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

25897 

Vol. 80, No. 87 

Wednesday, May 6, 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Docket Numbers AMS–NOP–11–0005; 

AMS–NOP–11–01] 

National Organic Program 

Regulations; Section 610 Review 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Confirmation of regulations. 

SUMMARY: This document summarizes 

the findings of a USDA Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) review of the 

National Organic Program (NOP) which 

is implemented under the Organic Food 

Production Act (OFPA). The review 

criteria are stipulated by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), in section 610. 

Based upon this review, the AMS has 

determined that the USDA organic 

regulations meet the objectives of the 

OFPA and should continue. Since 

becoming effective on the October 21, 

2002, there have been multiple 

amendments to the USDA organic 

regulations. Most of these amendments 

were additions to or deletions from the 

National List of Allowed and Prohibited 

Substances (National List). 

DATES: Effective May 6, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Interested persons may obtain a copy of 

the review. Requests for a copy of the 

review should be sent to Jennifer 

Tucker, Ph.D., Acting Director, 

Standards Division, National Organic 

Program, USDA–AMS–NOP, 1400 

Independence Ave. SW., Room 2648–S., 

Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250– 

0268. Telephone: (202) 720–3252, Fax. 

(202) 205–7808 or email: 

Jennifer.Tucker@ams.usda.gov, or by 

accessing the Web site at http://

www.ams.usda.gov/nop. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Organic Program (NOP) is 

authorized by the Organic Foods 

Protection Act (OFPA) of 1990, as 

amended (7 U.S.C. 6501–6522). The 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) administers the NOP. Final 

regulations implementing the NOP were 

published December 21, 2000 (65 FR 

80548), and became effective on October 

21, 2002. Through these regulations, the 

AMS oversees national standards for the 

production, handling, and labeling of 

organically produced agricultural 

products. 

The OFPA authorizes the certification 

and inspection of crop, wild crop, 

livestock, or handling operations that 

label, market or represent agricultural 

products as organic. The OFPA also 

provides authorization for the NOP to 

accredit state and private certifying 

agents to certify organic crop, wild crop, 

livestock, or handling operations to the 

USDA organic regulations in the United 

States and internationally. Since 

becoming fully effective in 2002, the 

USDA organic regulations have been 

frequently amended. Most of these 

amendments were changes to the 

National List of Allowed and Prohibited 

Substances (National List) in 7 CFR 

205.601–205.606. 

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 OFPA and the 

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 appear on the 

National List. 

Recommendations to amend the 

National List are developed by the 

National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB), a 15-member advisory board 

composed of four organic farmers; two 

organic handlers; one retailer; three 

experts in environmental protection and 

resource conservation; three consumer 

or public interest group members; one 

expert in toxicology, ecology, or 

biochemistry and; one certifying agent 

representative. The NOSB is organized 

under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2 et seq.) to assist in 

the development of standards for 

substances to be used or not used in 

organic production and handling, and to 

advise the Secretary on any other 

sections of the USDA organic 

regulations. NOSB members are 

nominated by the organic community 

and selected by the Secretary. The 

OFPA also requires a review of all 

substances on the National List within 

5 years of their addition or renewal. If 

a substance is not reviewed by the 

NOSB and renewed through rulemaking 

by the USDA within the five year 

period, its allowance or prohibition on 

the National List is no longer in effect 

(7 U.S.C. 6517(e)). 

As of January 2, 2014, there are 27,108 

producer and handler operations 

certified to the USDA organic 

regulations. Some of these certified 

operations are certified as ‘‘grower 

groups,’’ certified as a single entity, but 

consisting of groups of ten to thousands 

of small organic producers. The USDA 

organic regulations, as authorized by the 

OFPA, are implemented and applied 

uniformly and are designed to benefit 

all entities, regardless of size. 

On March 24, 2006, the AMS 

published in the Federal Register (71 

FR 14827), its schedule to review 

certain regulations, including the NOP, 

under criteria contained in section 610 

of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601–612). Because 

many AMS regulations impact small 

entities, AMS decided, as a matter of 

policy, to periodically review certain 

regulations, irrespective of whether 

specific regulations meet the threshold 

requirement for mandatory review 

established by the RFA. 

A Notice of Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Section 610 Review of the USDA 

organic regulations was published in the 

Federal Register on February 25, 2011 

(76 FR 10527). This notice indicated 

AMS would implement specific criteria 

contained in section 610 of the RFA 

during the review of the USDA organic 

regulations that have a significant effect 

on a substantial number of small entities 

to determine whether any effect can be 

decreased or minimized. The purpose of 

the review is for AMS to determine 

whether the USDA organic regulations 

should be continued without change, 

amended or rescinded, consistent with 

the objectives of OFPA, to minimize 

impact on small entities. The review 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
25898 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1NOP final guidance, instructions, and policy 

memos can be found in the NOP Program 

Handbook, available on the NOP Web site at: http:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/NOPProgramHandbook. 

2 Ibid. 

3Notice of Guidelines on Procedures for 

Submitting National List Petitions, January 18, 

2007, available on the NOP Web site: http://

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

Data.do?template=TemplateN&navID=National

OrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganic

Program&page=NOPFilingaPetition&description=

Filing%20a%20Petition. 

4NOP 5057: The Use of Kelp in Organic Livestock 

Feed, available in the NOP Program Handbook on 

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

NOPProgramHandbook. 

considered these factors: (1) The 

continued need for the regulations; (2) 

the nature of complaints or comments 

received from the public concerning the 

regulations; (3) the complexity of the 

regulations; (4) the extent to which the 

regulations overlap, duplicate, or 

conflict with other Federal rules, and, to 

the extent feasible, with State and local 

government rules; and (5) the length of 

time since the regulations have been 

evaluated or the degree to which 

technology, economic conditions, or 

other factors have changed in the area 

affected by the regulations. The notice 

invited the general public and interested 

parties to submit written comments on 

the impact of the regulations on small 

business. 

In response to this notice, the NOP 

received written comments from five 

organic producers (two crop, one wild 

crop, and two livestock), three 

accredited certifying agents, three 

handlers (an ingredient supplier, a 

retailer, and a beverage association), two 

consumers, and an organic business 

consultant, for a total of fourteen 

comments. 

Of the fourteen comments received, 

eight commenters specifically addressed 

the need for the regulations to continue, 

and not be terminated or rescinded. Five 

additional commenters proposed 

amendments or made recommendations 

about issues for the NOP to consider. 

One commenter stated that certification 

of organic products was unfair because 

of time commitment and expense. This 

commenter alternatively proposed that 

conventional operations should be 

certified to assess inputs used on these 

operations. Nine commenters described 

their concerns with the program or 

described concerns regarding the 

regulations. Eight commenters 

specifically addressed the complexity of 

the regulations either by indicating that 

the complexity of the regulations can be 

problematic at times, or that a 

significant level of complexity is needed 

to ensure organic product integrity. 

There were five comments on whether 

the regulations overlap, duplicate, or 

conflict with other Federal, State or 

Local government regulation. Four 

commenters specifically addressed the 

RFA section 610 review criteria 

regarding impacts on small entities as a 

result of changes in technology, 

economic conditions, or other factors 

that may have impacted an area affected 

by the regulations since the regulations 

became effective on October 21, 2002. 

One commenter, a certifying agent, 

addressed all of the factors considered 

in the RFA section 610 review of the 

USDA organic regulations. Most of the 

commenters addressed three out of five 

of the review factors. Comments are 

categorically grouped and discussed 

below. 

Comments from organic producers 

supported continuation of the 

regulations, but some did include 

concerns with the program or included 

proposed amendments for improving it. 

An organic seed producer expressed 

support for the continuation of the 

regulations, but suggested that NOP has 

not adequately enforced the requirement 

for the use of organic seed when 

commercially available as required by 7 

CFR 205.204(a). This commenter also 

suggested that some certifying agents 

may be routinely allowing the use of 

non-organic seed, even though high 

quality organic seed is available in 

commercial quality and quantity. The 

commenter requested increased 

enforcement of the organic seed 

regulation requirements to ensure 

organic seed is being utilized by organic 

producers. In response to comments 

received at public meetings, the NOSB 

provided the NOP with 

recommendations that outlined 

concepts and procedures for 

determining commercial availability of 

organic seeds and planting stock. In 

response, the NOP published final 

guidance NOP 5029: Seeds, Annual 

Seedlings, and Planting Stock in 

Organic Crop Production, in the NOP 

Program Handbook on February 28, 

2013.1 This guidance describes practices 

for certified operations to use to obtain 

all organic seeds, annual seedlings, and 

planting stock in support of their 

organic production. The guidance also 

describes the responsibilities of organic 

operations and certifying agents for 

sourcing organic seeds and planting 

stock and emphasizes the utilization of 

organic seed is a requirement of the 

regulations. 

A certified organic fruit producer 

commented on being prevented from 

using an organic label claim on his 

organic fruit alcohol product because of 

added sulfites. The commenter stated 

that because of the restriction with 

added sulfites limited for use with only 

organic grapes, a ‘‘made with organic. 

. .’’ claim could not be used on the 

product label. On October 31, 2011, the 

NOP published Policy Memo 10–2: 

Sulfur Dioxide in wine made with 

organic fruit, in the Program 

Handbook.2 This policy memo 

stipulates that added sulfites, as sulfur 

dioxide, can only be used in organic 

wine made from organic grapes as 

specified on the National List in 

§ 205.605(b). The allowance for sulfur 

dioxide on the National List limits the 

use of sulfur dioxide to only wine made 

with organic grapes and can only be 

labeled as ‘‘made with organic grapes.’’ 

Changing the allowance of sulfur 

dioxide in organic wine can be 

considered through submission of a 

National List petition to amend the 

annotation, and subsequent rulemaking 

to amend the regulations. As per 7 CFR 

205.607 of the USDA organic 

regulations, any person may submit a 

petition to change or amend the 

National List according to petition 

procedures published on January 18, 

2007 (72 FR 2167).3

An organic wild crop producer 

supported continuation of the 

regulations, concluding there is an 

ongoing need for Federal regulation and 

oversight of the term ‘‘organic’’ as it 

applies to all products being produced 

and handled organically. The 

commenter also stated accredited 

certifying agents should ensure that 

organic livestock producers are 

providing organic livestock with organic 

feed ingredients. The commenter 

specifically mentioned organic wild 

harvested kelp. The commenter claimed 

ensuring the feeding of organic kelp 

would enhance his organization’s 

opportunity to develop and maintain 

additional certified organic wild crop 

harvesting sites for kelp, and would 

support the growth of the business. On 

February 28, 2013, the NOP published 

guidance document NOP 5057: The Use 

of Kelp in Organic Livestock Feed.4 This 

guidance establishes that kelp may be 

certified organic as a wild crop under 7 

CFR 205.207 and must be certified 

organic if used as an ingredient in 

livestock feed per § 205.237. The 

guidance applies to all NOP certifying 

agents that certify kelp and certified 

organic operations that feed kelp to 

organic livestock. 

A small livestock producer requested 

the program increase the $5,000 

exemption limit for organic 

certification. There is an exemption 

from certification for organic producers 

and handlers who sell less than $5,000 

in organic agricultural products per year 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 25899 

(7 U.S.C. 6505; 7 CFR 205.101(a)). The 

livestock producer pointed out that the 

OFPA was passed in 1990, and the 

$5,000 limit has been subject to 

inflation since 1990. This commenter 

proposed that the small operation 

exemption be raised to $10,000 or 

$20,000. Since the $5,000 exemption 

from certification is a specific OFPA 

requirement, an increase in the 

exemption amount must be enacted 

through Congress and cannot be 

amended through the regulatory 

process. 

A veterinarian, who also is an organic 

egg producer, supports the NOP, stating 

there is a good system of certifiers and 

inspectors in place. However, this 

commenter expressed concern with 

changes in poultry health care practices 

and living condition standards being 

advocated by some organizations. The 

comments addressed issues on poultry 

access to pasture, animal behavior, bird 

stocking rate, age of bird, and temporary 

confinement. According to the 

commenter, changes in the organic 

standards on these issues should be 

based upon scientific merit, and not on 

human desires and social interactions. 

During NOSB deliberations, the NOSB 

considered technical information on 

livestock practice standards. In 2009 

and 2011, the NOSB forwarded several 

recommendations on establishing more 

specific animal welfare requirements. 

These recommendations addressed 

issues on animal handling and transport 

and animal welfare, including stocking 

rates and livestock health care. The NOP 

is currently evaluating these 

recommendations to determine how to 

effectively process these 

recommendations through rulemaking. 

Three accredited certifying agents 

provided comments in support of 

continuation of the regulations. A small 

accredited certifying agent commented 

on the burden of the expense of the 

periodic USDA-required accreditation 

audits on small organic certifiers and 

requested that audit fees should be 

scaled upon the size of the certifier. The 

two larger certifying agents also 

commented on the paperwork burden 

on operations seeking certification or 

continuing with certification. One 

certifying agent affirmed the need for 

regulations as critical to assure integrity 

and maintain consumer confidence in 

the organic industry. However, 

comments received from clients 

regarding the regulations were mostly 

concerned with the amount of 

paperwork required for recordkeeping, 

which some considered to be excessive 

and burdensome. This certifying agent 

stated there is a need to streamline 

paperwork and recordkeeping 

requirements for all organic operations. 

Another certifying agent also addressed 

the burden faced by certified operations, 

specifically organic dairy operations 

complying with pasture practice 

standards. This commenter stated that 

the pasture practice standards rule (75 

FR 7154) was not needed, was 

excessively complex, would cause 

significant adverse effects for many 

small farms, and would be difficult for 

certifying agents to effectively 

implement. The NOP is aware of the 

commenter’s concerns and notes that 

the pasture practice standards were 

developed over a period of five years 

with input of multiple stakeholders. 

There were a significant number of oral 

and written responses submitted during 

public comment periods associated with 

the development of this rule. The 

majority of commenters, including 

many dairy operations, supported the 

addition of detailed pasture practice 

standards. 

During NOP trainings for accredited 

certifying agents conducted in 2012 and 

2013, the NOP received statements from 

certifying agents on farmers reporting 

that they are spending too much of their 

time completing program forms and 

maintaining program records. As 

required in 7 CFR 205.103, 

recordkeeping is essential to ensure 

organic operations are implementing 

required organic practice standards. The 

NOP has considered how to minimize 

the regulatory burden when 

implementing the regulations. As a 

result, the NOP began implementing an 

initiative in 2013 to identify and remove 

barriers to certification, to streamline 

the certification process, to focus 

enforcement activities, and to work with 

organic producers and handlers to 

correct small issues before they become 

larger issues. When developing this 

initiative, the NOP outlined five 

objectives: (1) Develop efficient 

processes by eliminating bureaucratic 

processes that do not contribute to 

organic integrity; (2) streamline 

recordkeeping requirements to ensure 

that required records support organic 

integrity and are not a barrier for farms 

and businesses to maintain organic 

compliance; (3) apply common sense to 

an operation’s organic system plans that 

clearly capture organic practices; (4) 

implement fair and focused 

enforcement; and (5) maintain or 

improve organic integrity by focusing on 

factors that impact organic integrity. 

The NOP continues to work with 

certifying agents to implement these 

objectives with regard to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for certifying agents and 

organic producers and handlers. 

Three organic handlers commented 

on the RFA Section 610 review. An 

ingredient processor submitted a 

comment requesting clarification on 

why non-organic ethanol is not 

permitted in the U.S. for use in 

processing organic products. The 

processor stated that their product, 

processed with ethanol, was marketed 

with an organic label in the European 

Union (EU), where ethanol is allowed 

for organic processing in the EU 

regulations. In the U.S., ethanol is 

available in certified organic, natural, 

and synthetic forms. The use of certified 

organic ethanol would be permitted in 

the production of the processor’s 

product under the USDA organic 

regulations. Non-organic ethanol is 

allowed for use in organic crop and 

livestock production as a sanitizer. Nonorganic ethanol cannot be used in 

organic processing under the USDA 

organic regulations since it is not 

included on the National List in either 

7 CFR 205.605 or 7 CFR 205.606. Use of 

non-organic ethanol in organic 

processing requires amendment of the 

National List through the petition 

process to include non-organic ethanol 

on the National List, and subsequent 

rulemaking. 

A beverage association comment 

disagreed with Alcohol, Tobacco Tax, 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) labeling 

requirements for wine that requires 

approval for changes to a vintage year 

on an organic wine label that was 

previously approved. This requirement 

is outside of the scope of the USDA 

organic regulations. The TTB reviews 

and approves wine labels, including any 

requirements for changing the vintage 

year. Under a Memorandum of 

Understanding between AMS and TTB, 

the TTB receives, reviews, and approves 

or rejects labeling applications for 

alcohol products bearing an organic 

claim. TTB has informed the NOP of 

their change in the TTB list of the 

allowable revisions that may be made to 

an approved label without the need for 

resubmission contained on the TTB 

Application for and certification of 

label/bottle approval. TTB removed the 

caveat that the change in vintage dates 

did not apply to organic products. 

A comment from an organic cooperative retailer supported the 

continued need for the regulations. The 

commenter gave a description of the 

positive impacts of the complexity of 

the regulation on their business, and 

emphasized that the regulations do not 

overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other 

Federal, state or local rules for the 

operation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
25900 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

5NOP 5032: Products in the ‘‘made with Organic 

* * * Labeling Category, available in the NOP 

Program Handbook on the NOP Web site at: 

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

6 Draft Guidance NOP 5023: Substances Used in 

Post-Harvest Handling of Organic Products. NOP 

draft guidance can be found on the NOP Web site 

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

7NOP 5030: Evaluating Allowed Ingredients and 

Sources of Vitamins and Minerals For Organic 

Livestock Feed, available in the NOP Program 

Handbook on the NOP Web site at: http://

www.ams.usda.gov/NOPProgramHandbook. 

8National Organic Program; Proposed 

Amendments to the National List of Allowed and 

Prohibited Substances (Crops and Processing); 

Proposed rule; Available on the NOP Web site: 

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

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5104847 

A comment from a consumer claimed 

that certification requirements for 

organic operations are unfair because 

nonorganic operations are not required 

to disclose to the public the uses of 

harmful substances. All food products 

in the normal stream of commerce are 

subject to Federal, state, and local laws 

and regulatory requirements that 

contribute to maintaining food safety 

and restrict or prohibit the use of 

harmful substances. 

Another consumer comment 

expressed support for continuation of 

the regulations. This commenter 

chooses organic products to assure that 

the food is raised humanely and without 

synthetic ingredients. However, the 

commenter also expressed concern that 

the regulations may be more 

burdensome to small dairy operations. 

As noted in prior discussion, the NOP 

started an initiative on 2013 to reduce 

the regulatory burden on organic 

operations. 

An organic agricultural business 

expressed strong support for 

continuation of the regulations. This 

commenter stated that the regulations 

need to be routinely amended since 

organic production is based upon a 

concept of continual improvement, and 

the regulation should adhere to this 

principle. Such amendments should 

take into account innovations and 

improvements by organic practitioners. 

The commenter proposed several 

amendments to the regulations, some of 

these proposed amendments were 

identified as opportunities to decrease 

regulatory complexity and reduce 

regulatory burden without sacrificing 

organic integrity or compromise 

consumer confidence. A summary of 

these proposed amendments include: 

• The NOP should prohibit blending 

of organic and non-organic forms of the 

same ingredient in ‘‘made with organic’’ 

products. On May 2, 2014, the NOP 

published final guidance NOP 5032: 

Products in the ‘‘made with Organic 

* * * Labeling Category to address this 

issue.5 This guidance describes 

requirements for products in the ‘‘made 

with organic (specified ingredients or 

food group(s))’’ category. This guidance 

clarifies product composition, labeling 

claims, use of organic and nonorganic 

forms of the same ingredient, percentage 

of organic ingredient statements, and 

ingredients or food groups in the ‘‘made 

with organic * * *’’ claim. 

• The regulations should allow the 

use of non-synthetic substances allowed 

for use in crop production to control 

pest infestation in post-harvest handling 

pest control when preventive practices 

are ineffective. On April 25, 2014, the 

NOP published draft guidance, NOP 

5023: Substances Used in Post-Harvest 

Handling of Organic Products.6 This 

draft guidance describes substances that 

may be used in post-harvest handling of 

organic products. The guidance 

clarifies: (1) What substances may be 

used; (2) the difference between postharvest handling of raw agricultural 

crops and further processing; and (3) the 

provisions for facility pest management. 

• The NOP should amend 7 CFR 

205.237(a) to allow commercial 

availability to be applied to minor 

agricultural ingredients fed to organic 

livestock to alleviate burden on small 

organic livestock producers. On 

February 28, 2013, the NOP published 

NOP 5030, Evaluating Allowed 

Ingredients and Sources of Vitamins and 

Minerals For Organic Livestock Feed.7

This guidance clarifies the agricultural, 

nonsynthetic, and synthetic ingredients 

permitted in organic livestock feed and 

also addresses the feed supplements and 

feed additives that must be reviewed for 

compliance with regulations. Under the 

USDA organic regulations, organic 

producers must provide livestock feed 

pursuant to 7 CFR 205.237. Section 

205.237 states that agricultural 

ingredients included in the ingredients 

list for livestock feed products must be 

organically produced. 

• The NOP should amend the 

National List petition procedures and 

processes as they are complicated, 

costly, lengthy, arbitrary, and may not 

provide due process to the petitioners. 

In May 2014, the NOP in collaboration 

with the NOSB initiated a process to 

revise National List petition procedures 

in an effort to make the petition 

submission procedures clearer for 

petitioners. The revised procedures will 

clarify how to submit complete 

petitions, explain to petitioners what to 

expect in the petition process, and make 

the review process for the NOSB clearer 

and more consistent. 

• The NOP should increase 

collaboration between NOP and other 

government agencies with authority 

related to organic agricultural 

production. Historically, NOP has 

established and maintained 

collaborative interactions with the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on 

organic food processing and handling 

and livestock healthcare products and 

feed ingredients; with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

on pest control ingredients and 

applications; with TTB on labeling of 

organic alcohol beverages; and with the 

Federal Trade Commission on product 

labeling. As part of these interactions, 

NOP continues to collaborate regarding 

agricultural products that fall within the 

scope of organic certification. 

• The NOP should alter restrictions 

on the use of plastic mulch 

(§ 205.601(b)(2)(ii)) so that 

biodegradable plastic mulch could 

remain on the soil beyond harvest or 

end of the growing season. The 

commenter indicated there is no listing 

for mulch made from biodegradable 

plastic on the National List, and a 

petition would have to be submitted to 

add this new material. In August 2013, 

the NOP published proposed rule (78 

FR 52100), based upon NOSB 

recommendations, which would add a 

new definition for biodegradable 

biobased mulch film to 7 CFR 205.2 and 

add biodegradable biobased mulch film 

to the National List in 7 CFR 205.601 for 

use in organic crop production.8

Upon the completion of the RFA 

Section 610 review of the USDA organic 

regulations, AMS has determined that 

there is no critical need to amend the 

regulations. Since becoming effective on 

the October 21, 2002, there have been 

multiple amendments of the regulations, 

mostly to the National List. Some of 

these amendments have reduced the 

burden on small operations, while some 

amendments, that have served to protect 

organic integrity and support consumer 

confidence, may have increased the 

burden on small operations. Based on 

the findings from the review, AMS has 

determined that the NOP is not overly 

complex and does not significantly 

overlap, or conflict with other 

regulations. 

Based upon the review, AMS has 

determined that the NOP should 

continue. The USDA organic regulations 

are dynamic in nature and the NOP 

continues to collaborate with the NOSB 

and the organic community on 

rulemaking and development of 

guidance documents, such as recently 

published rulemaking on pesticide 

residue testing, and published guidance 

on composting, wild crop harvesting, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 25901 

1The IECC addresses both residential and 

commercial buildings. ASHRAE 90.1 covers 

commercial buildings only, including multifamily 

buildings four or more stories above grade. The 

IECC adopts, by reference, ASHRAE 90.1; that is, 

compliance with ASHRAE 90.1 qualifies as 

compliance with the IECC for commercial 

buildings. 

handling unpackaged organic goods, 

and the list of permitted substances for 

crops. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522. 

Dated: April 30, 2015. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–10446 Filed 5–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

7 CFR Chapter 0 

RIN 0575–ZA00 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Parts 91 and 93 

[HUD FR–5647–N–02] 

RIN 2501–ZA01 

Final Affordability Determination— 

Energy Efficiency Standards 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

ACTION: Notice of Final Determination. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) have determined that adoption 

of the 2009 edition of the International 

Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for 

single family homes and the 2007 

edition of the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Airconditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1 

for multifamily buildings will not 

negatively affect the affordability and 

availability of certain HUD- and USDAassisted housing specified in section 

481 of the Energy and Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). This 

determination fulfills a statutory 

requirement established under EISA 

that HUD and USDA adopt revisions to 

the 2006 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1–2004 

subject to: A determination that the 

revised codes do not negatively affect 

the availability or affordability of new 

construction of single family and 

multifamily housing covered by EISA; 

and a determination by the Secretary of 

Energy that the revised codes ‘‘would 

improve energy efficiency.’’ For the 

more recent IECC and ASHRAE codes 

that have been published since the 

publication of the 2009 IECC and 

ASHRAE 90.1–2007, HUD and USDA 

intend to follow this Notice of Final 

Determination with an advance notice 

that addresses the next steps the 

agencies plan to take on the 2015 IECC 

and ASHRAE 90.1–2013 codes. 

DATES: This notice of final 

determination will be effective 

according to the implementation 

schedule described herein that 

commences no earlier than June 5, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

HUD: Rachel Isacoff, Office of Economic 

Resilience, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., 

Room 10180, Washington, DC 20410; 

telephone number 202–402–3710 (this 

is not a toll-free number). Persons with 

hearing or speech impairments may 

access this number through TTY by 

calling the Federal Relay Service tollfree at 800–877–8339. USDA: Meghan 

Walsh, Rural Housing Service, 

Department of Agriculture, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., Room 

6900–S, Washington, DC 20250; 

telephone number 202–205–9590 (this 

is not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. HUD and USDA Preliminary 

Determination 

C. Public Comments on Preliminary 

Determination 

D. Adoption of Preliminary Determination 

as Final Determination 

II. HUD–USDA Final Affordability 

Determination 

A. Discussion of Market Failures 

B. 2009 IECC Affordability Determination 

1. Current Adoption of the 2009 IECC 

2. 2009 IECC Affordability Analysis 

3. Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Results 

4. Limitations 

5. Distributional Impacts on Low-Income 

Consumers or Low Energy Users 

6. Conclusion 

C. ASHRAE 90.1–2007 Affordability 

Determination 

1. Current Adoption of ASHRAE 90.1–2007 

2. ASHRAE 90.1–2007 Affordability 

Analysis 

3. Energy Savings Analysis 

4. Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Results 

5. Conclusion 

D. Impact on Availability of Housing 

1. Impact of increases in housing prices 

and hedonic effects 

2. Impact of 2009 IECC on Housing 

Availability 

3. Impact of ASHRAE 90.1–2007 on 

Housing Availability 

4. Conclusion 

E. Implementation Schedule 

F. Alternative Compliance Paths 

G. Cost Benefit Analysis 

1. Energy Costs and Savings 

2. Social Benefits of Energy Standards 

III. Findings and Certifications 

A. Environmental Review 

List of Tables: 

1. Current Energy Standards and Incentives 

for HUD and USDA Programs (New 

Construction Only) 

2. Current Status of IECC Adoption by 

State 

3. Life-cycle Cost (LCC) Savings, Net 

Positive Cash Flow, and Simple Payback 

for the 2009 IECC 

4. Quintiles of Income Before Taxes and 

Shares of Average Annual Expenditures 

5. Current Status of ASHRAE Code 

Adoption by State 

6. Estimated Costs and Benefits per 

Dwelling Unit From Adoption of 

ASHRAE 90.1–2007 

7. Estimated Number of HUD- and USDASupported Units Potentially Impacted by 

Adoption of 2009 IECC 

8. Estimated Number of HUD-Assisted 

Units Potentially Impacted by Adoption 

of ASHRAE 90.1–2007 

9. Annualized Value of Reduction in CO2

Emissions 

Appendices: 

1. Covered HUD and USDA Programs 

2. Estimated Energy and Cost Savings From 

Adoption of ASHRAE 90.1–2007 

3. Total Development Cost (TDC) 

Adjustment Factors for States That Have 

Not Adopted ASHRAE 90.1–2007 

4. Estimated Total Costs and Energy Cost 

Savings From Adoption of 2009 IECC 

5. Estimated Total Costs and Energy Cost 

Savings From Adoption of ASHRAE 

90.1–2007 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Requirements 

HUD and USDA have a statutory 

responsibility to adopt minimum energy 

standards for new construction of 

certain HUD- and USDA-assisted 

housing, following procedures 

established in EISA. Section 481 of 

EISA amended section 109 of the 

Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 

Housing Act of 1990 (CranstonGonzalez) (42 U.S.C. 12709), which 

establishes procedures for setting 

minimum energy standards for certain 

HUD and USDA programs. The two 

standards referenced in EISA (the IECC 

and ASHRAE 90.1) apply to different 

building types: the IECC standard 

applies to single family homes and lowrise multifamily buildings (up to three 

stories), while ASHRAE 90.1 applies to 

multifamily mid- or high-rise residential 

buildings (four or more stories).1

The following HUD and USDA 

programs are specified in the statute: 

(A) New construction of public and 

assisted housing and single family and 

multifamily residential housing (other 

than manufactured homes) subject to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES