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

26927 

Vol. 76, No. 90 

Tuesday, May 10, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Document Number AMS–NOP–11–0030; 

NOP–11–07] 

National Organic Program; Notice on 

the Ruminant Slaughter Stock 

Provision of the Access to Pasture 

Rule 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule; discussion of 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This document informs the 

general public that no further action 

will be taken by the National Organic 

Program (NOP) to amend the provision 

on ruminant slaughter stock under the 

NOP regulations. This document 

provides a summary of the comments 

received in response to a request for 

comments on the ruminant slaughter 

stock requirements as codified by the 

final rule on access to pasture published 

on February 17, 2010. Based upon the 

comments received, the rationale 

behind the decision to retain the section 

on livestock living conditions for 

ruminant slaughter stock as codified 

under the NOP regulations is discussed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Bailey, PhD, Director, Standards 

Division, National Organic Program, 

USDA–AMS–NOP, 1400 Independence 

Ave., SW., Room 2646–So., Ag Stop 

0268, Washington, DC 20250–0268; 

telephone: (202) 720–3252; facsimile 

(202) 205–7808; or electronic mail: 

Melissa.Bailey@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NOP 

is authorized by the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) of 1990, as 

amended (7 U.S.C. 6501–6522). The 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

administers the NOP. Under the NOP, 

the AMS oversees national standards for 

the production, handling, and labeling 

of organically produced agricultural 

products. Final regulations 

implementing the National Organic 

Program (NOP) were published 

December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80548), and 

became effective on October 21, 2002. 

On February 17, 2010, the NOP 

published a final rule on the access to 

pasture requirements for livestock (75 

FR 7154). This rule established certain 

conditions that operations raising 

ruminant slaughter stock (also called 

‘‘finish feeding’’ operations) must meet 

under § 205.239(d) of the NOP 

regulations. During the finishing period, 

ruminant slaughter stock are exempt 

from the minimum 30 percent Dry 

Matter Intake (DMI) requirement from 

grazing that other ruminants must meet 

under the livestock feed requirements at 

§ 205.237 of the NOP regulations. 

However, producers must maintain 

slaughter stock on pasture for each day 

that their finishing period overlaps with 

the grazing season for the operation’s 

geographical location. Another 

condition is that the finishing period is 

limited to one-fifth (1⁄5) of the animal’s 

total life or 120 days, whichever is 

shorter. 

Although the access to pasture rule 

was issued as a final rule, the NOP 

invited public comments on the 

ruminant slaughter stock provision at 

§ 205.239(d) of the NOP regulations. As 

discussed in the preamble of the final 

rule (75 FR 7176), the NOP determined 

that it would be prudent to accept 

comment on this provision because the 

proposed rule for access to pasture (73 

FR 63584) did not include an exception 

for ruminant slaughter stock from the 

new livestock feed and living condition 

requirements and, thus, could benefit 

from additional public comment. In the 

final rule, the NOP requested comments 

on three issues related to the ruminant 

slaughter stock provision: (1) 

Infrastructural hurdles and regional 

differences that should be considered, 

(2) the length of the finishing period, 

and (3) the use of feedlots for finishing 

organic slaughter stock. The 60-day 

comment period closed on April 19, 

2010. 

The NOP received over 500 

individual and 14,000 form letter public 

comments in response to the request for 

comments on ruminant slaughter stock. 

The NOP opted to supplement the 

analysis of the comments received with 

two site visits of organic finish feeding 

operations in December 2010. The 

comments received addressed all three 

issues for which we had requested 

feedback as well as some additional 

issues (e.g. labeling) for which we had 

not specifically solicited comments. We 

received comments from organic beef 

producers, state government agencies, 

animal welfare organizations, consumer 

organizations, certifying agents, 

retailers, and a trade association. 

Based upon the comments received, 

the NOP does not believe that action is 

warranted to amend the provision on 

ruminant slaughter stock at § 205.239(d) 

of the NOP regulations. We are issuing 

this document to inform certified 

operations, certifying agents, and the 

general public that further rulemaking 

will not be pursued by the NOP at this 

time. Furthermore, we are issuing this 

document to provide a discussion of the 

comments received and the rationale 

behind our decision to retain 

§ 205.239(d) as codified by the access to 

pasture final rule published on February 

17, 2010. The NOP would like to 

reiterate that operations certified as of 

February 17, 2010 (the publication date 

of the rule) need to be in full 

compliance with the rule, including the 

provision on ruminant slaughter stock at 

§ 205.239(d) of the NOP regulations, by 

June 17, 2011. New organic livestock 

operations must be in full compliance 

with the rule now. 

Discussion of Comments Received on 

Infrastructural Challenges 

One infrastructural consideration 

cited in many comments submitted by 

organic beef producers was their 

concern over the feasibility of 

maintaining slaughter stock on pasture 

without degradation to the environment. 

Their environmental concerns fell into 

two areas: (1) The potential disruption 

to proper nutrient cycling, and (2) soil 

and water contamination. With regard to 

nutrient cycling, many comments 

suggested that if slaughter stock is 

allowed access to pasture, then their 

operations would be unable to collect 

the manure for application to crops, 

thus, adversely impacting the nutrient 

cycling on their farms. These 

commenters asserted that valuable 

nutrients would be left on pasture, 

instead of captured and used on 

cropland, and that this would require 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
26928 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

them to purchase off-farm organic 

fertilizers for their crops. One 

commenter further explained that their 

operation had worked with the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

to invest in a settling basin for the 

collection of runoff from the finish 

feeding yard such that it could be used 

to fertilize their organic crops. They 

suggested that requiring them to 

maintain slaughter stock on pasture 

would eliminate the benefit of that 

investment. 

In consideration of these comments 

on nutrient cycling, we ascertained how 

the requirement to maintain slaughter 

stock on pasture would impact the 

ability of beef producers to promote 

nutrient cycling on their farms. We 

believe that maintaining slaughter stock 

on pasture will not necessarily be an 

impediment to proper nutrient cycling. 

For the period of time that the finishing 

period corresponds with the grazing 

season and, thus, when slaughter stock 

will need to be maintained on pasture, 

nutrients from manure would be 

fertilizing the pasture areas instead of 

captured for use on cropland. While 

some producers might prefer to capture 

and use these nutrients on cropland as 

an alternative to purchasing organic 

fertilizers, the application of manure 

nutrients on pasture does not equate to 

environmental degradation as long as 

the pasture is appropriately managed as 

part of an operation’s organic system. 

We also believe that the provision 

does not preclude the collection of 

manure during the non-grazing season 

and that most producers who have 

infrastructure to capture runoff will 

continue to benefit from this 

infrastructure. With the new provisions 

at § 205.239(d), the period of time 

during which producers would collect 

manure from their feeding area would 

only decrease by the number of days 

that the finishing period corresponds to 

the grazing season (i.e. the days when 

the animals must be maintained on 

pasture). During the non-grazing season, 

producers will still be able to collect the 

majority of the manure from feed areas 

as they collect now and can continue to 

apply the manure they collect to their 

cropland. 

With regard to soil and water 

contamination, some commenters 

expressed concern over the compaction 

and runoff issues that could arise by 

allowing slaughter stock access to 

pasture areas near their feed yards, 

especially after inclement weather, or 

because of the long distances animals 

would need to travel to reach pasture 

areas. These comments cited concern 

over erosion of animal lanes or 

walkways and suggested that allowing 

the use of lanes or walkways might 

conflict with the USDA Natural 

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

plans for nutrient and soil management 

of paddocks. We acknowledge that there 

can be farm specific conditions (e.g. 

areas that receive heavy rainfall) under 

which providing access to pasture areas 

would present a risk to soil and water 

quality. However, producers already 

have the option of including a 

description in their Organic System 

Plan (OSP) of conditions under which 

they anticipate confining livestock in a 

yard or feeding pad due to a risk to soil 

and water quality per § 205.239(b)(4) of 

the NOP regulations. Therefore, we do 

not agree that a change is warranted to 

remove the ‘‘maintain on pasture’’ 

language in the slaughter stock 

provision at § 205.239(d) since 

producers already have a mechanism 

through the NOP to address instances 

during which soil or water quality may 

be put at risk by allowing animals on 

pasture. In addition, if producers need 

to use lanes or walkways because of 

their farm layout, then these should be 

managed accordingly to prevent erosion. 

We encourage producers to engage 

NRCS in discussion about how their 

management approach might need 

modification so they can maintain 

slaughter stock on pasture during the 

period required by the NOP regulations. 

Another infrastructural issue raised 

by producers is that existing feeding 

yards and areas have not been 

constructed near pasture areas, making 

it difficult and cost prohibitive to 

provide a pasture area to slaughter 

stock. A few commenters also suggested 

that putting feed bunks or feeding grains 

in the pasture would be expensive and 

could damage pasture by encouraging 

overuse of the areas that had feed bunks. 

Additional comments propose that this 

would also present a challenge with 

fencing to keep the slaughter stock 

separate from other groups on pasture 

(e.g., a bull with cows); one commenter 

pointed out this would be especially 

difficult if multiple age groups needed 

to be managed separately. 

As a point of clarification, the 

provision does not require producers to 

provide feed rations to slaughter stock 

on the pasture. The provision at 

§ 205.239(d) states that ‘‘yards, feeding 

pads, or feedlots may (emphasis added) 

be used to provide finish feeding 

rations’’ during the period when 

slaughter stock must be maintained on 

pasture. For example, a producer with a 

yard or feeding pad located near a 

pasture area might choose to install a 

lane from the yard to the pasture so 

animals can use the pasture during the 

day while retaining access to their feed 

ration provided at the yard or feeding 

pad. For those with different 

configurations, we recognize that they 

will need to make adjustments to make 

the infrastructure compatible with the 

requirement to maintain animals on 

pasture for certain periods. However, we 

believe that the requirement to maintain 

slaughter stock on pasture for these 

periods is consistent with what has 

always been a requirement of the NOP 

regulations: Providing ruminants with 

access to pasture. We received some 

comments that, in the absence of 

regulatory action by the NOP, producers 

have guided their management practices 

using the 2001 and 2005 National 

Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

recommendations which do not specify 

a requirement to maintain slaughter 

stock on pasture during the finishing 

period. It is critical to remember that 

NOSB recommendations are not 

codified and, therefore, are not legally 

binding. Prior to the access to pasture 

final rule, the NOP regulations did not 

have an allowance for the finishing of 

slaughter stock and, therefore, not 

providing access to pasture during the 

finishing period was a violation of the 

NOP regulations. 

Discussion of Comments Received on 

the Length of the Finishing Period 

The majority of comments received 

voiced support for a finishing period 

during which slaughter stock would 

have access to pasture. Several 

comments received from producers 

suggested changing the length of the 

finishing period from a 120-day, or onefifth of life, (whichever is shorter) 

maximum, to either a 140-day or 160- 

day maximum. Their rationale was that 

the additional time on feed would 

enable them to obtain choice grade beef. 

One commenter further explained that 

the 120-day maximum may not be 

adequate if the nutritional quality of 

grain were to decrease in a particular 

year because of crop conditions. 

Commenters expressed that this issue of 

grading choice could be further 

exacerbated by the fact that slaughter 

stock must be maintained on pasture 

during the finishing period. Since 

slaughter stock on pasture will graze 

during the finishing period and, thus, 

may consume less grain, commenters 

explained that there may be a lower rate 

of gain and lower carcass grade attained 

in the final product. There was also 

uncertainty among commenters about 

whether the ‘‘one-fifth of life’’ condition 

in the rule would be sufficient for 

optimizing carcass quality for bovines 

that reach slaughter weight earlier than 

20 months of age. However, some 

producers agreed that, on average, a 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 26929 

120-day finishing period for bovines 

tends to be adequate and supported the 

rule as written. This position is further 

supported by both the comments 

received on the proposed rule for access 

to pasture and the NOSB 

recommendations from 2001 and 2005, 

which included a 120-day maximum 

finishing period as part of their 

recommendations. 

We believe that the record supports 

retaining the 120-day/one-fifth of life 

finishing period language as currently 

written at § 205.239(d). Many beef 

producers stated that they were 

currently complying with the 2001 

NOSB recommendation and emphasized 

their support for this recommendation. 

The 2001 NOSB recommendation, 

which was supported by these 

comments, references a 120-day 

finishing period. Furthermore, the 2005 

NOSB recommendation states that the 

Board received comments from beef 

producers who indicated that 120-days 

is the amount of time needed to achieve 

‘‘choice’’ grades of beef. In addition, as 

discussed in the access to pasture final 

rule (75 FR 7176), the 120-day period 

was also based upon the typical time 

frame for finishing beef cattle at 18–24 

months of age. The one-fifth of life 

language was added to account for 

livestock who are slaughtered at a much 

younger age than is typical for beef 

animals. We believe it is important to 

retain the one-fifth of life as part of the 

provision, because, in its absence, there 

could be cases in which young animals 

would be denied access to pasture for 

the majority of their lives. This would 

not meet the intent of the access to 

pasture requirements for all ruminants. 

Among the animal welfare and 

environmental organizations who 

commented, several opposed any 

finishing period during which livestock 

are exempt from the 30% DMI from 

pasture. The comments particularly 

target the practice of grain finishing that 

is facilitated by the finish feeding 

exemption. Some of these comments 

requested a shorter finishing period if 

the 30% DMI from pasture exemption is 

retained. Other comments voiced 

conditional support for the 120-day 

finishing period dependent upon the 

retention and clarification of the 

requirement to maintain livestock on 

pasture during the finishing phase. 

Some comments received from animal 

welfare organizations suggested that the 

finishing period is too long, but did not 

explicitly state their reasoning for 

suggesting a shorter finishing period. A 

few comments, both stating their overall 

support for the ruminant slaughter stock 

provision, recommended that certifying 

agents be allowed to determine the 

length of the finishing period that is 

appropriate for regional conditions and 

species-specific differences. 

We believe that the new requirement 

at § 205.239(d) as codified addresses 

many of these concerns while providing 

sufficient flexibility to organic livestock 

producers. It allows producers who feed 

grain to achieve a certain type of organic 

product to continue to do so while 

ensuring that ruminants are maintained 

on pasture for a period of time that 

meets the intent of the access to pasture 

rule, which is, in part, to accommodate 

the natural grazing behavior of 

ruminants. However, it would not be 

reasonable to require that 30% of the 

animal’s DMI come from grazing during 

the finishing period because of the 

amount of grain and free choice hay that 

is typically consumed by slaughter 

stock, even when these animals are 

maintained on pasture. We also believe 

that setting a specific standard of 120 

days or one-fifth of life, rather than 

allowing certifying agents to determine 

the finishing period, will ensure 

consistency across certifiers and a level 

playing field for all producers. 

Discussion of Comments Received on 

the Use of Feedlots 

Many comments opposed the 

exemption of slaughter stock from the 

30% DMI requirement during the 

finishing period and the allowance for 

providing feed rations in yards, feeding 

pads, or feedlots. One producer 

disagreed with allowing slaughter stock 

to be confined for any period of time 

and would prefer a provision that 

requires animals to be maintained on 

pasture their entire lives, not just the 

period of time when finishing overlaps 

with the grazing season. Comments 

received from animal welfare advocacy 

groups also emphasized that exempting 

slaughter stock from being on pasture at 

all times is unnecessary because they 

believe that the majority of organic 

producers do not confine their beef to 

feedlots at any time. These comments 

further asserted that allowing the 

finishing of animals in feed yards is 

contrary to the requirement under the 

NOP regulations to accommodate the 

natural behaviors of the animals. A few 

comments detailed some of the animal 

health and welfare drawbacks to grain 

feeding ruminants in feeding areas and 

advocated for a complete ban on 

providing finish rations in feed yards, 

feeding pads or feedlots. One comment 

suggested that the entire exemption for 

ruminant slaughter stock be deleted, 

arguing that finish feeding operations 

should have to meet consumer 

expectations by following all of the 

access to pasture requirements of the 

NOP regulations. 

While we recognize the concerns 

raised by commenters about 

confinement and animal health and 

welfare issues associated with feedlots, 

yards, and feeding areas, we believe that 

these concerns are already addressed 

throughout the NOP regulations and do 

not require an amendment to the finish 

feeding provisions. For example, under 

§ 205.239(a) of the NOP regulations, 

producers are already required to 

maintain year-round livestock living 

conditions which accommodate the 

health and natural behavior of animals, 

except when temporary confinement is 

deemed necessary according to 

§ 205.239(b) and (c). The health and 

welfare of slaughter stock is also 

addressed by ensuring that yards, 

feeding pads, and feedlots are large 

enough to allow all ruminants 

occupying the area to feed 

simultaneously without crowding and 

without competition for food 

(§ 205.239(d)). Total confinement of 

ruminants in yards, feeding pads, and 

feedlots is prohibited per 

§ 205.239(a)(1). Furthermore, producers 

are already required to manage their 

livestock feed to ensure the health of 

their animals in accordance with 

§ 205.237 and § 205.238(a)(2). We also 

believe that the requirement at 

§ 205.239(d) to maintain slaughter stock 

on pasture when the finishing period 

overlaps with the grazing season 

ensures that animals will have an 

opportunity to graze when forage is 

available. 

Discussion of Comments Received on 

Labeling and Grass-Fed Products 

Many commenters suggested that 

there is a place for both grass finished 

and grain finished beef in the organic 

market. One commenter put forth a 

proposal for a 3-tier labeling system: 

‘‘Organic—Grass Fed/Grain Finished,’’ 

‘‘Organic—Grass Fed/Finished on 

Pasture with Supplemental Grain 

Feeding,’’ ‘‘Organic—100% Grass Fed/ 

Grass Finished.’’ Their recommendation 

suggested that the ‘‘Organic—100% 

Grass-fed/Grass Finished’’ label be a 

hybrid of the organic standards and the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

Quality Systems Verification Program 

standards for ‘‘USDA grass-fed.’’ The 

comments supporting this approach 

suggested that this labeling scheme 

would accommodate the diversity of 

current practices in organic meat 

production and the diversity in 

consumer preference by enabling 

consumers to differentiate among the 

types of finishing practices. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
26930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Some commenters did not 

recommend that NOP adopt a new 

labeling scheme, but instead advised 

that the organic regulations require 

grass-fed claims on organic meat 

products to adhere to the AMS grass-fed 

standard. Furthermore, these 

commenters requested that the NOP 

facilitate a means to obtain organic 

certification and grass-fed verification 

simultaneously via the certifying agent 

of the certified operation. Other 

commenters advised that grass-fed label 

claims are not and should not be within 

the purview of NOP. Each producer, 

they stated, can elect to pursue claims, 

such as grass-fed, in addition to and 

separate from organic certification. 

We do not believe it is practical for 

the NOP to undertake the labeling 

scheme recommended by some 

commenters. The existing NOP 

regulations do not preclude producers 

from consulting with the USDA Food 

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 

about the possibility of modeling their 

labels upon the scheme described by the 

commenters. It is important to note that 

organic producers may request 

verification for a ‘‘Grass Fed’’ label claim 

through the AMS grass-fed process 

verified standard at any time. In 

addition, the NOP identified what 

would be required for certifying agents 

who certify organic to offer ‘‘Grass Fed’’ 

verification under their accreditation 

scope. The certifying agent would need 

to be approved under the ISO Guide 65 

program for organics, request an 

expansion of their accreditation to 

include ‘‘Grass Fed’’ through AMS 

Audit, Review, and Compliance (ARC) 

Services, and engage in a review of the 

process at their next onsite audit with 

ARC. We encourage certifiers to contact 

the NOP for additional information if 

they are interested in pursuing this 

option. 

Dated: April 28, 2011. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11013 Filed 5–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1150 

[Document No. DA–11–03: AMS–DA–08– 

0050] 

Dairy Promotion and Research 

Program; Importer Nominations to the 

Dairy Promotion and Research Board 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Rule. 

SUMMARY: This action is pursuant to the 

Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 

1983 (Dairy Act), as amended, and the 

Dairy Promotion and Research Order 

(Dairy Order), as amended, which 

require the Secretary of Agriculture to 

add importer representation, initially 

two members, to the National Dairy 

Promotion and Research Board (Dairy 

Board). USDA is seeking nominations of 

importers to be considered for 

appointment to the Dairy Board. 

DATES: Nominations must be received 

on or before June 9, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Whitney Rick, USDA, AMS, Dairy 

Programs, Promotion and Research 

Branch, Stop 0233–Room 2958–S, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0233, (202) 720– 

6909, Whitney.Rick@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document is being issued pursuant to 

the Dairy Production Stabilization Act 

of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501–4514), Public 

Law 98–180, enacted November 29, 

1983, as amended May 13, 2002, by 

Public Law 107–171 and further 

amended June 18, 2008, by Public Law 

110–246, and the Dairy Order, as 

amended under the Final Rule [76 FR 

14777; published in the Federal 

Register on March 18, 2011]. 

The Dairy Board was established 

under the Dairy Production 

Stabilization Act of 1983 (Dairy Act) to 

develop and administer a coordinated 

program of promotion, research, and 

nutrition education. Importer 

representation on the Dairy Board was 

mandated by the 2002 amendments to 

the Dairy Act. The Dairy Board is 

authorized to design programs to 

strengthen the dairy industry’s position 

in domestic and foreign markets. The 

program is financed by a mandatory 15- 

cent per hundredweight assessment on 

all milk produced in the United States 

and marketed commercially and a 7.5- 

cent per hundredweight assessment on 

milk, or equivalent thereof, used to 

produce dairy products imported into 

the United States. Assessments on dairy 

products imported into the United 

States are effective beginning on August 

1, 2011, as published in the March 18, 

2011, Final Rule. 

The Dairy Order states that, initially, 

importers will be represented on the 

Dairy Board by two importer members 

appointed by the Secretary. Thereafter, 

importer representation on the Dairy 

Board will be reviewed at least once 

every three years, and adjusted to reflect 

the volume of imports relative to 

domestic production of milk. 

For the initial importer nominations, 

the Secretary will appoint two 

individuals from those nominated to 

serve as importer members on the 

Board. The length of a member’s term 

will be three years. In order to properly 

coordinate the terms of importers with 

those of dairy farmer members and to 

stagger the two terms, initially one 

importer member will serve a two-year 

term ending October 31, 2013, and one 

importer member will serve a term 

ending October 31, 2014. 

Importer nominees must be importers 

of dairy products and will be subject to 

the assessment to fund the National 

Dairy Promotion and Research Program. 

Such nominations may be submitted by 

individual importers of dairy products 

or by organizations representing dairy 

importers, as approved by the Secretary. 

Individual importers submitting 

nominations to represent importers on 

the Dairy Board must establish, to the 

satisfaction of the Secretary that the 

person submitting the nomination is an 

importer of dairy products. Importer 

organizations must adequately represent 

importers of dairy products under the 

primary determining considerations of 

whether its membership consist 

primarily of importers of dairy products 

and whether a substantial interest of the 

organization is in the importation of 

dairy products. An importer means a 

person that imports dairy products into 

the United States as a principal or as an 

agent, broker, or consignee of any 

person who produces or handles dairy 

products outside of the United States for 

sale in the United States, and who is 

listed as the importer of record for such 

dairy products. 

For nominating forms and 

information, interested parties should 

contact Whitney Rick, USDA, AMS, 

Dairy Programs, Promotion and 

Research Branch, Stop 0233–Room 

2958–S, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20250–0233, (202) 

720–6909, Whitney.Rick@ams.usda.gov. 

The forms also can be accessed online 

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

dairyimportassessment. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES