Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 203 / Friday, October 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61217 

over the information. Additional 

members may be added as determined 

by the DHS Chief Security Officer. The 

DHS/CAP shall be chaired by the Chief 

Security Officer. 

(e) If the requester files an appeal 

through the DHS/CAP, and the appeal is 

denied, the requester shall be notified of 

the right to appeal the denial to the 

Interagency Security Classification 

Appeals Panel (ISCAP) pursuant to 

section 5.3 of Executive Order 12958, as 

amended, and the rules issued by the 

ISCAP pursuant to section 5.3 of 

Executive Order 12958, as amended. 

(f) Any individual who challenges a 

classification and believes that any 

action has been taken against him or her 

in retaliation or retribution because of 

that challenge shall report the facts to 

the Office of the Inspector General or 

other appropriate office. 

(g) Nothing in this section shall 

prohibit a person from informally 

challenging the classified status of 

information directly to the original 

classification authority. 

(h) Requests for review of classified 

material for declassification by persons 

other than authorized holders are 

governed by 6 CFR 7.31. 

§ 7.31 Mandatory review for 

declassification requests. 

(a) Any person may request that 

classified information be reviewed for 

declassification pursuant to the 

mandatory declassification review 

provisions of section 3.6 of Executive 

Order 12958, as amended. Such requests 

shall be sent to the Departmental 

Disclosure Officer, Privacy Office, 245 

Murray Lane, SW., Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

(b) The request must sufficiently 

describe the document or material with 

enough specificity to allow it to be 

located by the component with a 

reasonable amount of effort. When the 

description of the information in the 

request is deficient, the component shall 

solicit as much additional identifying 

information as possible from the 

requester. If the information or material 

requested cannot be obtained with a 

reasonable amount of effort, the 

component shall provide the requester, 

through the DHS Disclosure Officer, 

with written notification of the reasons 

why no action will be taken and of the 

requester’s right to appeal. 

(c) Requests for review of information 

that has been subjected to a 

declassification review request within 

the preceding two years shall not be 

processed. The DHS Disclosure Officer 

will notify the requester of such denial. 

(d) Requests for information exempted 

from search or review under sections 

701, 702, or 703 of the National Security 

Act of 1947, as added and amended (50 

U.S.C. 431 through 433), or other 

provisions of law, shall not be 

processed. The DHS Disclosure Officer 

will notify the requester of such denial. 

(e) If documents or material being 

reviewed for declassification under this 

section contain information that has 

been originally classified by another 

government agency, the reviewing 

authority shall notify the DHS 

Disclosure Officer. Unless the 

association of that organization with the 

requested information is itself classified, 

the DHS Disclosure Officer will then 

notify the requester of the referral. 

(f) A DHS component may refuse to 

confirm or deny the existence, or nonexistence, of requested information 

when its existence or non-existence, is 

properly classified. 

(g) DHS components shall make a 

final determination on the request as 

soon as practicable but within one year 

from receipt. When information cannot 

be declassified in its entirety, 

components shall make reasonable 

efforts to redact those portions that still 

meet the standards for classification and 

release those declassified portions of the 

requested information that constitute a 

coherent segment. 

(h) DHS components shall notify the 

DHS Disclosure Officer of the 

determination made in the processing of 

a mandatory review request. Such 

notification shall include the number of 

pages declassified in full; the number of 

pages declassified in part; and the 

number of pages where declassification 

was denied. 

(i) The DHS Disclosure Officer shall 

maintain a record of all mandatory 

review actions for reporting in 

accordance with applicable Federal 

requirements. 

(j) The mandatory declassification 

review system shall provide for 

administrative appeal in cases where 

the review results in the information 

remaining classified. The requester shall 

be notified of the results of the review 

and of the right to appeal the denial of 

declassification. To address such 

appeals, the DHS Disclosure Office shall 

convene a DHS Classification Appeals 

Panel (DHS/CAP). The DHS/CAP shall, 

at a minimum, consist of representatives 

from the Disclosure Office, the Office of 

Security, the Office of General Counsel, 

and a representative from the 

component having jurisdiction over the 

information. Additional members may 

be added as determined by the DHS 

Disclosure Officer. The DHS/CAP shall 

be chaired by the DHS Disclosure 

Officer. 

(k) If the requester files an appeal 

through the DHS/CAP, and the appeal is 

denied, the requester shall be notified of 

the right to appeal the denial to the 

ISCAP pursuant to section 5.3 of 

Executive Order 12958, as amended, 

and the rules issued by the ISCAP 

pursuant to section 5.3 of Executive 

Order 12958, as amended. 

Dated: October 8, 2005. 

Michael Chertoff, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–21011 Filed 10–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–10–U 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Docket Number TM–05–02] 

National Organic Program (NOP); 

Amendment to the National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances 

(Livestock) 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) National List of Allowed and 

Prohibited Substances (National List) to 

reflect one recommendation submitted 

to the Secretary by the National Organic 

Standards Board (NOSB) on March 3, 

2005. Consistent with the 

recommendation from the NOSB, this 

final rule revises the annotation of one 

substance on the National List, 

methionine, to extend its use in organic 

poultry production until October 21, 

2008. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes 

effective October 22, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arthur Neal, Director of Program 

Administration, Telephone: (202) 720–

3252; Fax: (202) 205–7808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On December 21, 2000, the Secretary 

established, within the NOP regulations 

[7 CFR part 205], the National List 

(§§ 205.600 through 205.607). The 

National List identifies synthetic 

substances that are allowed and 

nonsynthetic substances that are 

prohibited in organic crop and livestock 

production. The National List also 

identifies nonsynthetic and synthetic 

substances that are allowed for use in 

certified handling operations. Under the 

61218 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 203 / Friday, October 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

authority of the Organic Foods 

Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as 

amended, (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), the 

National List can be amended by the 

Secretary based on proposed 

amendments developed by the NOSB. 

Since established, the National List has 

been amended twice, October 31, 2003 

(68 FR 61987), and November 3, 2003 

(68 FR 62215). 

This final rule amends the National 

List to reflect one recommendation 

submitted to the Secretary by the NOSB 

on March 3, 2005. Based on their 

evaluation of a petition submitted by 

industry participants, the NOSB 

recommended that the Secretary amend 

§ 205.603(d)(1) of the National List by 

revising the annotation of methionine, a 

feed additive, to extend its use in 

organic poultry production until 

October 21, 2008. The use of methionine 

in organic production was evaluated by 

the NOSB using the evaluation criteria 

specified in OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6517—

6518). 

II. Overview of Amendment 

The following provides an overview 

of the amendment made to § 205.603 of 

the National List: 

Section 205.603 Synthetic Substances 

Allowed for Use in Organic Livestock 

Production 

This final rule revises current 

paragraph (d)(1) of § 205.603 as follows: 

DL-Methionine, DL-Methioninehydroxyl analog, and DL-Methioninehydroxyl analog calcium (CAS #—59–

51–8; 63–68–3; 348–67–4)—for use only 

in organic poultry production until 

October 1, 2008. 

Methionine was petitioned for its 

continued use as a synthetic feed 

additive in organic poultry operations. 

Methionine is a colorless or white 

crystalline powder that is soluble in 

water. It is classified as an amino acid 

and considered to be an essential amino 

acid that is regulated as an animal feed 

nutritional supplement by the Food and 

Drug Administration (21 CFR 582.5475). 

The NOSB, at its February 28–March 

3, 2005, meeting in Washington, DC, 

received and evaluated public comment 

on the petition to extend the use of 

methionine in organic poultry 

production beyond October 21, 2005. 

The NOSB concluded that methionine is 

consistent with the evaluation criteria of 

7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518 of the OFPA; 

however, the NOSB maintained that 

non-synthetic alternatives must be 

developed during the additional 

extension on the use of synthetic 

methionine in organic poultry diets. 

Therefore, the NOSB recommended 

methionine be added to the National 

List for use only in organic poultry 

production until October 1, 2008, so 

that the organic poultry industry could 

continue its research to develop nonsynthetic alternatives for the use of 

synthetic methionine. 

In response to the NOSB 

recommendation regarding the use of 

DL-Methionine in organic livestock 

production, this action amends 

§ 205.603(d)(1) of the National List 

regulation as follows: 

DL-Methionine, DL-Methioninehydroxyl analog, and DL-Methioninehydroxyl analog calcium (CAS #—59–

51–8; 63–68–3; 348–67–4)—for use in 

organic poultry production until 

October 1, 2008. 

III. Related Documents 

Two notices were published regarding 

the meeting of the NOSB and its 

deliberations on the recommendation 

and substance petitioned for amending 

the National List. The substance and 

recommendation included in this final 

rule were announced for NOSB 

deliberation in the following Federal 

Register Notices: (1) 66 FR 48654, 

September 21, 2001, and (2) 70 FR 7224, 

February 11, 2005, (Methionine). The 

proposed rule change was published for 

comment in the Federal Register on July 

29, 2005, 70 FR 43786. The substance 

and recommendation in this final rule 

were initially submitted for proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register 

Notice, 68 FR 18556, April 16, 2003, 

and added to the National List as final 

rule in the Federal Register Notice, 68 

FR 61987, October 31, 2003. 

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

The OFPA, as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501 

et seq.), authorizes the Secretary, at 

§ 6517(d)(1), 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 onto or deletion from the 

National List. The National List petition 

process is implemented under § 205.607 

of the NOP regulations. The current 

petition process (65 FR 43259, July 13, 

2000) can be accessed through the NOP 

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

nop. 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This action has been determined to be 

non-significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866, and therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

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 § 2115 of the OFPA (7 

U.S.C. 6514) from creating programs of 

accreditation for private persons or State 

officials who want to become certifying 

agents of organic farms or handling 

operations. A governing State official 

would have to apply to USDA to be 

accredited as a certifying agent, as 

described in § 2115 (b) of the OFPA (7 

U.S.C. 6514 (b)). States are also 

preempted under §§ 2104 through 2108 

of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6503 through 

6507) from creating certification 

programs to certify organic farms or 

handling operations unless the State 

programs have been submitted to, and 

approved by, the Secretary as meeting 

the requirements of the OFPA. 

Pursuant to § 2108(b)(2) of the OFPA 

(7 U.S.C. 6507(b)(2)), a State organic 

certification program may contain 

additional requirements for the 

production and handling of organically 

produced agricultural products that are 

produced in the State and for the 

certification of organic farm and 

handling operations located within the 

State under certain circumstances. Such 

additional requirements must: (a) 

Further the purposes of the OFPA, (b) 

not be inconsistent with the OFPA, (c) 

not be discriminatory toward 

agricultural commodities organically 

produced in other States, and (d) not be 

effective until approved by the 

Secretary. 

Pursuant to § 2120(f) of the OFPA (7 

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

alter the authority of the Secretary 

under the Federal Meat Inspection Act 

(21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry 

Products Inspections Act (21 U.S.C. 451 

et seq.), or the Egg Products Inspection 

Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.), concerning 

meat, poultry, and egg products, nor any 

of the authorities of the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services under the 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 

(21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), nor the authority 

of the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et 

seq.). 

Section 2121 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 

6520) provides for the Secretary to 

establish an expedited administrative 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 203 / Friday, October 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61219 

appeals procedure under which persons 

may appeal an action of the Secretary, 

the applicable governing State official, 

or a certifying agent under this title that 

adversely affects such person or is 

inconsistent with the organic 

certification program established under 

this title. The OFPA also provides that 

the U.S. District Court for the district in 

which a person is located has 

jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s 

decision. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies 

to consider the economic impact of each 

rule on small entities and evaluate 

alternatives that would accomplish the 

objectives of the rule without unduly 

burdening small entities or erecting 

barriers that would restrict their ability 

to compete in the market. The purpose 

is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to the action. Section 

605 of the RFA allows an agency to 

certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an 

analysis, if the rulemaking is not 

expected to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in the RFA, the Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) performed an economic 

impact analysis on small entities in the 

final rule published in the Federal 

Register on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 

80548). The AMS has also considered 

the economic impact of this action on 

small entities and has determined that 

this final rule would have an impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

However, AMS has determined that the 

impact on entities affected by this final 

rule would not be significant. The effect 

of this final rule would be to allow the 

use of additional substances in 

agricultural production and handling. 

This action would relax the regulations 

published in the final rule and would 

provide small entities with more tools to 

use in day-to-day operations. The AMS 

concludes that the economic impact of 

this addition of allowed substances, if 

any, would be minimal and entirely 

beneficial to small agricultural service 

firms. Accordingly, the USDA certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Small agricultural service firms, 

which include producers, handlers, and 

accredited certifying agents, have been 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) 

as those having annual receipts of less 

than $6,000,000 and small agricultural 

producers are defined as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000. 

The U.S. organic industry at the end 

of 2001 included nearly 6,600 certified 

crop and livestock operations, including 

organic production and handling 

operations, producers, and handlers. 

These operations reported certified 

acreage totaling more than 2.34 million 

acres, 72,209 certified livestock, and 

5.01 million certified poultry. Data on 

the numbers of certified handling 

operations are not yet available, but 

likely number in the thousands, as they 

would include any operation that 

transforms raw product into processed 

products using organic ingredients. 

Growth in the U.S. organic industry has 

been significant at all levels. From 1997 

to 2001, the total organic acreage grew 

by 74 percent; livestock numbers 

certified organic grew by almost 300 

percent over the same period, and 

poultry certified organic increased by 

2,118 percent over this time. Sales 

growth of organic products has been 

equally significant, growing on average 

around 20 percent per year. Sales of 

organic products were approximately $1 

billion in 1993, but reached $15 billion 

in 2004. In addition, since the 

implementation of OPFA on October 21, 

2002, USDA has accredited 99 certifying 

agents who have applied to USDA to be 

accredited in order to 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 entities 

would be considered small entities 

under the criteria established by the 

SBA. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., the 

existing information collection 

requirements for the NOP are approved 

under OMB number 0581–0181. 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, 

or OMB’s implementing regulation at 5 

CFR part 1320. 

E. Discussion of Comments Received 

Thirteen (13) comments were received 

on the proposed revision to extend the 

use of synthetic methionine in organic 

poultry production until October 21, 

2008. Commenters included poultry 

producers, poultry processors, 

consumers, a poultry nutritionist, a 

certifying agent, and a feed industry 

organization. The majority of the 

comments were in support of the 

proposed revision. One commenter, 

however, opposed extending the use of 

synthetic methionine and questioned 

the need to provide the industry with 

three years to identify a nonsynthetic 

alternative. The commenter suggested 

that a nonsynthetic alternative could be 

identified in a shorter time period. We 

have taken this commenter’s position 

into consideration, and based on the 

research updates, public testimonies, 

and comments received from other 

sectors of the industry, we believe that 

three years is a reasonable time-period 

to complete research to identify 

nonsynthetic alternatives to using 

synthetic methionine in organic poultry 

production. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it 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 because the use of 

methionine will expire for organic 

poultry operations on October 21, 2005. 

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, Subpart G 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 205.603 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 205.603 Synthetic substances allowed 

for use in organic livestock production. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) DL-Methionine, DL-Methioninehydroxyl analog, and DL-Methioninehydroxyl analog calcium (CAS #—59–

51–8; 63–68–3; 348–67–4)—for use in 

organic poultry production until 

October 1, 2008. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 18, 2005. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–21166 Filed 10–19–05; 10:37 

am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P