The answer depends on how the law is interpreted.

The Federal Analog Act "is a section of the United States Controlled Substances Act passed in 1986 which allowed any chemical "substantially similar" to a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II to be treated as if it were also listed in those schedules, but only if intended for human consumption."

A "substantially similar" substance is EXTREMELY VAGUELY defined as a structure of the following characteristics:

(i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;
AND
(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;
OR
(iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.

AND IS NIETHER

(i) a controlled substance;
NOR
(ii) any substance for which there is an approved new drug application;
NOR
(iii) with respect to a particular person any substance, if an exemption is in effect for investigational use, for that person, under section 355 of this title to the extent conduct with respect to such substance is pursuant to such exemption
NOR
(iv) any substance to the extent not intended for human consumption before such an exemption takes effect with respect to that substance.

So if the DEA decides to say that NMT is "substantially similar" to DMT because it has a similar chemical structure (i), and has effects similar enough to DMT, then the substance is illegal if the person who posseses it intends to ingest it (iii).

Now, you could argue that
(a) NMT is not substantially similar in structure to DMT and so (i) does not apply
Which would be difficult, since they are indeed quite similar.
or
(b) NMT does not have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of DMT and so (ii) and (iii) do not apply.
Which, although is easier to support than (a), is completely up to the courts to decide.
or
(c) The NMT was not intended for human consumption, so it is exempted by (iv) of the exemptions section
Which you would have to provide some evidence for.
(d) According to States v. Granberry, the analog act was only meant to be applied to laboratory made substances, not to naturally occuring ones.
Which is not explicitly stated in the act itself and is therefore non-binding and merely dicta.

And this is only for pure NMT. If extracted from plant material, it would almost always have traces of DMT in it, which would make it Schedule I as is any material with any quantity of a Schedule I substance.

Keep in mind however that this is US federal law. Most states do not have an analog act and so under most state jurisdictions, pure NMT with absolutely no DMT is essentially legal. Some countries such as Canada do not have a catch all analog act or clause for alkylated tryptamine compounds, and so it should be legal in those countries. However, in a US federal court, the Federal Analog Act fully applies.