Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules AMS justifications for each proposed amendment. AMS welcomes comments on the proposed amendments.
Comments received during the comment period will inform AMSs decisions for the final rulespecifically, whether the proposed removals remain justified or new information demonstrates that renewals relisting is warranted and aligned with OFPA criteria.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

A. Sucrose Octanoate Esters 205.601
and 205.603
AMS is proposing to remove sucrose octanoate esters from the National List.
Sucrose octanoate esters were added to the National List effective December 11, 2007 72 FR 69569, were renewed through two sunset reviews, and are currently listed at 205.601e10 and 205.603b10. The 2007 rulemaking was initiated by an NOSB
recommendation in August 2005 1 for the addition of sucrose octanoate esters to the National List for use as an insecticide in organic crop production and as a miticide for use on honeybees.
Prior to the NOSBs 2018 Fall meeting, the NOSB received information indicating there are no current EPA
registrations for sucrose octanoate esters and therefore no approved pesticide applications. Due to this information, as referenced in the published NOSB
recommendations,2 3 the Board voted to remove both the crop use listing at 205.601e10 and the livestock honeybee use at 205.603b10. The NOSB reasoned that no argument could be made that this substance remains an essential tool for organic production if there is no current legal use consistent with the National List restrictions.
AMS agrees with the NOSB
recommendation to remove sucrose octanoate esters from the National List at 205.601e10 and 205.603b10.
By 2019, there were no EPA approved products with legal uses corresponding to the National List allowances. 83 FR
16087, 16088, 16094. EPAs April 13, 2018, notice shows that the registrant of sucrose octanoate esters 751971, 751972 voluntarily cancelled its registrations. Since 2018, EPAs Pesticide Product and Label System 4
1 NOSB August 17, 2005, Sucrose Octanoate Esters Recommendation: https
www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
Sucrose%20Recommendation.pdf.
2 NOSB Fall 2018 Crops Sunset Recommendations: https www.ams.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/media/CS2020Sunset FinalRecOct2018.pdf.
3 NOSB Fall 2018 Livestock Sunset Recommendations: http www.ams.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/media/LS2020Sunset FinalRecOct2018.pdf.
4 https iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/
f?p=PPLS:1 accessed January 29, 2021.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:21 Aug 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

now shows two new registrations of sucrose octanoate esters EPA Reg. No.
944241 and 944242, registered December 17, 2020, but no approved labels or uses are available at this time.
AMS agrees with the NOSBs recommendation to remove sucrose octanoate esters because this products minimal commercial availability shows that sucrose octanoate esters are not essential for organic production. Public comments are requested on whether there is additional information available regarding the need for this substance in organic production and the availability of sucrose octanoate esters given the recent registrations.
B. Vitamin B1 205.601
AMS is proposing to remove Vitamin B1 from the National List. Vitamin B1
was added to the National List at its inception on December 21, 2000 65 FR
80547, was renewed through several sunset reviews, and is currently listed at 205.601j9 for use as a plant or soil amendment.
In support of their sunset review 5, the NOSB requested a third-party technical report 6 on vitamins B1, C, and E, as they are used in crop production. The technical report found that the previous claims on root growth and reduction of transplant shock associated with vitamin B1 were largely unsubstantiated outside of a laboratory environment.
Due to this and the fact there was no support voiced during the public comment process regarding efficacy or necessity, the NOSB recommended removal, citing that given this new information they no longer find vitamin B1 compatible with a system of organic agriculture per 7 U.S.C. 6518m7.
AMS agrees with the NOSB
recommendation to remove vitamin B1
as a plant and soil amendment at 205.601j9. The information referenced in the NOSB
recommendation regarding use and efficacy are compelling reasons to remove vitamin B1 from the National List for organic crop production.
Further, the 2015 technical report on vitamins for crop production identified several natural and nonsynthetic alternatives to vitamin B1 including yeast, various meals e.g., soybean meal, cottonseed meal, and other crop waste or residues. Accordingly, AMS proposes that vitamin B1 is no longer necessary to 5 Formal Crops Sunset Recommendations from NOSB to NOP, November 2, 2017: https
www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
CS2019SunsetsFinalRec.pdf.
6 2015 Technical Report on Vitamins B , C, and 1
E used in crop production: https
www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
Vitamins%20B1-C-E%20TR%202015.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

47243

the production of agricultural product and should be removed from the National List due to the availability of wholly natural substitutes 7 U.S.C.
6517c1Aii.
C. Oxytocin 205.603
AMS is proposing to remove oxytocin from the National List. Oxytocin was added to the National List at its inception on December 21, 2000 65 FR
80547, was renewed through several sunset reviews, and is currently listed at 205.603a22 for use in post parturition therapeutic applications.
In the sunset review, the NOSB
recommended 7 the removal of oxytocin from the National List. The NOSB
determined that there are now numerous alternative methods and materials for addressing the health issues where oxytocin would be used and that the use of oxytocin no longer meets the criteria at 7 U.S.C. 6518m6.
Additionally, the NOSB found that use of oxytocin is not compatible with a system of sustainable agriculture 7
U.S.C. 6518m7. The NOSB requested public comment on whether this substance is essential for organic production or if there are alternative materials and methods that render it unnecessary. The public comment received in response to the request indicated that this substance is no longer necessary and supported its removal.
AMS tentatively agrees with the NOSB recommendation. While the NOSB states there are other practices or materials that render oxytocin unnecessary for organic production, AMS did not find supporting comments to that effect, and NOSB did not specifically state what the alternatives are. Further, it was stated in public comment to the NOSB that while some operations still use oxytocin as a medical treatment assisting in clearing placenta, other operations may be using it in ways inconsistent with the listing or no longer find it necessary in organic production. AMS is seeking comments on whether suitable alternatives for the use of oxytocin exist, and if so, specifically what alternative practices or materials might replace the use of oxytocin. Further, AMS seeks information on oxytocin use that may be inconsistent with the listing. If comments show that the use of oxytocin no longer meets the exemption requirements at 7 U.S.C.
6517c1Aii and iii, AMS is 7 Formal Livestock Sunset Recommendations from NOSB to NOP, November 2, 2017: https
www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
LS2019SunsetsFinalRec.pdf.

E:FRFM24AUP1.SGM

24AUP1