61154 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

post-employment restrictions of 18 

U.S.C. 207(c) and (f) if the rate of basic 

pay for the position is equal to or greater 

than 86.5 percent of the rate of basic pay 

payable for level II of the Executive 

Schedule. 

As stated in 5 CFR 2641.301(j)(3)(ii), 

the Director of OGE is required to 

‘‘maintain a listing of positions or 

categories of positions in Appendix A to 

[5 CFR part 2641] for which the 18 

U.S.C. 207(c) restriction has been 

waived.’’ As such, Appendix A of this 

part is being amended to remove 

references to those SEC positions that 

are no longer exempt from the 

restrictions of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) and (f). 

These positions include: Solicitor, 

Office of General Counsel; Chief 

Litigation Counsel, Division of 

Enforcement; Deputy Chief Litigation 

Counsel, Division of Enforcement; SK– 

17 Positions; SK–16 and lower-graded 

SK positions supervised by employees 

in SK–17 positions; and SK–16 and 

lower-graded SK positions not 

supervised by employees in SK–17 

positions. 

I. Matters of Regulatory Procedure 

Administrative Procedure Act 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), rules 

relating to agency management or 

personnel are exempt from the notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA). Further, under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(A), notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements do not apply 

to rules concerning matters of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice. 

Given that this rule concerns matters of 

agency management or personnel, and 

organization, procedure, or practice, the 

notice and comment requirements of the 

APA do not apply here. Even if this 

rulemaking were subject to APA 

proposed rulemaking procedures, OGE 

finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B), to waive the notice and 

comment requirements of the APA. The 

codification of OGE’s revocation of 

exempted positions is technical in 

nature, and it is important and in the 

public interest that the codification of 

OGE’s revocation of exempted positions 

be published in the Federal Register as 

promptly as possible. For these reasons, 

OGE is issuing this regulation as a final 

rule effective 90 days after publication. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

As Director of the Office of 

Government Ethics, I certify under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

chapter 6) that this final rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because it primarily affects current and 

former Federal executive branch 

employees. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply 

because this regulation does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

For purposes of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

chapter 5, subchapter II), this final rule 

would not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments and will not 

result in increased expenditures by 

State, local, and tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (as adjusted for 

inflation) in any one year. 

Executive Order 12866 

In promulgating this final rule, the 

Office of Government Ethics has 

adhered to the regulatory philosophy 

and the applicable principles of 

regulation set forth in section 1 of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review. This rule has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under that 

Executive order since it deals with 

agency organization, management, and 

personnel matters and is not 

‘‘significant’’ under the order. 

Executive Order 12988 

As Director of the Office of 

Government Ethics, I have reviewed this 

final rule in light of section 3 of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, and certify that it meets the 

applicable standards provided therein. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 2641 

Conflict of interests, Government 

employees. 

Approved: September 19, 2013. 

Walter M. Shaub, Jr., 

Director, Office of Government Ethics. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, the Office of 

Government Ethics is amending part 

2641 of subchapter B of chapter XVI of 

title 5 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 2641—POST-EMPLOYMENT 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

RESTRICTIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2641 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in 

Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. 207; E.O. 

12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 

215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 

3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306. 

■ 2. Effective January 2, 2014, Appendix 

A to part 2641 is amended by removing 

the listing for the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (and all positions 

thereunder). 

[FR Doc. 2013–23346 Filed 10–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6345–03–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Document Number AMS–NOP–11–0003; 

NOP–10–13FR] 

RIN 0581–AD13 

National Organic Program (NOP); 

Sunset Review (2013) 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule addresses 

recommendations submitted to the 

Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) by 

the National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB) following their November 2011 

and May 2012 meetings. These 

recommendations pertain to the 2013 

Sunset Review of substances on the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

National List of Allowed and Prohibited 

Substances (National List). Consistent 

with the recommendations from the 

NOSB, this final rule continues the 

allowed uses of multiple synthetic and 

nonsynthetic substances and the 

prohibition of one nonsynthetic 

substance on the National List (along 

with any restrictive annotations). This 

rule also removes one synthetic 

substance from the National List. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

3, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Bailey, Ph.D., Director, 

Standards Division, Telephone: (202) 

720–3252; Fax: (202) 205–7808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Organic Foods Production Act of 

1990 (OFPA) (7 U.S.C. 6501–6522) 

authorizes the establishment of the 

National List of Allowed and Prohibited 

Substances (National List). The National 

List, a subpart within the USDA organic 

regulations (7 CFR 205.600 through 

205.607), identifies synthetic substances 

that may be used in organic production 

and nonsynthetic (natural) substances 

that are prohibited in organic crop and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61155 

livestock production. The National List 

also identifies nonagricultural 

nonsynthetic, nonagricultural synthetic 

and nonorganic agricultural substances 

that may be used in organic handling. 

The exemptions and prohibitions 

granted on the National List are required 

to be reviewed every 5 years under 

OFPA by the National Organic 

Standards Board (NOSB). The Secretary 

of Agriculture has authority under 

OFPA to renew such exemptions and 

prohibitions. If substances are not 

reviewed by the NOSB within 5 years of 

their inclusion on the National List and 

renewed by the Secretary, their 

authorized use or prohibition expires. 

On June 1, 2011, the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) published an 

Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) (76 FR 31495) in 

the Federal Register, announcing the 

NOSB’s review of exempted and 

prohibited substances due to sunset in 

2013. AMS posted these comments for 

public review and provided these 

comments to the NOSB in advance of 

their review of these substances. At its 

November 2011 and May 2012 meetings, 

the NOSB reviewed the substances 

shown in Table 1 under the 2013 Sunset 

review. Based on its review, the NOSB 

provided the following 

recommendations for consideration by 

the Secretary: (1) Renew multiple 

exemptions and one prohibition without 

change; (2) remove an exemption for 

one synthetic substance, tartaric acid; 

and (3) amend the exemptions for two 

synthetic substances, EPA List 3—Inerts 

of unknown toxicity and cellulose, and 

one nonsynthetic substance, 

carrageenan. The NOSB also issued 

second recommendations for EPA List— 

3 Inerts, cellulose, and carrageenan for 

the purpose of renewing their existing 

listings if carrying out the NOSB 

recommendations to restrict these 

substances was not feasible. Based on 

the NOSB recommendations, AMS 

published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register (78 FR 25879) on May 

3, 2013, to address the continued use or 

prohibition of these substances on the 

National List in organic production and 

handling. Comments received on the 

proposed rule and AMS’ response is 

addressed in COMMENTS RECEIVED 

ON PROPOSED RULE NOP–10–13PR. 

In response to the sunset provision in 

OFPA, this final rule addresses multiple 

recommendations submitted to the 

Secretary by the NOSB pertaining to 

substances due to sunset (i.e. expire) 

from the National List in 2013. In 

consideration of the impending Sunset 

date of November 3, 2013 for these 

substances, the information available, 

the requirements of OFPA, and the need 

to look at the potential impacts on small 

businesses, this final rule renews, 

without change, multiple exemptions 

(uses) and a prohibition on the National 

List (along with any restrictive 

annotations) for 5 years. A list of these 

substances and AMS’ actions are 

provided in Table 1. This final rule also 

removes the exemption for one 

substance on the National List. 

Under the authority of OFPA, the 

National List can be amended by the 

Secretary based on proposed 

amendments developed by the NOSB. 

Since established, AMS has published 

multiple amendments to the National 

List beginning on October 31, 2003 (68 

FR 61987). AMS published the most 

recent amendment to the National List 

on May 28, 2013 (78 FR 31815). 

II. Overview of Final Actions 

Table 1 provides an overview of final 

actions for designated sections of the 

National List. The actions pertaining to 

all listings will be effective on 

November 3, 2013. Pursuant to the 

sunset provisions in OFPA, the new 

sunset date for all listings is five years 

from the effective date of their renewal. 

TABLE 1—OVERVIEW OF FINAL ACTIONS FOR SUNSET 2013 

National list 

section Substance listing Final action 

Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production 

205.601(a)(3) .... Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which 

do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by 

the producer and accredited certifying agent.

Renew. 

205.601(a)(5) .... Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only .................................................. Renew.

205.601(a)(6) .... Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated 

planting material.1

Addressed through separate rulemaking action; see May 28, 

2013 final rule (78 FR 31815). 

205.601(e)(4) .... Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited 

to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited 

to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe 

agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.

Renew. 

205.601(i)(8) ..... Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria.1 Addressed through separate rulemaking action; see May 28, 

2013 final rule (78 FR 31815). 

205.601(m)(2) ... EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity—for use only in passive pheromone dispensers. Renew. 

Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production 

205.602(c) ......... Calcium chloride, brine process is natural and prohibited for use except as a foliar spray 

to treat a physiological disorder associated with calcium uptake.

Renew. 

Nonsynthetic, nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as ‘‘organic’’ or 

‘‘made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))’’ 

205.605(a) ......... Agar-agar ............................................................................................................................. Renew. 

205.605(a) ......... Animal enzymes—(Rennet—animals derived; Catalase—bovine liver; Animal lipase; 

Pancreatin; Pepsin; and Trypsin).

Renew. 

205.605(a) ......... Calcium sulfate—mined ...................................................................................................... Renew. 

205.605(a) ......... Carrageenan ........................................................................................................................ Renew. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
61156 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—OVERVIEW OF FINAL ACTIONS FOR SUNSET 2013—Continued 

National list 

section Substance listing Final action 

205.605(a) ......... Glucono delta-lactone—production by the oxidation of D-glucose with bromine water is 

prohibited.

Renew. 

205.605(a) ......... Tartaric acid—made from grape wine ................................................................................. Renew. 

Synthetic, nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as ‘‘organic’’ or ‘‘made 

with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))’’ 

205.605(b) ......... Cellulose—for use in regenerative casings, as an anti-caking agent (non-chlorine 

bleached) and filtering aid.

Renew. 

205.605(b) ......... Tartaric acid—made from malic acid .................................................................................. Remove. 

1The current annotations for peracetic acid can be found at 7 CFR Part 205.601(a)(6) and (i)(8). 

Renewals 

Consistent with the NOSB 

recommendations and in consideration 

of the public comments received on the 

proposed rule (78 FR 25879), this final 

rule renews multiple listings pertaining 

to the National List. 

This final rule continues the 

exemptions at section 205.601, along 

with any restrictive annotations, for the 

following synthetic substances allowed 

for use in organic crop production as 

shown in Table 1: copper sulfate (2 

uses), ozone gas, and EPA List 3—Inerts. 

This final rule continues the 

prohibition at section 205.602, along 

with its restrictive use annotation, for 

the nonsynthetic substance prohibited 

for use in organic crop production as 

shown in Table 1: calcium chloride. 

This final rule continues the 

exemptions at section 205.605(a), along 

with any restrictive annotations, for the 

nonsynthetic, nonagricultural 

(nonorganic) substances allowed as 

ingredients in or on processed products 

labeled as ‘‘organic’’ or ‘‘made with 

organic (specified ingredients or food 

group(s))’’ as shown in Table 1: agaragar, animal enzymes, carrageenan, 

tartaric acid—made from grape wine, 

calcium sulfate, and glucono deltalactone. 

This final rule continues the 

exemption at section 205.605(b), along 

with its restrictive annotation, for the 

nonorganically produced agricultural 

product allowed as an ingredient in or 

on processed products labeled as 

‘‘organic’’ as shown in Table 1: 

cellulose. 

Nonrenewals 

Section 205.601 Synthetic Substances 

Allowed for Use in Organic Crop 

Production 

The renewals for peracetic acid are 

not addressed in this final rule for 

Sunset 2013. Instead, AMS completed 

rulemaking on a 2009 NOSB 

recommendation to ensure the listings 

for peracetic acid on the National List 

aligned with EPA labeling requirements. 

This final rule amended the section 

205.601(a)(6) and 205.601(i)(8) 

exemptions for peracetic acid on May 

28, 2013 (78 FR 31815). This 

amendment was completed prior to the 

November 3, 2013, sunset date for 

peracetic acid; therefore, the previous 

listings for peracetic acid do not need to 

be renewed under this rulemaking 

action. 

Section 205.605 Nonagricultural 

(Nonorganic) Substances Allowed as 

Ingredients in or on Processed Products 

Labeled as ‘‘Organic’’ or ‘‘Made With 

Organic (Specified Ingredients or Food 

Group(s))’’ 

This final rule amends section 

205.605(b) of the National List by 

removing the exemption for the listing 

for tartaric acid—made from malic acid. 

This amendment is effective on 

November 3, 2013. 

III. Related Documents 

An Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) with request for 

comments was published in Federal 

Register on June 1, 2011 (76 FR 31495) 

to notify the public that the listings 

discussed in this final rule would expire 

on November 3, 2013 if not reviewed by 

the NOSB and renewed by the 

Secretary. Substances and 

recommendations addressed through 

this final rule were announced for 

NOSB deliberations in the following 

Federal Register notices: (1) October 7, 

2011 (76 FR 62336); and (2) April 9, 

2012 (77 FR 21067). The proposal to 

address the substances in this final rule 

was published as a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register on May 3, 2013 (78 FR 

25879). 

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

OFPA, as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501– 

6522), authorizes the Secretary to make 

amendments to the National List based 

on proposed amendments developed by 

the NOSB. Sections 6518(k)(2) and 

6518(n) of OFPA authorize the NOSB to 

develop proposed amendments to the 

National List for submission to the 

Secretary and establish a petition 

process by which persons may petition 

the NOSB for the purpose of having 

substances evaluated for inclusion on or 

deletion from the National List. The 

National List petition process is 

implemented under section 205.607 of 

the USDA organic regulations. The 

current petition process was published 

on January 18, 2007 (72 FR 2167) and 

can be accessed through the NOP Web 

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

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

AMS has determined that according 

to the criteria defined in Executive 

Order 12866 and Executive Order 

13563, this rule change is not a 

significant regulatory action. As such, 

the rule is not subject to Office of 

Management and Budget review. 

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 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 section 

2115(b) of OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6514(b)). 

States are also preempted under section 

2104 through 2108 of OFPA (7 U.S.C. 

6503 through 6507) from creating 

certification programs to certify organic 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61157 

2U.S. Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. October 2012. 2011 

Certified Organic Productions Survey. http://

usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/

OrganicProduction/OrganicProduction-10-04- 

2012.pdf. 

3Organic Trade Association. 2012. Organic 

Industry Survey. www.ota.com. 

farms or handling operations unless the 

State programs have been submitted to, 

and approved by, the Secretary as 

meeting the requirements of OFPA. 

Pursuant to section 2108(b)(2) of 

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 OFPA, (b) not 

be inconsistent with 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 section 2120(f) of OFPA 

(7 U.S.C. 6519(f)), this rule would not 

alter the authority of the Secretary 

under the Federal Meat Inspection Act 

(21 U.S.C. 601–624), the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451– 

471), or the Egg Products Inspection Act 

(21 U.S.C. 1031–1056), concerning meat, 

poultry, and egg products, nor any of 

the authorities of the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services under the Federal 

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

301–399), nor the authority of the 

Administrator of EPA under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (7 U.S.C. 136–136(y)). 

Section 2121 of 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. OFPA also provides that the 

U.S. District Court for the district in 

which a person is located has 

jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s 

decision. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires agencies to 

consider the economic impact of each 

rule on small entities and evaluate 

alternatives that would accomplish the 

objectives of the rule without unduly 

burdening small entities or erecting 

barriers that would restrict their ability 

to compete in the market. The purpose 

of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to 

the scale of businesses subject to the 

action. Section 605 of the RFA allows an 

agency to certify a rule, in lieu of 

preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking 

is not expected to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Small agricultural service firms, 

which include producers, handlers, and 

accredited certifying agents, have been 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) 

as those having annual receipts of less 

than $7,000,000 and small agricultural 

producers are defined as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000. 

According to USDA, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 

certified organic acreage exceeded 3.5 

million acres in 2011.2 According to 

NOP’s Accreditation and International 

Activities Division, the number of 

certified U.S. organic crop and livestock 

operations totaled over 17,750 in 2012. 

There were also 10,850 certified organic 

handling operations worldwide in 2012. 

AMS believes that most of these entities 

would be considered small entities 

under the criteria established by the 

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

to $31.4 billion in 2011. Sales in 2011 

represented 9.5 percent growth over 

2010 sales.3

In addition, the USDA has 84 

accredited certifying agents who 

provide certification services to 

producers and handlers. A complete list 

of names and addresses of accredited 

certifying agents may be found on the 

AMS NOP Web site, at http://

www.ams.usda.gov/nop. AMS believes 

that most of these accredited certifying 

agents would be considered small 

entities under the criteria established by 

the SBA. 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in the RFA, AMS 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 continued use of 

additional substances in agricultural 

production and handling. AMS 

concludes that the economic impact of 

continuing the allowance for Sunset 

2013 substances would avoid market 

disruption and would be beneficial to 

small agricultural service firms. The 

effect of the removal of one synthetic 

substance, tartaric acid, would be 

minimal to small agricultural firms 

since a nonsynthetic form of tartaric 

acid from grape wine is commercially 

available and is the predominant form 

of this substance used in organic 

processed products. The allowance for 

nonsynthetic tartaric acid will be 

renewed under this rule. Accordingly, 

AMS certifies that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

No additional collection or 

recordkeeping requirements are 

imposed on the public by this final rule. 

Accordingly, OMB clearance is not 

required by section 350(h) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 

U.S.C. 3501, Chapter 35, or OMB’s 

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 

1320. 

E. Executive Order 13175 

This final rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. The review reveals that 

this regulation will not have substantial 

and direct effects on Tribal governments 

and will not have significant Tribal 

implications. 

F. Comments Received on Proposed 

Rule NOP–10–13PR 

AMS received over 3,100 comments 

on proposed rule AMS–NOP–11–0003; 

NOP–10–13PR. Comments were 

received from organic crop producers, 

crop distributors, organic handlers, 

consumers, accredited certifying agents, 

trade associations, non-profit 

organizations, growers associations, and 

advocacy groups. AMS also received 

two comments that were submitted after 

the close of the comment period and 

therefore were not considered herein. 

Some comments presented concerns 

that are not within the scope of the 

sunset review action. Several comments 

stated their general opposition to the 

allowance of synthetics in organic 

production and some commenters 

restated this and specifically cited their 

opposition to all of the substances 

proposed for renewal in the proposed 

rule. 

All comments on the proposed 

renewal for animal enzymes, calcium 

chloride, ozone gas and tartaric acid 

made from grape wine were supportive 

of the action as proposed. Therefore, 

AMS is finalizing the amendments as 

proposed through this final rule. 

As stated in the proposed rule, the 

NOSB provided AMS with two 

recommendations for each of the 

following three substances—EPA List 3 

Inerts, carrageenan, and cellulose. The 

NOSB provided the two 

recommendations based on the ‘‘Sunset 

Review Process’’ section of the NOSB’s 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
61158 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Policy and Procedures Manual. The first 

NOSB Sunset recommendation for each 

of these substances recommended new 

restrictions on their allowance in 

organic production or handling as 

follows: 

a. EPA List 3 Inerts: amend the 

current listing and also include an 

expiration date of October 21, 2017, 

after which these substances could not 

be used; 

b. carrageenan: (1) Indicate specific 

allowed forms of carrageenan by 

Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) 

number; and (2) prohibit its use in 

organic infant formula; and 

c. cellulose: prohibit the 

microcrystalline form of this substance 

by specifying the forms that are allowed. 

The second NOSB recommendation 

for each substance recommended to 

renew the existing listings as codified. 

Based on our review, AMS proposed to 

implement the NOSB’s second 

recommendations to renew the existing 

listings instead of adding new 

restrictions on these three substances. 

For this reason, over 2,400 comments 

requested the withdrawal of the 

proposed rule. The commenter’s reasons 

for this request are described below in 

conjunction with AMS’ response. 

Numerous comments asserted that the 

NOSB’s second recommendations to 

renew EPA List 3 Inerts, carrageenan 

and cellulose were intended for the 

Secretary to act upon only if an 

unavoidable administrative delay makes 

completion of rulemaking regarding the 

first recommendations for these 

substances impossible before the 

November 3, 2013 sunset date. These 

comments state that AMS’ action to 

implement the NOSB recommendations 

to renew on grounds other than an 

administrative delay is equivalent to a 

violation of OFPA. Most of these same 

commenters also stated that the NOSB 

first recommendations to amend the 

annotations for these three substances 

were based on NOSB’s findings of 

unacceptable human health and 

environmental effects associated with 

their current allowance. Many 

commenters also cited that these 

renewals would constitute an addition 

of a synthetic substance to the National 

List by AMS, which would violate 7 

U.S.C. 6517(d)(2). 

AMS disagrees with these positions. 

Carrageenan is listed as a nonsynthetic 

substance, and therefore its renewal 

could not be in violation of OFPA (7 

U.S.C. 6517(d)(2)) because it is not a 

synthetic substance. The NOSB 

provided AMS with two NOSB 

recommendations for each of these 

substances—one to renew the listing 

and one to add new restrictions to its 

current use. Consistent with the 

provisions of OFPA, AMS has 

determined that the second 

recommendation in each case should be 

implemented. The proposed rule 

reflected AMS’s independent review 

and explained in detail why accepting 

the NOSB’s first recommendations to 

amend the annotations for EPA List 3 

Inerts, carrageenan, and cellulose was 

not appropriate and, therefore, 

rulemaking action could not be 

implemented prior to the November 3, 

2013 sunset date. Further, AMS has 

collected additional feedback through 

public comment submitted in response 

to the proposed rule that supports its 

proposal. For these reasons, AMS is 

implementing the NOSB’s second 

recommendations to renew these 

substances through this final rule. A 

summary of AMS’ justification for each 

of the three substances is provided 

below. 

EPA List 3—Inerts of Unknown Toxicity 

AMS received approximately 60 

comments on the proposed action to 

renew the listing for EPA List 3 Inert 

ingredients. The majority of comments 

stated that AMS should not adopt the 

proposed rule; instead, the commenters 

supported the NOSB’s first 

recommendation to add new restrictions 

on alternative EPA List 3 Inerts. A 

minority of commenters opposed the 

allowance of any synthetic materials in 

organic crop production, but did not 

provide information on alternative 

practices or alternative substances that 

may substitute for the use of EPA List 

3 inert ingredients. Two commenters 

supported the action as proposed by 

AMS. 

Comments that did not support the 

proposed action claimed that: (1) The 

proposed action violated OFPA; (2) 

AMS ignored an NOSB recommendation 

for EPA List 3 Inerts; and (3) the 

renewal of the listing without an 

expiration date would delay or prevent 

the NOSB review of inert ingredients. 

Some commenters indicated that 

AMS should issue a new proposed rule 

consistent with the NOSB’s first 

recommendation for EPA List 3 Inerts. 

This recommendation included the 

following changes the listing for EPA 

List 3 Inerts: (1) Modification to the 

introductory text at section 205.601(m); 

(2) amending the listing and annotation 

for EPA List 3 Inerts to read as follows: 

‘‘Inert ingredients exempt from the 

requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 

180.1122 that were formerly on EPA List 

3 in passive polymeric dispenser 

products may be used until October 21, 

2017;’’ and (3) amending section 205.2 

to add a definition for ‘‘passive 

polymeric dispenser products’’ that is 

intended to be removed in coordination 

with the proposed expiration date of 

October 21, 2017. 

In the proposed rule, AMS proposed 

renewal of the current listing for EPA 

List 3 Inerts, without any changes or 

addition of an expiration date. The 

NOSB provided two recommendations 

regarding EPA List 3 Inerts, and the 

proposed rule, implemented as final 

through this action, aligns with the 

second recommendation, which meets 

the requirements under OFPA. As stated 

in the proposed rule, AMS recognizes 

the intent of the NOSB to address the 

complex challenges presented by the 

out-of-date listings for EPA List 3 and 

EPA List 4 Inerts in a timely manner. 

However, a rulemaking action to add an 

expiration date to the listing for EPA 

List 3 Inerts as part of the Sunset 

Review would not be appropriate if the 

timeline for the ongoing NOSB Inerts 

review takes longer than projected. 

One commenter noted that the 

NOSB’s expiration date should not be 

problematic because there is only a 

small number of EPA List 3 materials to 

review before October 2017 and that 

NOP and NOSB could prioritize this 

work. Other commenters indicated that 

the intent of the NOSB with its first 

recommendation was to ensure that 

inert ingredients are reviewed prior to 

October 2017. 

Currently, there is also ongoing work 

within the NOSB to review additional 

(e.g., EPA List 4) inert ingredients that 

will be addressed by the NOSB in other 

recommendations on inert ingredients. 

The NOSB, as part of an Inerts Working 

Group, is in the process of establishing 

reviews for all inert ingredients in 

pesticides used in organic production. 

These include former EPA List 3 and 

EPA List 4 Inerts. The overall review of 

inerts represents a larger number of 

substances than that which was 

indicated by one of the commenters. 

Given these circumstances, it is 

appropriate to accept the NOSB’s 

second recommendation so that the 

NOSB has sufficient time to address 

inert ingredients and make additional 

recommendations. 

One commenter supported the 

proposed relisting of EPA List 3 Inerts 

as proposed by AMS and noted that the 

expiration date of October 21, 2017 was 

arbitrary given that the NOSB review of 

inert ingredients may not complete by 

that date. The commenter noted that the 

expiration in 2017 would have 

detrimental impacts on organic 

operators and input suppliers. AMS 

agrees with the commenter and is not 

adding the 2017 expiration date to the 

EPA List 3 Inerts listing for this reason. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61159 

4Handling Subcommittee Proposal on 

Carrageenan. February, 21, 2012. Available at the 

NOP Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ 

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5097825&acct=nosb. 

5NOSB Recommendation on Carrageenan. May 

25, 2012. Available at the NOP Web site: http://

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

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5098921. 

One commenter suggested that AMS 

adopt the renewed listing as an interim 

rule, and secondarily ask the NOSB to 

reconsider the sunset extension based 

on the specific agency concerns. AMS 

has not adopted this suggestion. The 

NOSB should continue its review of 

EPA List 3 Inerts under its current 

process for reviewing Inerts, rather than 

redirect its efforts to provide additional 

support for its previous sunset 

recommendation to change the listing in 

advance of completion of this work. 

In summary, after consideration of the 

recommendation and the comments 

received, AMS is implementing the 

second NOSB recommendation to renew 

the existing listing for EPA List 3 Inerts 

through this final rule as proposed. 

Carrageenan 

AMS received approximately 130 

comments specific to the proposed 

action to renew the existing listing for 

carrageenan. The majority of comments 

stated that AMS should not adopt the 

proposed rule; instead, the commenters 

supported either the NOSB’s first 

recommendation to prohibit the use of 

carrageenan in infant formula and add 

CAS numbers or a prohibition of the use 

of the substance in organic processed 

products altogether. AMS also received 

a comment from a non-profit 

organization which had gathered over 

14,000 signatures in support of 

removing carrageenan from the National 

List. Approximately 40 commenters 

supported the action as proposed. 

Comments that did not support the 

proposed action claimed that: (1) 

Carrageenan in food and infant formula 

is not safe for human consumption; and 

(2) the proposed action is not based on 

sound science. One commenter stated 

that he had submitted two petitions to 

the FDA requesting (1) that the food 

additive regulations be amended to 

prohibit the use of carrageenan in infant 

formula; and (2) that the FDA 

designation of ‘‘Generally recognized as 

safe’’ (GRAS) for carrageenan in infant 

formula be reconsidered. 

Prior to the May 2012 NOSB meeting, 

the Handling Subcommittee conducted 

a review of past NOSB 

recommendations, technical reports, 

historical documents, and public 

comments and concluded that the 

available information indicates that the 

substance is essential for organic 

production, is compatible with organic 

production practices, and does not 

reveal unacceptable risks to the 

environment, human, or animal health 

as a result of its use or manufacture.4

Neither the Handling Subcommittee 

proposal submitted prior to the NOSB 

meeting nor the full NOSB issued a 

recommendation stating that 

carrageenan use in food should be 

prohibited.5 AMS concurs with this 

determination. 

Both commenters and the FDA have 

identified many deficiencies in the 

literature regarding the gastrointestinal 

toxicity of carrageenan, concluding 

there is no information clearly 

demonstrating that there is evidence for 

a carcinogenic effect for food grade 

carrageenan use in foods or infant 

formula. Other commenters stated that 

subsequent research has continued to 

support the conclusion that food grade 

carrageenan is safe. AMS conducted an 

independent review which included 

consultation with the FDA to gain a 

detailed understanding of the relevant 

regulations allowing for the use of 

carrageenan in foods or infant formula. 

The FDA, as the food safety authority in 

the U.S., maintains that carrageenan is 

safe for use in foods and infant formulas 

as codified. If in the future the FDA does 

issue a finding supporting a prohibition 

of carrageenan in any or all foods, AMS 

will take appropriate action, if needed, 

to come into alignment with this 

finding. A request to amend the 

annotation for this substance or remove 

it from the National List would require 

a petition to the NOSB. 

In summary, the NOSB provided two 

recommendations regarding 

carrageenan, and the proposed rule 

aligns with the second recommendation, 

which meets the requirements under 

OFPA. After consideration of the 

recommendation and the comments 

received, AMS has determined that it is 

appropriate to accept the NOSB’s 

second recommendation and renew the 

listing for carrageenan through this final 

rule as proposed. 

Cellulose 

AMS received approximately 20 

comments on the proposed action 

specific to cellulose. Roughly half of 

these comments opposed the proposed 

action. These statements concurred with 

the NOSB’s first recommendation that 

contrary to the powdered form of 

cellulose, the microcrystalline form of 

cellulose is a heavily processed 

substance and the impacts of its use 

would be incompatible with organic 

production. One commenter requested 

that USDA evaluate the data concerning 

availability of nonsynthetic and organic 

forms of cellulose for these uses, 

including organic rice concentrate, and 

for USDA to exercise its authority to 

develop a more restrictive standard in 

this case. Another commenter asked that 

AMS consider restricting the use of 

microcrystalline cellulose in future 

rulemaking. The remaining public 

comments supported the proposed 

action but did not state whether they 

used or supported the use of 

microcrystalline cellulose. To date, 

AMS has not received information to 

indicate that the organic industry is 

using the microcrystalline form of 

cellulose; however, AMS has not 

completed its research of this topic and 

needs more information from the 

industry to confirm that the 

microcrystalline form of cellulose is not 

currently in use in organic processed 

products and will consider a restriction 

on its use for future rulemaking. 

The NOSB provided two 

recommendations regarding cellulose, 

which meets the requirements under 

OFPA. Consistent with the NOSB’s 

second recommendation, AMS is 

renewing listing for cellulose through 

this final rule as proposed. 

Other comments suggesting changes 

to the proposed rule for other 

substances under sunset review are 

described below in conjunction with 

AMS’ response, including any 

amendments that will be addressed 

through this final rule. Some 

commenters requested changes to 

substance annotations which were 

either different from the NOSB 

recommendation or would result in the 

expanded use of an exempted material. 

Such requests would require a petition 

to the NOSB, which can be initiated in 

accordance with the Notice of 

Guidelines on Procedures for 

Submitting National List Petitions (72 

FR 2167). 

Copper Sulfate 

The Crops Subcommittee put forth a 

proposal prior to the Fall 2011 NOSB 

meeting to further restrict the use of 

copper sulfate. The proposal stated that 

conversations with rice growers led 

them to believe that cultural practices 

(drill-seeding) would eliminate the need 

for copper sulfate use except in 

particular weather conditions. AMS 

received one comment stating that the 

use of copper sulfate in organic rice 

production is inconsistent with organic 

agricultural practices. This comment 

stated that the Crops Subcommittee 

proposal for placing further restrictions 

on the use of this substance was wellsupported with evidence illustrating 

that copper products are toxic to aquatic 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
61160 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

6The topic of ‘‘Copper sulfate in rice production’’ 

was included in the Materials Subcommittee’s 

August 17, 2012 Proposal for Research Priorities for 

2012. Available at the NOP Web site: http://

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

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5101295. 

7U.S. Department of Agriculture. ‘‘National 

Organic Program: Notice of Draft Guidance on 

Classification of Materials and Materials for Organic 

Crop Production.’’ 78 Federal Register 63 (April 2, 

2013), pp. 19637–19638. Available at the NOP Web 

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

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5103326. 

8Handling Subcommittee Proposal on Glucono 

Delta-Lactone. March 20, 2012. Available at the 

NOP Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ 

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5097826&acct=nosb. 

organisms. The NOSB deliberated on 

the available information as well as 

written and in-person public comment 

on copper sulfate at the November 29– 

December 2, 2011 NOSB meeting in 

Savannah, GA. At this meeting, the 

Crops Subcommittee revised its 

proposal on the grounds that prescribing 

specific cultural practices within the 

annotation would be duplicative of the 

organic system plan requirements of the 

USDA organic regulations. As a result, 

the Crops Subcommittee put forward a 

motion to renew the current listing that 

received a unanimous vote of support. 

The Crops Subcommittee also requested 

that alternatives for copper sulfate in 

rice production be added to the next 

Materials Subcommittee Research 

Priorities proposal.6 The Crops 

Subcommittee’s proposal was 

recommended by the full NOSB. 

AMS also received one comment 

stating that the current annotation for 

copper sulfate should be amended to 

change its listing from limited use of 

once per a 24-month period for rice 

shrimp control to allowing its use to be 

dependent upon the weather conditions 

that induce the growth of algae (also 

called scum) and rice shrimp. The 

commenter suggested the annotation 

should be amended to match the listing 

for fixed coppers at section 205.601(i), 

which allows the substance to be ‘‘used 

in a manner that minimizes 

accumulation of copper in the soil and 

shall not be used as herbicides.’’ 

Commenter requests for changes to 

listings that would result in the 

expanded use or removal of an 

exempted material and would need to 

be petitioned and reviewed by the 

NOSB. 

Consistent with the NOSB’s 

recommendation, AMS is renewing 

listing for copper sulfate through this 

final rule as proposed. 

Animal Enzymes 

Eleven commenters submitted 

statements of support for the continued 

allowance of animal enzymes in organic 

handling and processing. Consistent 

with the NOSB’s recommendation, AMS 

is renewing listing for animal enzymes 

through this final rule as proposed. 

Agar-Agar 

The Handling Subcommittee’s put 

forth a proposal prior to the Fall 2011 

NOSB meeting to relist agar-agar as a 

nonsynthetic on section 205.605(a) and 

add an additional listing as a synthetic 

on section 205.605(b). The 

Subcommittee based this proposal on 

information obtained from the most 

recent technical report. This report 

indicated that there are certain 

processing methods for agar-agar that 

would result in a chemical change that 

would render it synthetic. The 

Subcommittee then determined that it 

would withdraw the proposal to 

reclassify agar-agar and asked that the 

NOP revisit the classification of this 

substance following the publication of 

final guidance on the classification of 

materials.7 The NOSB then 

recommended to renew agar-agar as 

listed on section 205.605(a). 

AMS received one comment which 

supported the Handling Subcommittee’s 

proposal. AMS also received one 

comment in support for the continued 

allowance of agar-agar based on its 

physical properties that enable it to act 

as a replacement for gelatin in 

vegetarian formulations of processed 

products. 

Consistent with the NOSB’s 

recommendation, AMS is renewing 

listing for agar-agar through this final 

rule as proposed. 

Calcium Sulfate 

AMS received one comment 

requesting that the listing for calcium 

sulfate be restricted to use only as a 

coagulant for bean curd on the grounds 

that there was not sufficient evidence 

for its essentiality for the production of 

other processed products. The Handling 

Subcommittee conducted a review of 

past NOSB recommendations, technical 

reports, historical documents, and 

public comments and concluded that 

the available information indicates that 

the substance is essential for organic 

production, is compatible with organic 

production practices, and does not 

reveal unacceptable risks to the 

environment, human, or animal health 

as a result of its use or manufacture. 

AMS concurs with this determination. 

AMS also received one comment in 

support of the continued allowance of 

calcium sulfate as an aid in developing 

the texture of bean curd for the 

production of firm tofu. Another 

commenter stated that calcium sulfate 

allows them to produce a desired 

texture and flavor of tofu that is not 

achievable with alternative ingredients. 

Consistent with the NOSB’s 

recommendation, AMS is renewing 

listing for calcium sulfate through this 

final rule as proposed. 

Glucono Delta-Lactone 

AMS received one comment 

requesting that the listing for glucono 

delta-lactone be restricted to use only as 

a coagulant in bean curd on the grounds 

that there was not sufficient evidence 

for its essentiality for the production of 

other processed products. The Handling 

Subcommittee’s review of previous 

technical reports, NOSB 

recommendations, historical 

documents, and public comments and 

concluded that the available 

information indicates that the substance 

is essential for organic production, is 

compatible with organic production 

practices, and does not reveal 

unacceptable risks to the environment, 

human, or animal health as a result of 

its use or manufacture.8 The NOSB’s 

recommendation stated that there is no 

new information contradicting the 

original recommendation which was the 

basis for the previous NOSB decisions 

to list and again re-list this material, and 

no public comments were submitted 

that provided any information to the 

contrary. 

Consistent with the NOSB’s 

recommendation, AMS is renewing 

listing for glucono delta-lactone through 

this final rule as proposed. 

Tartaric Acid (Made From Malic Acid) 

There were two comments submitted 

from a trade association, one of which 

supported the proposed action, and the 

other did not support the proposed 

action. Another two comments on the 

proposed removal of tartaric acid made 

from malic acid were not supportive of 

the proposed action. There were no 

comments submitted that provided 

information justifying their position. 

Consistent with the NOSB’s 

recommendation, AMS is removing the 

listing for tartaric acid made from malic 

acid through this final rule as proposed. 

G. Effective Date 

This final rule reflects 

recommendations submitted to the 

Secretary by the NOSB for the purpose 

of fulfilling the requirements of 7 U.S.C. 

6517(e) of the OFPA. OFPA requires the 

NOSB to review each substance on the 

National List within 5 years of its 

adoption or review (7 U.S.C. 6517(e)). 

The substances reauthorized for use on 

the National List were most recently 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61161 

authorized for use in organic agriculture 

on November 3, 2008. Because these 

substances are critical to organic 

production and handling operations, 

producers and handlers should be able 

to continue to use these substances for 

a full 5-year period beyond their sunset 

date of November 3, 2013. Accordingly, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is found and 

determined that good cause exists for 

not postponing the effective date of this 

rule until 30 days after publication in 

the Federal Register. This rule shall be 

effective on November 3, 2013. 

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. Section 205.605 is amended by 

removing the entry ‘‘Tartaric acid— 

made from malic acid’’ from paragraph 

(b). 

Dated: September 30, 2013. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–24208 Filed 10–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0680; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–247–AD; Amendment 

39–17602; AD 2013–19–20] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

The Boeing Company Model DC–10–10 

and MD–10–10F airplanes. This AD was 

prompted by a report that the safe life 

limit on certain main landing gear 

(MLG) upper torque link bolts is 

reduced significantly due to those bolts 

being fabricated from bar stock with a 

machined head instead of from a forged 

blank with an upset head. This AD 

requires replacing certain MLG upper 

torque link bolts with new or 

serviceable parts. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent damage to the MLG and 

consequent damage to airplane 

structure, which could adversely affect 

the airplane’s continued safe flight and 

landing. 

DATES: This AD is effective November 7, 

2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of November 7, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, 

Long Beach, CA 90846–0001; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 206– 

766–5683; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nenita Odesa, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

CA 90712–4137; phone: (562) 627–5234; 

fax: (562) 627–5210; email: 

nenita.odesa@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. The 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on July 11, 2012 (77 FR 40828). 

The NPRM proposed to require 

replacing certain MLG upper torque link 

bolts with a new or serviceable part. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal (77 FR 40828, 

July 11, 2012) and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 

Request To Revise the Unsafe Condition 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

unsafe condition in the NPRM (77 FR 

40828, July 11, 2012). Boeing stated that 

it disagrees with the SUMMARY section of 

the NPRM where it states that the safe 

life limit (SLL) of the bolt is reduced 

significantly due to ‘‘incorrect’’ 

fabrication. Boeing stated that it 

approved the fabrication of the bolts 

from bar stock with a machined head; 

however, this did not reduce the SLL at 

that point in time. Boeing stated that the 

fabrication therefore is not incorrect, 

and that the SLL reduction was due to 

fabrication from bar stock with a 

machined head. 

We partially agree with Boeing’s 

request. We agree that the cause of the 

unsafe condition is not incorrect 

fabrication. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

statement that the fabrication method of 

the bolt is correct because with a 

reduced SLL the discrepant bolts do not 

meet the type design. The correct 

fabrication process of the bolt, from 

forged blank with an upset forged head, 

would not have reduced the SLL. We 

have changed the cause of the unsafe 

condition throughout this final rule to 

state that the SSL of the bolt is reduced 

significantly because those bolts were 

‘‘fabricated from bar stock with a 

machined head.’’ 

Request To Allow Maintenance Records 

Review 

FedEx requested that in paragraph (g) 

of the NPRM (77 FR 40828, July 11, 

2012) operators be allowed to show 

compliance by a records review. 

We agree with the commenter that a 

review of an airplane’s maintenance 

record is acceptable if the part number 

of the bolt can be conclusively 

determined from that review. We have 

changed paragraph (g) of this final rule 

accordingly. 

Request To Revise Applicability of the 

NPRM (77 FR 40828, July 11, 2012) 

FedEx stated that paragraphs (g) and 

(h) of the NPRM (77 FR 40828, July 11, 

2012) state to inspect the 18 airplanes 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES