CONCLUSION
Stoltzfus submitted documentation to support his appeal, including a letter of support
from its fertilizer ul ii _ _ however, the noncompliance leading
to the combined Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed [Partial] Suspension remains
unresolved. As a result of applying a fertilizer product that contains substances prohibited for use
in organic crop production, seven (7) acres a: in field #8 are not yet in full
compliance with §205.105, Allowed and prohibited substances..., and, therefore, §205.202(b),

Land requirements.

DECISION
The appeal is denied and GOA’s combined Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed
Suspension is upheld. John Z. Stoltzfus’ organic certification is partially suspended for seven (7)
acres of field #8 for three (3) years from the date of substance application.
Attached to this formal Administrator’s Decision denying John Z. Stoltzfus’ appeal is a
Request for Hearing form. John Z. Stoltzfus has thirty (30) days to request an administrative

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Done at Washington, D.C., on this 2H
day of _ LFF An bFa_. 2015.

Rex A. Barnes

Associate Administrator


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR

In re: ) Administrator’s Decision
John Z. Stoltzfus ) APL-022-15
Orangeville, Pennsylvania )

This Decision is in response to an appeal (APL-022-15) of a combined Notice of
Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension issued to a certified crop operation, John Z. Stoltzfus
(Stoltzfus), by its U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) accredited certifying agent, Global
Organic Alliance (GOA). The operation was deemed not in compliance with the Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990 (Act)! and the USDA organic regulations.”

BACKGROUND

The Act authorizes the Secretary to accredit agents to certify crop, livestock, wild crop,
and/or handling operations to the USDA organic regulations (7 CFR Part 205). Certifying agents
also initiate compliance actions to enforce program requirements. Noncompliance procedures are
described in §205.662, Noncompliance procedure for certified operations, of the USDA organic
regulations. Persons subject to the Act who believe that they are adversely affected bya
noncompliance decision of a certifying agent may appeal such decision to the Administrator of
the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
pursuant to §205.680, Adverse Action Appeals Process — General, and §205.681, Appeals, of the

USDA organic regulations.

_

17 U.S.C. 6501-6522
27 CF.R. Part 205



FINDINGS OF FACT

1. John Z. Stoltzfus is a certified organic operation under the USDA organic regulations,
located in Orangeville, Pennsylvania.

2. GOA isan accredited certifying agent under the USDA organic regulations, first
accredited on April 29, 2002.

3. On May 6, 2015, GOA issued Stoltzfus a combined Notice of Noncompliance and
Proposed Suspension for a portion of its operation because GOA identified that a
fertilizer containing substances prohibited for use in organic crop production had been

applied to seven oO to acres of field #8.

4. On June 23, 2015, AMS received an appeal from Stoltzfus and accepted it as timely.

DISCUSSION

GOA has issued a combined Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension to
Stoltzfus for seven (7) eo acres of field #8, due to an application of a
fertilizer product to pastureland; the product contains substances prohibited for use in organic
crop production. The effect of a suspension for this action means that no products from the
suspended portion of the operation can be sold, labeled, or represented as organic. The portion of
the suspended field will be eligible for certification three (3) years after the date of prohibited
substance application.

In his appeal, Stoltzfus does not deny a fertilizer that contains substances prohibited for
use in organic crop production was applied to seven (7) acres of his main pasture field #8.

Stoltzfus explained that his longtime livestock product supplier


az delivered the wrong formula of fertilizer to his farm, which was not identified until the
fertilizer was applied to his a portion of his land.

During application, Stoltzfus noticed the color of the fertilizer looked different. At that
time, Stoltzfus stopped applying the fertilizer and contacted o discuss the discrepancy.

BB ecknowiedged it mistakenly loaded a different formula of the same fertilizer that Stoltzfus
ordered onto the delivery truck; Stoltzfus otter iii i which is
approved as an organic crop input. Instead, he received Pe

fertilizer, which contains ammonium sulfate, ammonium phosphate, and urea, all prohibited
substances for use in organic crop production. The only difference in the labeling between the
two products is the notation of “REG” next to the i: Because of his
long history with na his ordering of the same fertilizer product for years, which was
approved through Stoltzfus’ Organic System Plan and certifying agent, Stoltzfus admitted he did
not closely review the fertilizer’s label before until he applied it to a portion of his pasture field.

BBeontacted Stoltzfus’ certifying agent, GOA, to explain the delivery mix-up, which is
how GOA was notified of the prohibited substance application. GOA requested additional
information from Stoltzfus about the fertilizer that was applied, the ingredients within the
fertilizer, and the date and location of application. Based on Stoltzfus’ response, GOA issued a
combined Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension for a portion of field #8 where
Stoltzfus had applied the fertilizer.

The USDA organic regulations are clear regarding the use of prohibited substances on

crop land. Any use of prohibited substance, regardless of the reason, source, or hardship
endured, declassifies land of its “organic” status and requires a transition period for three years

preceding the harvest of a crop intending to be sold, labeled, or represented as “organic.”

w