009. Marketing 

U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trends from Farms to 

Consumers, Economic Information Bulletin No. 58, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ 

EIB58. 

2According to the Organic Trade Association’s 

2010 Organic Industry Survey, organic food sales 

reached $24.8 billion in 2009, http://www.ota.com. 

3 Greene, C., C. Dimitri, B. Lin, W. McBride, L. 

Oberholtzer and T. Smith. 2009. Emerging issues in 

the U.S. Organic Industry, Economic Information 

Bulletin No. 55, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, http:// 

www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB55. 

based on proposed amendments 

developed by the NOSB. Sections 

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

authorize the NOSB to develop 

proposed amendments to the National 

List for submission to the Secretary and 

establish a petition process by which 

persons may petition the NOSB for the 

purpose of having substances evaluated 

for inclusion 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/nop. 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This action has been determined not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866, and therefore, has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

B. Executive Order 12988 

Executive Order 12988 instructs each 

executive agency to adhere to certain 

requirements in the development of new 

and revised regulations in order to avoid 

unduly burdening the court system. 

This final rule is not intended to have 

a retroactive effect. 

States and local jurisdictions are 

preempted under the OFPA from 

creating programs of accreditation for 

private persons or State officials who 

want to become certifying agents of 

organic farms or handling operations. A 

governing State official would have to 

apply to USDA to be accredited as a 

certifying agent, as described in 

§ 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 final 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 

Environmental Protection Agency (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 Agricultural Marketing 

Service (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 final rule would not be 

significant. The effect of this final rule 

would be to allow the use of additional 

substances in agricultural production 

and handling. This action would modify 

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 and beneficial to small 

agricultural 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 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 the USDA, Economic 

Research Service, U.S. sales of organic 

food and beverages grew from $3.6 

billion in 1997 to $21.1 billion in 

2008.1 2 Fresh produce remains the most 

popular organic category for retail sales, 

accounting for 37% of U.S. organic food 

sales and averaging 15% growth per 

year between 1997 and 2007. The 

percentage of U.S. farmland in fruit 

production that was certified organic in 

2008 reached nearly 3%. The Organic 

Trade Association’s ‘‘2010 Organic 

Industry Survey’’ reports that sales of 

organic fruits and vegetables reached 

$9.5 billion in 2009 and comprise 

11.4% of all U.S. fruit and vegetable 

sales. 

According to ERS data based on 

information from USDA-accredited 

certifying agents, the U.S. organic 

industry included approximately 14,540 

certified organic crop and livestock 

operations in 2008, comprising almost 

4.0 million acres. There were 2,790 

organic handlers (brokers, distributors, 

wholesalers, and manufacturers) in 

2005; in an ERS survey in 2005, just 

three (3) percent reported over $100 

million in sales, and 48 percent reported 

$1 million or less in total gross sales 

(both organic and conventional 

products).3 AMS believes that most of 

these entities would be considered 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 38695 

small entities under the criteria 

established by the SBA. 

In addition, USDA has accredited 97 

certifying agents who provide 

certification services to producers and 

handlers under the NOP. A complete 

list of names and addresses of 

accredited certifying agents may be 

found on the AMS NOP Web site, at 

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

believes that most of these accredited 

certifying agents would be considered 

small entities under the criteria 

established by the SBA. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the OFPA, no additional 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements are imposed on the public 

by this final rule. Accordingly, OMB 

clearance is not required by § 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. 

AMS is committed to compliance 

with the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires 

Government agencies in general to 

provide the public the option of 

submitting information or transacting 

business electronically to the maximum 

extent possible. 

E. Received Comments on Proposed 

Rule TM–09–04 

AMS received 35 comments on 

proposed rule TM–09–04. Comments 

were received from organic crop 

producers, consumers, an accredited 

certifying agent, a foreign government, a 

trade association, state extension 

personnel, a state advisory board, 

consultants and a manufacturer of crop 

protection products. A number of the 

comments opposed any use of 

tetracycline or sulfurous acid in organic 

crop production, and asserted that such 

amendments weakened the NOP 

regulations and compromised the 

integrity of organic foods. Other 

comments conveyed support for either 

or both of the proposed amendments; 

however, a few of those supportive 

comments suggested modifications to 

the wording of the proposed 

amendments. 

Twenty-two of the comments 

submitted addressed tetracycline. 

Nearly all of the comments which 

opposed the proposed amendment for 

the tetracycline listing were directed at 

any use of tetracycline in organic 

production; the comments did not 

specifically address the proposed action 

to remove the identification of 

oxytetracycline calcium complex from 

the annotation for tetracycline, thereby 

permitting an equivalent form, 

oxytetracycline hydrochloride to also be 

available for controlling fire blight. Most 

of the comments that were supportive of 

the proposed action to remove the 

specification on the form of tetracycline 

expressed opposition to the proposed 

expiration date of October 21, 2012. 

Eighteen of the 35 comments 

addressed sulfurous acid. Comments in 

support of the proposed amendment to 

add sulfurous acid were primarily 

submitted by producers or persons who 

advise growers, such as, state extension 

specialists or consultants. They asserted 

that sulfurous acid is an important tool 

for organic growers enabling the use of 

water containing bicarbonates or having 

a high pH without degrading the soil as 

a result of that use. Comments that were 

opposed to the addition of sulfurous 

acid were primarily from consumers 

and did not offer specific reasons for 

their position. One commenter asserted 

that only large corporate farms would be 

able to afford the costs of specialized 

employees to manufacture the sulfurous 

acid. 

Changes Requested But Not Made 

Several comments expressed total 

opposition to the use of tetracycline 

and/or sulfurous acid in organic 

production asserting that these 

substances weaken the NOP regulations 

and undermine the integrity of organic 

foods; some of these comments opposed 

the use of pesticides in organic 

production altogether. A number of the 

comments in opposition did not include 

any evidence that would support the 

position stated. 

Some of the reasons cited by 

comments in opposition to tetracycline 

included: The substance is harmful to 

human health and the environment; the 

diminished host resistance to fire blight; 

resistance to tetracycline; and 

alternative practices, such as, moving 

the crop to another location. One 

comment advised that the addition of 

tetracycline be postponed pending 

completion of EPA’s registration review 

of tetracycline in 2014. We considered 

these comments, but have determined 

that the record supports the need for the 

continued availability of tetracycline for 

restricted use. 

With regard to sulfurous acid, one 

comment threatened that organic 

products exported from the U.S. to the 

nation submitting the comment, could 

require certification as having been 

produced without use of sulfurous acid 

unless the need for sulfurous acid is 

clarified. The commenter also stated 

that elemental sulfur, already allowed 

for use in organic crop production, 

would be sufficient as an acidifying 

agent of the soil. The record indicates 

that the use of sulfurous acid to lower 

the pH of irrigation water is preferable, 

from an environmental standpoint, to 

spreading elemental sulfur on the soil to 

address alkaline conditions that develop 

due to the alkalinity of the irrigation 

water. The later practice is currently 

allowed per § 205.601(j)(2). According 

to the record, the application of 

sulfurous acid in comparison to 

elemental sulfur, is better controlled, in 

terms of the quantity applied, and more 

benign to soil organisms. 

The comment which stated that the 

use of sulfurous acid would be 

affordable to only large corporate farms 

did not present evidence to support that 

assertion. Furthermore, that stance was 

refuted by other comments submitted on 

the proposed rule which stated that the 

addition of sulfurous acid would benefit 

many stakeholders and is more cost 

effective than citric acid that is 

currently used for pH adjustment. 

Expiration Date for Tetracyline 

A number of comments, particularly 

from tree fruit growers and associations 

in the Pacific Northwest, argued for the 

continued use of tetracycline after the 

expiration date of October 21, 2012. 

Those who argue for the continued use 

of tetracycline after October 21, 2012, 

stated that there was no other effective 

alternative treatment available for fire 

blight and that the expiration for the use 

of tetracycline for organic apple and 

pear production would force them to 

exit the organic production industry. 

One comment informed that newer 

reigning varieties, such as Gala, Fuji, 

Jonagold, Pink Lady and Honeycrisp 

apples and Bartlett, Bosc and Asian pear 

varieties are highly susceptible to the 

disease and tetracycline is the most 

effective tool for controlling moderate to 

severe fire blight particularly after 

bloom period. These commenters also 

conveyed that the Pacific Northwest, 

Washington, Oregon and Idaho, produce 

66% and 86% of all U.S. apples and 

pears and 14,000 tons of organic pears 

in Washington and Oregon. 

According to the NOSB discussion at 

the November 2008 meeting, 

tetracycline was originally exempted for 

use in 2000, with the anticipation that 

alternative treatments for fire blight 

would be developed, or that new 

cultivars not susceptible to fire blight 

would become available for organic 

production. October 21, 2012, was 

selected as the expiration because the 

exemption for oxytetracycline calcium 

chloride was due to sunset on that date. 

It was determined that the effect of 

amending the annotation to delete the 

specification for oxytetracycline 

calcium chloride would reset the sunset 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
38696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

date to 5 years from the date of this final 

rule. As conveyed in the discussion at 

the NOSB meeting, the exemption for 

tetracycline has remained divisive and 

the NOSB did not want to extend the 

listing for another 5 years. Peracetic acid 

and copper fungicides were specifically 

mentioned as alternative substances for 

fire blight control, although these were 

noted as only partially or marginally 

effective. This is consistent with a 

comment to the proposed rule which 

acknowledged that Bordeaux mix 

(copper sulfate and lime) and other 

copper formulations sprayed at greentip stage provide some protection, but 

can cause fruit scarring and are 

phytotoxic to some cultivars. It was 

noted anecdotally at the NOSB meeting 

that there are apple and pear varieties 

with limited resistance to fire blight and 

that some producers are growing pears 

without the use of tetracycline for the 

organic market in the European Union, 

where the use of antibiotics for organic 

crop production is not permitted. 

Based on all public comment and 

documentation received, the NOP 

believes that issues regarding the 

availability and viability of alternatives 

to tetracycline for fire blight control 

remain outstanding. At the same time, 

we note the NOSB’s recommendation to 

only allow the continued use of 

tetracycline for fire blight control until 

October 21, 2012. Though some 

commenters have requested the removal 

of the expiration date from use of 

tetracycline, the NOP recommends that 

such interested parties petition the 

NOSB, using the petition process 

outlined in 72 FR 2167 (January 18, 

2007), to have the expiration date 

removed from the authorized use of the 

substance. 

Classification of Tetracycline as a 

Bactericide 

One comment asserted that 

oxytetracycline calcium complex was 

naturally produced in the soil by 

bacterial fermentation and therefore it is 

not an antibiotic, but a bactericide. This 

comment argued for the approval of the 

use of ‘‘natural’’ oxytetracycline to be 

extended indefinitely for organic 

production so that the organic apple and 

pear industry would not be lost to fire 

blight. The comment did not provide 

evidence to affirm that the entire 

production of oxytetracycline to its 

commercial form would qualify as 

nonsynthetic (natural) in accordance 

with the NOP regulations. Tetracycline, 

in technical literature and common use, 

is universally identified as an antibiotic. 

While tetracycline is derived from 

bacteria and has bactericidal properties, 

we believe that ‘‘antibiotic’’ is the proper 

and accurate classification. 

On-Site Rather Than On-Farm 

Generation of Sulfurous Acid 

One of the comments expressed 

support for the addition of sulfurous 

acid, but requested that the annotation 

to refer to on-site generation instead of 

on-farm, because ‘‘farm’’ is not defined 

in the NOP regulation or in the Organic 

Food Production Act (OFPA), and use of 

that word could cause confusion in the 

organic industry. We recognize that 

there was considerable discussion over 

the precise wording to use in the 

annotation to capture the intent that it 

be produced at the location where the 

sulfurous acid would be used to prevent 

the use of sulfurous acid in forms that 

would be synthetically stabilized or 

preserved for shipping. Both terms, 

‘‘farm’’ and ‘‘site’’, appear in the NOP 

regulations. However, we believe these 

are distinct, as farm refers specifically to 

land area in crop production, while 

‘‘site’’ can refer to production or 

handling areas. We believe that ‘‘farm’’ is 

readily understood by the organic 

industry and is the more appropriate, 

specific term in this annotation. 

F. Effective Date 

This final rule reflects 

recommendations submitted to the 

Secretary by the NOSB. The revisions 

being made in the listing of one 

exempted substance and the substance 

being added to the National List were 

based on petitions from the industry 

and evaluated by the NOSB using 

criteria in the Act and the regulations. 

Because these revisions and the 

exemption have been subject to 

extensive discussion and comments and 

are considered vital to the most efficient 

organic crop production, NOP believes 

that producers should be able to use 

them in their operations as soon as 

possible. In crop production, the 

effective period for use of any practice 

or crop input may be limited by the 

progress of the growing season, and the 

utility of an exempted substance for 

organic production in any one year is 

dependent upon that substance being 

available when it is needed for use, as 

its use may be quite ineffective at any 

other time in the growing season. 

Accordingly, AMS finds that good cause 

exists under 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3) for not 

postponing the effective date of this rule 

until 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. 

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 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 205–NATIONAL ORGANIC 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 205 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522. 

■ 2. § 205.601 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising paragraph (i)(11). 

■ B. Adding new paragraph (j)(9). 

The addition and revision 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 only until 

October 21, 2012. 

(j) * * * 

(9) Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782–99–2) 

for on-farm generation of substance 

utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur 

per paragraph (j)(2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 29, 2010. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–16335 Filed 7–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Parts 916 and 917 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0090; FV10–916/917– 

1 FIR] 

Nectarines and Peaches Grown in 

California; Changes in Handling 

Requirements for Fresh Nectarines 

and Peaches 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as 

final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a 

final rule, without change, an interim 

rule that changed the handling 

requirements applicable to well matured 

fruit covered under the nectarine and 

peach marketing orders (orders). The 

interim rule updated the lists of 

commercially significant varieties 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1