Page
1
of
12
Response
to
Comments
Document
for
Pesticide
Registration
Notice
2003­
1
Labeling
of
Pesticide
Products
under
the
National
Organic
Program
This
document
contains
a
summary
of
comments
received
and
the
Agency
response
to
these
comments.
The
Agency
recorded
12
comments
as
received.
A
review
found
1
comment
for
another
docket
and
one
duplicate
comment.
This
means
a
total
of
10
different
sets
of
comments
were
received.
Comments
and
EPA
response
follows:

Comment
#
3
3­
01:
EPA
failed
to
consider
"
all
data
submitted"

Response:
The
commenter
has
not
specified
what
data/
information
EPA
has
failed
to
consider
and
therefore
EPA
cannot
respond
specifically
to
the
commenter.
EPA
believes,
however,
that
it
has
considered
all
submissions.

3­
02:
Suggest
EPA
should
not
handle
requests
in
a
transparent
manner.

Response:
We
believe
this
individual
misunderstands
what
we
mean
by
transparent.
We
operate
in
a
transparent
manner
so
an
individual
can
understand
why
we
take
an
action.
This
also
enables
an
adversely
impacted
individual
to
comment
on
the
proposed
action
so
we
can
take
the
impact
into
account.
EPA
has
considered
the
needs
of
farmers
in
developing
its
PR
Notice.

Comment#
4
4­
01:
Supports
action
generally
but
are
concerned
with
25(
b)
products.
EPA
is
relying
upon
the
companies
to
ensure
25(
b)
products
contain
only
ingredients
permitted
under
the
NOP
and
that
25(
b)
products
conform
in
all
respects
with
the
criteria
of
the
National
List.
It
is
nearly
impossible
for
state
regulatory
agencies
or
Cooperative
Extension
Service
to
identify
the
active
ingredients
and
label
directions
for
25(
b)
products.
These
two
items
will
make
it
extremely
difficult
to
educate
and
regulate
the
uses
of
25(
b)
products
for
organic
use.

Response:
EPA
can
only
review
labeling
submissions
for
pesticide
products
that
are
registered
or
proposed
to
be
registered.
EPA
does
not,
however,
review
product
labels
of
minimal
risk
pesticides
exempt
under
25(
b)
and,
therefore,
EPA
cannot
approve
the
use
of
NOP
language
on
25(
b)
product
labels.
Products
exempted
under
FIFRA
section
25(
b)
are
not
precluded
from
identifying
whether
they
meet
the
requirements
of
the
National
Organic
Program.
However,
manufacturers
of
minimal
risk
products
exempted
under
25(
b)
are
required
to
list
all
ingredients
in
the
product
which
makes
it
relatively
easy
for
an
organic
farmer
and
certifier
to
verify
that
the
Page
2
of
12
product
meets
the
requirements
of
the
NOP.

We
are
requiring
a
registrant
to
demonstrate
a
registered
pesticide
product
meets
the
requirements
of
the
NOP
and
suggest
States
regulating
Federally
exempted
products
do
the
same.
One
needs
to
remember,
that
the
manufacturer
of
an
exempted
product
could
lawfully
add
a
statement
indicating
compliance
with
the
NOP
(
assuming
such
a
statement
is
accurate)
without
this
PR
Notice
or
any
policy
by
EPA
allowing
NOP
statements
on
registered
pesticide
products.

4­
02:
The
commenter
has
an
ongoing
concern
with
EPA's
approach
of
handling
25(
b)
products,
including
labeling
issues
for
workers,
endangered
species
and
groundwater.

Response:
These
general
25(
b)
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
PR
Notice.

Comment
#
5
Does
not
address
this
PR
Notice.

Comment
#
06
6­
01:
Suggests
organic
producer
rely
on
National
List
rather
than
label
language.

EPA
Response:
EPA's
PR
Notice
allowing
voluntary
labeling
does
not
preclude
organic
producers
from
relying
on
the
National
List
and
their
certifier.
EPA
notes
however,
that
the
National
List
does
not
include
a
list
of
all
products
acceptable
for
organic
production.
Rather
it
represents
a
statement
of
what
particular
types
of
and
under
what
conditions
materials
are
allowable
for
use
in
organic
production.
EPA
is
working
with
USDA
to
obtain
USDA's
conclusions
about
which
specific
active
ingredients
meet
these
criteria.
At
the
present,
the
National
List
only
specifies
by
name
certain
synthetic
active
ingredients.
EPA
intends
to
rely
on
the
expertise
of
USDA
in
all
determinations
regarding
whether
an
active
ingredient
qualifies
under
the
approach
set
forth
in
the
National
List.
Therefore,
until
USDA
identifies
to
EPA
that
specific
active
ingredients
meet
the
conditions
of
the
List,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
approve
NOP
labeling
for
products
containing
such
ingredients.
A
list
of
allowable
non­
synthetic
materials
will
not
be
complete.
Innovative
individuals
will
continue
to
research
pesticidal
properties
in
plants
and
microbes
and
develop
ways
within
the
constraints
of
the
National
Organic
Program
to
utilize
them
as
pesticides.

A
user
must
evaluate
particular
products
to
determine
if
they
are
among
those
types
which
are
allowable
under
the
NOP.
Furthermore,
many
pesticide
products
do
not
specifically
list
all
ingredients
in
the
product
(
inerts
or
other
ingredients
may
not
be
listed).
Thus,
without
label
language
indicating
that
the
product
can
be
used
for
organic
production,
organic
producers
may
have
difficulty
identifying
products
they
may
use
for
organic
production.
The
organic
farmer
must
rely
on
their
organic
certifier
who
has
the
authority
to
certify
that
the
farmer's
practices
Page
3
of
12
meet
the
requirements
of
the
NOP.
The
suggested
label
language
will
be
an
additional
aid
where
the
certifier
and
the
grower
can
utilize
the
list
of
products
with
the
suggested
label
language
to
help
in
finding
products
which
are
allowable
for
organic
production.

6­
02:
If
products
are
labeled
with
NOP
type
statements
a
producer
may
apply
a
product
which
has
been
removed
from
the
National
List
and
be
in
violation
of
the
NOP
rule.

Response:
The
Agency
understands
this
concern.
However,
USDA
is
required
to
make
changes
to
the
National
List
by
rule
making
which
is
an
involved
process.
Registrants
will
have
time
to
request
label
changes
to
remove
wording
from
product
labels.
If
a
registrant
does
not
request
a
label
change,
this
Agency
likely
will
have
time
to
take
action.
The
question
of
Delisting
is
covered
in
greater
detail
in
section
XI
of
the
PR
Notice
on
organic
labeling.

6­
04:
Will
40CFR
list
NOP
claims
as
acceptable?

Response:
EPA
is
not
currently
amending
Title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations.
The
Agency
has
worded
the
suggested
allowed
label
claims
to
be
consistent
with
current
labeling
regulations
and
has
recommended
labeling
language
"
for
organic
production"
for
this
very
reason.
Alternative
wording
submitted
by
registrants
would
have
to
be
reviewed
by
the
Agency
for
acceptability.

6­
05:
The
list
of
inert
ingredients
is
supposedly
being
revised.
Hopefully,
it
will
be
finalized
before
a
National
List
is
made
available.

Response:
EPA
expects
that
its
on­
going
review
of
inerts
will
lead
to
the
continuing
addition
of
inerts
to
list
4.
In
fact,
a
number
of
such
additions
has
occurred
recently.
If,
at
any
time,
EPA
determines
that
an
inert
ingredient
does
not
meet
the
criteria
for
list
4,
it
will
be
removed
from
that
list.

6­
06:
Concerned
with
inerts
not
on
the
label
and
therefore,
if
a
chemical
is
removed
from
List
4,
the
organic
producer
will
not
be
able
to
tell
the
product
can
no
longer
be
used
in
organic
agriculture.

Response:
This
presents
a
problem
which
exists
without
this
PR
Notice.
This
Agency
is
planning
to
set
up
a
program
which
will
track
changes
in
allowed
ingredients
so,
when
necessary,
the
Agency
can
take
action
to
assure
that
any
product
with
NOP
labeling
continues
to
meet
the
conditions
set
forth
in
the
PR
Notice.

6­
07:
Questioned
multiple
use
products
where
some
meet
the
requirements
of
the
NOP.
The
commenter
is
concerned
with
two
separate
products
which
might
be
confusing
to
the
grower
and
registrant
as
well
as
more
costly.

Response:
EPA
has
recommended
this
approach
because
the
Agency
believes
the
simplest
and
Page
4
of
12
least
confusing
solution
to
address
this
issue
is
to
have
a
separate
product
which
meets
the
requirements
of
the
NOP.
This
will
involve
additional
costs
for
these
registrants.
However,
an
organic
producer
has
the
option
of
utilizing
any
pesticide
product
which
her/
his
certifier
approves
as
part
of
the
crop
production
plan
as
long
as
the
use
is
permitted
on
the
product
label.
EPA
regulations
were
not
designed
with
a
program
like
the
NOP
in
mind.
The
Agency
has
developed
this
labeling
program
in
an
attempt
to
make
it
easier
for
organic
producers
and
their
certifiers
to
recognize
pesticide
products
which
are
compatible
with
organic
production.
The
Agency
has
also
been
cooperating
with
the
Organic
Materials
Review
Institute
(
OMRI)
with
their
organic
listing
program.

6­
08:
Raises
concern
with
products
sold
as
25(
b)
exempted
products
(
but
not
qualifying
for
the
exemption).

Response:
EPA
is
aware
of
problems
States
have
had
with
25(
b)
products.
As
EPA
has
already
exempted
these
products
from
FIFRA,
EPA
cannot
regulate
the
use
of
NOP­
type
language
on
the
exempted
products
except
as
described
in
Unit
V
of
the
PR
Notice
except
under
conditions
where
the
product
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
the
exemption.

6­
09:
Concern
with
distributor
labels
which
are
not
reviewed
by
EPA
and
the
time
allowed
for
a
registrant
to
change
all
labels.

Response:
Distributor
products
are
covered
in
40
CFR
part
152.132.
Supplemental
distribution
(
distributor
products)
is
permitted
upon
notification
to
the
Agency
only
if
certain
conditions
are
met.
Permitted
label
changes
for
distributor
products
allow
for
a
different
product
name,
inclusion
of
the
distributor
name
and
address
rather
than
the
registrant,
the
registration
number
of
the
registered
product
is
followed
by
a
dash
followed
by
the
distributor's
company
number,
the
establishment
number
must
be
that
of
the
final
establishment
at
which
the
product
was
produced,
and
specific
claims
may
be
deleted
provide
no
other
changes
are
necessary.
Therefore,
any
change
to
add
other
wording
(
such
as
NOP
label
language)
would
represent
an
unauthorized
label
change
and
be
subject
to
an
enforcement
action.
Agency
regulations
normally
provide
for
18
months
to
change
labeling
unless
the
Agency
orders
a
different
schedule
under
FIFRA
sec.
6
or
13.
The
Agency
intends
to
require
such
labeling
changes
correspond
with
schedules
of
USDA.
The
Agency
believes
registrants
will
make
such
changes
quickly
to
avoid
causing
difficulties
for
their
customers.
The
Agency
has
rewritten
the
PR
Notice
to
make
it
clear
that
the
registrant
must
keep
abreast
of
delistings.
Further
the
Agency
has
indicated
in
the
PR
Notice
that
EPA
will
permit
registrants
to
remove
NOP
statements
from
product
labels
by
notification.
If
a
registrant
does
not
request
action
in
a
timely
manner,
the
Agency
expects
to
take
action.

6­
10:
Concern
with
old
delisted
products
remaining
on
shelves
for
years.

Response:
There
may
be
products
in
channels
of
trade
and
in
the
hands
of
users
which
may
not
accurately
reflect
NOP
status
if
an
ingredient
is
delisted.
However,
organic
certifiers
normally
provide
for
a
period
of
time
where
producers
can
use
up
existing
stocks
of
a
delisted
material.
Page
5
of
12
Organic
producers
are
required
to
have
a
plan,
updated
annually,
which
is
approved
by
their
certifier
which
details
use
of
crop
inputs.
The
certifier
is
required
to
have
an
on
site
inspection
annually
as
required
in
7CFR
sec
205.400.

6­
12:
Given
the
problems
listed
above,
the
Agency
should
stay
out
of
this
matter.
The
function
is
for
USDA
or
the
NOSB
to
maintain
both
hard
and
Internet
accessible
copies
which
can
be
changed
rapidly
without
going
through
the
long
process
of
EPA
regulatory
actions.

Response:
USDA
and
the
NOSB
do
not
have
access
to
pesticide
product
ingredients
to
enable
them
to
develop
such
a
list
for
specific
registered
products.
This
Agency
has
the
ability
to
compare
ingredients
on
a
submission
requesting
such
labeling
against
records
for
that
product.
If
our
records
do
not
agree
with
the
submission,
the
request
for
NOP
labeling
would
be
denied.
Furthermore,
EPA
is
not
requiring
a
registrant
to
place
such
wording
on
a
label.

6­
13:
Registrants
will
use
the
NOP
statements
as
a
marketing
tool.
In
addition,
consumers
will
see
the
word
organic
as
a
safety
claim.

Response:
Some
registrants
will
use
this
as
a
marketing
tool.
However,
providing
their
marketing
is
not
false
and
misleading,
it
should
be
allowed.
The
Agency
has
made
it
clear
in
this
PR
Notice
that
use
of
the
word
organic
is
appropriate
only
for
the
narrow
purpose
of
identifying
the
conformity
of
the
product
with
the
National
Organic
Program.
It
is
to
be
viewed
as
a
statement
of
fact
that
the
product
is
allowed
under
the
National
Organic
Program.
If
a
registrant
makes
any
claim
that
states
or
implies
any
false
or
misleading
safety
aspect,
the
Agency
will
have
authority
to
consider
the
product
misbranded
under
40
CFR
Part
156.10(
a)(
5).
The
Agency
has
considered
possible
consumer
reactions
and
does
not
believe
consumer
reactions
will
result
in
unreasonable
adverse
effects.

Commenter
#
7
Comment:
Supports
EPA
actions
allowing
but
not
requiring
NOP
logos
No
Response
needed.

Commenter
08
08­
01:
Generally
supports
concept
of
PR
Notice.
Also
requests
OMRI
approved
label
in
addition
to
EPA
NOP­
type
language.

Response:
The
Agency
has
been
accepting
labeling
of
pesticide
products
which
contain
the
OMRI
designation
.
Before
approving
such
labeling,
EPA
independently
evaluates
the
accuracy
of
such
labeling.
Page
6
of
12
08­
02:
EPA
needs
a
thorough,
open,
and
deliberative
process
for
this
label
program
that
consults
with
all
stakeholders,
gathers
data,
and
identifies
both
the
needs
and
challenges
that
the
organic
sector
faces.

Response:
EPA
believes
it
has
involved
stakeholders
by
requesting
comment
and
responding
to
comments
and
the
changes
made
to
the
PR
Notice
in
response
to
the
comments.
EPA
also
wants
to
expand
this
relationship
by
continuing
to
support
USDA's
NOP
staff,
the
NOSB
and
nongovernmental
organic
organizations
through
providing
current
lists
of
pesticide
products
determined
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
NOP
and
updates
inert
pesticide
ingredients
on
List
4.
EPA
is
not
in
a
position
to
make
policy
decisions
on
whether
pesticide
products
are
allowable
under
the
National
Organic
Program.
It
is
in
a
position
to
provide
lists
of
allowable
pesticide
products
under
this
program
(
those
products
where
registrants
have
demonstrated
to
the
Agency
that
the
products
are
allowable
for
each
labeled
use
site
under
the
NOP)
and
status
of
inert
pesticide
ingredients
on
List
4.

08­
03:
PR
Notice
should
be
revised
to
recognize
that
the
certification
agent
ascertains
that
a
pesticide
product
meets
the
requirements
of
the
NOP.

Response:
EPA
agrees
and
revised
the
PR
Notice
to
make
it
clear
the
certification
agent
determines
that
the
organic
farmer's
practices
meet
the
requirements
of
the
NOP.

08­
04:
Agency
needs
to
clarify
that
25b
products
do
not
require
registration
to
be
used
by
organic
producers.

Response:
EPA
agrees
and
has
clarified
the
text
in
the
PR
Notice.

08­
05:
It
is
important
to
clarify
whether
or
not
exempt
product
producers
may
register
their
products
with
EPA
and
obtain
the
NOP­
approved
label.

Response:
EPA
has
clarified
that
a
25b
exempt
product
producer
has
the
option
to
register
their
products
under
FIFRA.

08­
06:
Requests
that
the
guidelines
recognize
that
third
party
professional
scientific
bodies
who
independently
verify
labels
for
compliance
with
the
organic
regulations
(
NOP)
be
allowed
to
place
a
seal
of
said
organization
for
both
EPA
registered
and
EPA
exempted
products.

Response:
The
Agency
has
rewritten
the
text
to
recognize
independent
verification
of
products.

08­
07:
NOP
needs
to
provide
EPA
periodic
updates
on
allowed
materials
including
timely
notification
of
any
materials
that
have
been
de­
listed
Response:
This
is
critical
to
EPA.
However,
EPA
needs
to
be
notified
when
a
de­
listing
is
proposed.
The
USDA/
NOP
has
to
amend
the
National
List
by
rule
making,
so
it
will
not
be
a
Page
7
of
12
difficult
task
to
inform
EPA
when
a
de­
listing
is
proposed.

08­
08:
Supports
EPA
plan
to
limit
label
directions
to
those
uses
allowed
by
the
NOP
via
the
National
List.

Response:
None
necessary
08­
09:
EPA
should
work
with
the
NOSB
to
clarify
outstanding
issues.

Response:
The
Agency
is
working
with
the
NOSB
and
USDA's
NOP
staff
to
clarify
and
resolve
outstanding
issues.

08­
10:
EPA
labeling
program
should
not
be
fully
implemented
until
a
number
of
issues
are
resolved.

Response:
EPA
has
addressed
a
number
of
issues
believe
there
are
no
issues
to
be
resolved
prior
to
implementing
this
program.

08­
11:
Suggests
EPA
consult
with
NOSB
about
any
unclear
restrictions
and
provide
guidance
as
to
the
scope
of
restrictions
that
are
enforceable
for
a
pesticide
label.

Response:
The
EPA
is
setting
up
a
procedure
for
consultations
with
the
NOP
staff
and
the
NOSB.

08­
12:
EPA
should
provide
the
NOP
and
make
available
to
OMRI
and
any
other
interested
member
of
the
public
a
regular
(
no
less
than
annual)
report
of
all
approved
active
ingredients,
products
and
label
restrictions.
.

Response:
The
EPA
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
currently
lists
all
inert
ingredients
used
in
pesticide
formulations
on
its
WEB
site.
The
EPA
has
roughly
800
active
ingredients
which
are
in
registered
pesticide
products.
Providing
a
list
of
these
active
ingredients
represents
a
fairly
simple
task.
EPA
intends
to
establish
a
listing
of
registered
pesticide
products
which
have
label
identification
indicating
they
are
allowable
for
use
in
organic
production
on
its
web
page.

08­
13:
EPA
should
also
provide
NOP
with
information
about
products
that
have
identical
formulations,
but
may
have
more
than
one
label
required
in
order
to
meet
the
organic
labeling
requirements.
Producers
may
not
always
have
access
to
organic
labeled
products,
or
they
may
not
be
made
available
in
commercial
quantities.
In
other
cases,
a
transitioning
farmer
may
have
an
inventory
of
a
formulation
that
meets
the
requirements
of
the
NOP
Final
Rule
standards
even
if
it
is
not
labeled
as
such.

Response:
We
understand
the
concerns
expressed.
However,
we
are
not
allowed
to
release
formulations
without
the
registrant's
approval.
We
have
been
encouraging
registrants
to
list
all
of
their
ingredients
on
pesticide
labels
for
a
number
of
years.
None
of
these
actions
will
resolve
the
Page
8
of
12
concerns
expressed.
This
PR
Notice
informs
registrants
of
procedures
to
make
information
available
to
organic
producers.
The
organic
farmer
is
expected
to
work
with
her/
his
certifier
to
determine
if
a
product
is
allowed
under
the
NOP.
In
some
cases,
the
farmer
and
certifier
may
not
be
able
to
determine
that
a
product
is
allowable
under
the
NOP.

08­
14:
EPA
needs
to
incorporate
a
delisting
procedure.

Response:
EPA
has
added
procedures
for
delisting
in
the
PR
Notice.

08­
15:
OMRI
suggests
EPA
consult
with
the
NOSB
about
any
restrictions
that
are
not
clear
and
produce
guidance
as
to
the
scope
of
restrictions
that
are
enforceable
for
a
pesticide
label
under
FIFRA
requirements.

Response:
EPA
plans
to
have
more
interaction
with
the
NOSB
members
to
enable
the
board
to
recommend
clarification
of
National
List
annotations
which
are
not
enforceable
under
FIFRA.

08­
16:
Several
comments
not
related
to
this
PR
Notice.

Response:
We
are
addressing
these
comments
through
our
interactions
with
the
USDA
NOP
Staff.

Commenter
#
9
09­
01:
Concerned
that
25b
products
may
utilize
NOP
label
while
not
fully
complying.

Response:
25b
products
must
list
all
ingredients
so
it
would
be
fairly
easy
for
individuals
associated
with
organic
production
to
verify
whether
or
not
a
25b
product
meets
the
requirements
of
the
NOP.

09­
02:
Concerned
that
25b
product
producers
often
do
not
follow
rules
and
market
products
without
listing
ingredients.

Response:
The
NOP
requires
organic
farmers
to
rely
on
their
certifiers
to
determine
if
a
product
meets
the
requirements
of
the
NOP.
The
certifier
and
organic
farmer
should
know
that
such
a
product
would
not
have
adequate
information
on
the
label
to
allow
the
use
in
organic
production
since
the
required
ingredients
are
not
on
the
label.

09­
03:
Suggests
we
allow
use
of
USDA
Organic
seal.

Response:
USDA
intends
for
this
seal
to
be
used
on
food
products
which
meet
the
Organic
requirements.
It
could
be
confusing
and
possibly
dangerous
to
place
the
USDA
organic
seal
intended
for
food
products
on
pesticide
products.
Page
9
of
12
09­
04:
Concern
with
our
wording
of
the
draft
PR
Notice
regarding
appearance
on
the
National
List.

Response:
The
National
List
consists
of
5
parts.
We
have
revised
the
PR
Notice
to
convey
that
only
materials
that
are
on
the
National
List
as
allowed
substances
comply
with
the
NOP.

Commenter
#
10
10­
01:
EPA
must
continue
to
prohibit
additional
label
claims
implying
product
safety.

Response:
EPA
carefully
developed
wording
for
this
labeling
to
minimize
the
probability
of
the
wording
being
misleading
and
we
intend
to
continue
evaluating
potentially
false
and
misleading
label
wording.

10­
02:
Agrees
that
EPA
should
only
review
labeling
submissions
for
pesticide
products
that
are
registered
or
proposed
to
be
registered.

Response:
EPA
cannot
approve
the
use
of
the
suggested
label
language
on
any
products
exempted
from
regulation
under
25(
b)
of
FIFRA.
However,
manufacturers
of
exempted
products
can
use
the
suggested
wording
providing
their
products
are
allowable
under
the
NOP
for
labeled
uses
or
they
could
get
their
product
registered
under
FIFRA
Section
3.

Commenter
#
11
11­
01:
Disagrees
that
EPA
cannot
approve
use
of
NOP
on
exempted
pesticides.

Response:
If
a
product
meets
all
of
the
requirements
under
25(
b)
of
FIFRA
and
meets
the
requirements
of
the
NOP,
while
we
are
not
reviewing
and
accepting
the
use
of
the
suggested
label
wording
on
exempted
product
labels,
the
inclusion
of
this
wording
would
not
necessarily
be
false
and
misleading.
Therefore,
the
Agency
would
not
have
grounds
to
take
action
against
such
a
product.

Commenter
#
12
&
13
12­
01:
For
this
program
to
be
effective
the
EPA
must
work
hand
in
hand
with
the
National
Organic
Program
to
come
up
with
a
complete
list
of
approved
active
and
inert
ingredients.

Response:
We
are
and
expect
to
continue
to
work
with
the
NOSB
and
the
NOP
staff
to
develop
a
list
of
active
ingredients
as
the
list
is
expected
to
change
over
time.
List
4
inert
ingredients
are
available
on
our
WEB
site
and
we
intend
to
keep
the
NOSB
informed
of
changes
in
List
4.

12­
02:
EPA
does
not
wish
to
exclude
natural
materials
not
specifically
included
on
the
National
List
although
the
wording
of
the
EPA
draft
PR
Notice
document
does.
Page
10
of
12
Response:
The
EPA
has
reworded
the
PR
Notice
to
explicitly
recognize
this
issue.

12­
03:
There
are
gray
areas
such
as
methods
of
extraction
and
handling
of
adjuvants.

Response:
We
rely
on
the
NOP/
NOSB
to
deal
with
methods
of
extraction
since
the
organic
program
is
not
an
EPA
program.
Adjuvants
are
not
pesticide
products
unless
packaged
with
the
pesticide
product.
Adjuvants
are
considered
inerts
if
specified
on
a
pesticide
label.
Therefore,
some
adjuvants
would
be
on
our
inerts
lists
and
those
on
list
4
would
be
allowed
as
would
any
other
adjuvant
which
meets
the
requirements
of
the
NOP.
We
have
no
authority
on
wording
on
adjuvant
packaging
unless
it
is
packaged
with
a
registered
pesticide
product.
Therefore,
the
NOSB/
NOP
is
faced
with
the
task
of
allowing/
prohibiting
adjuvants
which
are
not
pesticide
inerts.

12­
04:
There
must
be
a
clearly
defined
process
for
listing
and
delisting
products
as
standards
continue
to
change
according
to
work
done
by
the
NOSB
and
NOP.
Growers
must
be
given
time
to
use
up
what
they
have
on
hand
when
a
material
gets
delisted.

Response:
Listing
and
delisting
are
the
responsibility
of
the
NOSB/
NOP.
EPA
is
setting
up
a
process
where
the
registrant
is
advised
to
promptly
request
modification
of
label
language
if
a
product
no
longer
is
allowed.
If
the
registrant
fails
to
take
this
action,
the
Agency
has
the
authority
to
take
action
to
bring
products
into
compliance.
Organic
certifiers
typically
allow
time
for
growers
to
use
up
existing
stocks.
The
EPA
generally
considers
existing
stocks
and
makes
appropriate
provisions
for
their
use
or
disposal
when
EPA
initiates
an
action
to
remove
a
pesticide
product
from
the
marketplace.

12­
05:
There
is
much
work
to
be
done
to
move
suitable
inert
ingredients
to
list
4.
There
should
be
a
formal
link
between
EPA
and
NOP
to
notify
when
items
get
moved
from
List
3
to
List
4
(
besides
publication
in
the
Federal
Register),
as
there
may
be
items
the
NOSB
would
like
to
prohibit.

Response:
The
EPA
is
working
to
move
ingredients
to
List
4
if
the
Agency
has
sufficient
information
to
justify
such
an
action.
EPA
will
also
move
inerts
from
List
4
if
information
becomes
available
to
justify
removal.
The
changes
to
List
4
are
being
made
in
a
transparent
manner
and
the
Agency
intends
to
notify
the
USDA
NOP
staff
when
they
occur.

12­
06:
We
would
like
to
see
all
inert
ingredients
on
pesticide
labels
so
the
grower
can
make
an
intelligent
choice
about
whether
or
not
a
product
meets
the
organic
standards.

Response:
The
EPA
is
encouraging
registrants
to
list
all
ingredients
on
pesticide
labels.
However,
a
pesticide
registrant
has
the
legal
right
not
to
list
inert
ingredients
unless
they
are
list
1
inerts.

12­
07:
There
is
also
the
issue
of
genetically
modified
crops
that
may
be
used
in
making
pesticides
since
the
NOP
requires
all
items
to
be
free
from
genetic
modification
techniques.
Page
11
of
12
Response:
EPA
is
relying
on
the
NOSB
and
the
NOP
staff
to
determine
which
materials
are
allowable.
We
cannot
determine
whether
an
ingredient
is
allowable
under
the
NOP.

12­
08:
As
a
certifier,
we
know
that
our
inspectors
will
be
the
primary
agents
insuring
compliance
with
organic
standards.

Response:
We
have
modified
the
PR
Notice
to
make
it
clear
the
responsibility
is
with
the
certifier.

12­
09:
We
are
concerned
with
the
use
of
split
labels.

Response:
We
have
modified
our
guidance
for
what
products
we
will
allow
suggested
wording,
limiting
it
to
only
those
products
which
fully
meet
the
requirements
of
the
NOP.
No
other
uses
nor
formulations
will
be
allowed
for
these
products.

12­
10:
Would
like
to
see
a
national
posting
of
approved
materials
on
a
web
site.

Response:
We
already
have
posted
inert
materials
on
our
web
site
with
the
list
for
each
cleared
inert
noted.
EPA
will
rely
on
USDA
to
provide
the
list
of
acceptable
active
ingredients
for
the
NOP.
EPA
will
list
on
its
WEB
site
all
of
the
products
which
we
review
and
approve
for
a
label
statement
regarding
the
NOP.

12­
11:
Concern
expressed
about
EPA
allowed
materials
not
being
posted
on
the
OMRI
listing
and
causing
grower
confusion.

Response:
EPA
plans
to
post
products
as
OMRI
does.
If
OMRI
wished
to
list
materials
for
which
EPA
has
accepted
organic
label
language,
EPA
would
try
to
work
out
a
procedure
with
OMRI
to
expedite
such
posting.
Currently,
such
materials
would
be
public
information
and
OMRI
could
include
them
on
its
list.

12­
12:
Concern
that
25b
exempted
products
would
not
be
included
in
this
program
and
would
like
to
see
all
products
used
by
organic
growers
included
in
this
program.

Response:
We
have
not
excluded
25b
exempted
products
from
use
of
suggested
label
language.
However,
it
is
the
responsibility
of
the
manufacturer
of
the
exempted
product
to
verify
that
the
product
meets
the
requirements
of
the
NOP.
The
fact
that
EPA
has
List
4
inerts
on
our
web
site
and
those
active
ingredients
with
registered
products
and
exempted
from
regulation
which
are
allowed
under
the
NOP
should
make
it
fairly
easy
for
a
manufacturer
of
an
exempted
product
to
determine
if
her/
his
exempted
product
meets
the
requirements.
Because
EPA
does
not
review
exempt
pesticide
products,
we
are
not
including
these
on
our
WEB
site.

12­
13:
Would
like
to
see
rapid
deployment
of
this
program
once
problems
are
resolved.

Response:
EPA
will
be
implementing
this
program
once
the
PR
Notice
is
final
and
available
to
the
Page
12
of
12
public.

Commenter
#
14
14­
01:
Generally
supportive
Response:
None
Needed
14­
02:
Suggested
changes
in
Logo
Response:
We
have
examined
changes
in
the
acceptable
labeling
and
could
not
adopt
using
the
USDA
logo
modified
to
include
organic
wording.
The
use
of
the
USDA
logo
could
be
confusing
with
the
USDA
logo
for
organic
foods.
We
have
adopted
changes
in
the
logo
which
address
concerns
with
the
originally
proposed
logo.
