1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

GRAIN INSPECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

AUGUST 16, 2019

+ + + + +

The Committee met in the Main Conference Room 

at the AMS National Grain Center, 10383 North 

Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, Missouri, at 8:00 

a.m., Linsey Moffit-Tobin, GIAC Chair, presiding.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

LINSEY MOFFIT-TOBIN, Eastern Iowa Grain 

Inspection and Weighing Services; GIAC Chair

CHAD BECNEL, SGS Trade Services

RANDALL BURNS, Arkansas Bureau of Standards

JOHN LINDGREN, United Grain Corporation

JOHN MORGAN, Supreme Rice, LLC

RICK ROBINETTE, Sioux City Inspection and

Weighing Service Company

SARAH SEXTON-BOWSHER, Kansas State University

BRUCE SUTHERLAND, Michigan Agricultural 

Commodities

TOM TUNNELL, Kansas Grain and Feed Association

ERROL B. TURNIPSEED, South Dakota State

University

MARK WATNE, North Dakota Farmers Union
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ALSO PRESENT:

BRUCE SUMMERS, AMS Administrator

ARTHUR NEAL, FGIS Deputy Administrator;

Designated Federal Officer

DAVID AYERS, Champaign Grain Inspection

MATTHEW KERRIGAN, Vancouver, Washington ETT

KENDRA KLINE, Assistant to the FGIS Deputy

Administrator and Advisory Committee

Specialist

RYAN KUHL, Northern Plains Grain Inspection

Service, Inc.

TODD RUSSOM, Anheuser-Busch
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CONTENTS

Call to Order ................................. 4

FGIS FDA MOU Discussion ....................... 4

Public Comments .............................. 37

Discussion of the Policy and Procedure

Manual.................................. 40

Recommendations/Resolutions .................. 49

Discuss Agenda Items for Next Meeting ....... 167

Officer Elections ........................... 175

Closing Remarks ............................. 180

Adjourn ..................................... 180
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P R O C E E D I N G S

(8:00 a.m.)

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Good morning, 

everyone. Thank you for coming back. I hope 

everybody had a good night last night and good 

discussions. So, we're going to start right away 

this morning, and I apologize for, I have a cough, 

so I apologize. I'll try to adapt.

This morning, we're going to start with 

Anthony Goodeman, he's the director of FGMS Field 

Management Division. He's going to talk to us 

about the memorandum of understanding. Tony?

MR. GOODEMAN: Well, good morning. 

Thank you Madam Chair, appreciate it. Thank you 

for having me. It's great to be up here in Kansas 

City again. Great to see all the committee 

members. My name is Tony Goodeman. I work in the 

field management division, so we oversee a lot of 

the field operations. We've got eight field 

offices and about 400 employees around the country. 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We all report with the official 

agencies. I myself come from the Toledo, Ohio 

field office. I came out on the field as an online 

inspector and supervisor, technician, worked my 

way up from the bottom, so for those who don't know 

me, welcome. 

Okay, I'll pretend the scenario here. 

Has anybody been out there on either side of this 

equation. It's Friday night, you're loading 

railcars or a shed. You got to make a call to the 

elevator manager, the operator control room, 

whatever it is, and say hey, got a bad car here, 

you know, it's -- weird odor, like a smoke odor 

of corn or -- glass or something like that, or this 

subwatt's bad, I've had high aflatoxin, have, you 

know, 30 parts aflatoxin. 

Okay, we'll dump that one right back. 

So, well, hang on. Unfortunately, this is 

actionable under our agreement, under MOU with FDA. 

What was that, what was all those initials there 

we're talking about, I never heard of that thing. 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, raise your hand if you've ever been involved 

in one of these actionable lots. There's quite 

a few, yeah. A lot of people.

So, what this is, is this is a 

memorandum of understanding that FGIS maintains 

with the Food and Drug Administration. FDA has 

a lot of rules and regulations about what can go 

and what can't go in food, particularly like, like 

food ingredients like wheat, rice, pulses, 

processed products, and they've got, they've got 

rules just like we have. 

And instead of them having inspectors 

onsite doing these inspections or having people 

in plants, they said, hey, FGIS, you're out there 

all the time, how about if you guys check for this 

in the normal course of your work. And so we have, 

it goes back to at least 1980, that's the earliest 

version I can find, it might be before that. 

And basically says that we'll be FDAs 

eyes and ears out in the field. If we see anything 

that violates whatever is on their list that they 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

give us, we'll let them know. And that's where 

it stops for us, really. We let them know. We're 

just the reporters out there. 

And so if we see something that's on 

their list of things to be on the lookout for, kind 

of examples here would be high insect damage kernels 

in wheat, insects in milled rice, live or dead, 

animal filth, distinctly low quality grain, that's 

another initially you have to unfortunately explain 

sometimes.

Say you had a DLQ that violates FDA MOU, 

that's a mouthful and it's not a good one either. 

Commercially objectionable foreign odors, that 

would be something that's not normal with grain, 

not a normal sour or musty odor. It could be 

something like, if petroleum or some kind of oil 

product that accidentally spilled on grain or if 

there's some kind of masking agent put in the grain, 

like people put cinnamon or bleach to try to mask 

a bad odor, that could trigger it.

A certain second smoke odors in corn, 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

whether there may have been a fire or the corn got 

heat real bad. And an aflatoxin, it's another 

common one. Any aflatoxin over 20 parts per 

billion is actionable. It's like, when that 

happens, we have a directive out there, it's called 

the implementation of the FGIS FDA memorandum of 

understanding and it basically outlines our 

procedures for our inspectors like for our Jackson 

employees and the official agencies.

And so what it says is if you see one 

of these things, report it to FDA. Call them up, 

say, hey, we found this and send them a written 

report of what, you know, with some details about 

what we found and the carrier IDs, things like that. 

And then we turn it over to FDA. And that's a 

lot of times where things can get more complicated.

FDA, the people that are responsible 

for this, have a lot of responsibilities and 

sometimes we have to work with them to help them 

understand, explain to the elevator folks what the 

FGIS FDA MOU was, let me talk to the FDA and explain 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to them what the FGIS FDA MOU was for people on 

the ground who might not deal with this every single 

day.

And so then once we trigger that, oh, 

yeah, yeah, so you guys are basically looking out 

for these regulations in this subpart, okay, and 

then take it from there. Sometimes, you know, on 

that Friday night scenario, the bin or the rail 

car, whatever it is. To be on the safe side, they 

might just lock it up. They might just seal up 

the bin, if it's a shipping bin, they might set 

that railcar aside.

But then if they can't get a hold of 

FDA until say Sunday morning, that's a lot of down 

time for that railcar, and that's something that 

we know from working with you all the time, that's 

not something that's really tolerable every day. 

If you have a bad bin or bad railcar, you're going 

to dump and reload it right now, you know, in the 

next 30 minutes. Not sometime next week or 

whenever we hear back from FDA.
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, that's, that's some basic

background. So, what we'll do then is we'll work 

with FDA, whatever they want us to do from nothing 

to witnessing anything. We're not going to, we're 

not going to like approve a mitigation plan, but 

oftentimes, the customer, the shipper, whatever 

it is, will work with FDA and say, hey, we have 

this say high aflatoxin. 

We do have a procedure to recondition 

it, because the aflatoxin a lot of times will occur 

in the broken kernels, primarily. So, we'll have 

a procedure, we can sift that out and then re-test 

it. That's an existing -- instruction. But other 

than that, it's really up to FDA what they want 

to do. 

A lot of times, they'll do nothing. 

They'll say, okay, we'll just say it's not going 

to be for human consumption and you'll be okay. 

Or if it's really bad, they might say, well, have 

it sent to a dumpster, we want to witness that or 

have FGIS witness that. 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But it's really FDA's call. We'll, if 

anybody has a tough time getting a hold of FDA or 

doesn't get responses, we can use our contacts to 

let them know and say, hey, this customer here 

waiting on this has been a few days, can we, just 

want to make sure aware that this is going on. 

So, that's really about it. We're literally 

reporters, so we report to FDA anything that exceeds 

these challenges outlined in their regulations, 

which are formalized in our instructions.

And we let them know what's going on 

and then it's really on them. Like, we'll witness 

a transfer of a bin, we'll witness any kind of 

reconditioning, whatever mitigation plan they 

might come up with, but that's about it. So, again, 

some examples here. 

Insect damage kernels and what, if it 

exceeds our sample critic criteria, which is 32 

or more insect damaged kernels, that's a sample 

rate for us but also actionable for FDA. Insects 

in milled rice. Another one that comes up 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

frequently is a distinctly low quality if we get 

deer droppings, and that's something that we see, 

unfortunately.

And we have a policy within FGIS that 

any deer droppings, any deer droppings in a lot, 

if you find one deer dropping in a lot of grain, 

whether that's, you can open up a barge and see 

it there or it's your actual sample, any one deer 

dropping in a lot is distinctly low quality. We 

say that it's large animal filth and it's not 

something that we want to have in the grain and 

so by FGIS policy, we make that lot distinctive 

low quality which then, anything that is DLQ, we 

report to FDA as actionable.

So, that can be a, it can really make 

a tough problem finding one deer dropping tougher, 

because it's not just something that you can just 

run around and clean, you know, to involve FDA. 

So, I mentioned the COFO and the aflatoxin. Some 

of these things like the aflatoxin, we have 

reconditioning options for. But very few other 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

things. 

The FDA MOU is dated, the last one was 

signed I think in 1997, so it's 22 years old. The 

FDA regulations, because we've actually had a 

presentation from some of the FDA at the New Orleans 

Regional Industry meeting that -- we put on jointly. 

And it's a real shame that we couldn't have them 

here today to answer all these FDA questions.

But I'm honored to be able to answer 

FDA's questions, but she'll do the presentation 

and I'll outline all these same things, like it's 

nothing in their regulations about these standards 

or limits, what's not acceptable has changed. Some 

of the language is a bit old and I think that we 

can, I know this is a pain point for a lot of us 

in the industry, and in talking with Arthur, 

something that we definitely want to take on and 

refresh, see what we can do to make this process 

smoother.

Because we are on the ground and want 

to be able to facilitate. We know that FDA might 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not always be out there. You know, they might not 

work nights and weekends. We want to be able to 

do whatever we can to help keep things moving, help 

keep the food safe, but also make sure that the 

world can go around.

Hopefully that answers some of the kind 

of background questions. I'd be happy to entertain 

questions on this I can share with you, if you'd 

like.

PARTICIPANT: Tony, what about 

submitted samples?

MR. GOODEMAN: That's a great 

question. So, the question is on submitted 

samples. What about submitted samples. So, 

submitted sample is something that a farmer or a 

grain elevator, anybody, anybody could just send 

to us and say, he will you grade this. It might 

just be like, you know, two, three pounds. 

We don't know where it came from, they 

might say it's from car ABC 123, we have no idea. 

It could just be from some, you know, a 50 gallon 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

drum in the office of the good stuff, not that that 

would ever happen. But they send a sample in and 

we grade it. And when you, anything on submitted 

samples is not actionable. Because we don't know 

if it's like from an actual official lot or 

anything. 

We don't know where it came from, what 

it is. This only applies to officially sampled 

lots. So, that is kind of, I don't want to call 

it a work around, but that is something that gives 

handlers some more options, is if you send in 

submitted samples, if, you know, have maybe some 

hot aflatoxin you're trying to sort out and trying 

to bin. 

That if you send in submitted samples 

and in turns out that it's, you know, 40 parts per 

billion, it's not actionable, it's not reportable 

to the FDA. This is only things that are officially 

samples with FGIS or our official agents are out 

there doing work online or probing officially. 

That's a -- I appreciate that clarification.
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. KERRIGAN: Tony, you talked about 

the MOU being dated. Is there a plan to update 

said dated MOU?

MR. GOODEMAN: Yeah, yeah, we do. We 

looked at this a couple of years ago and started 

making some inroads with FDA. I think they had 

some changes in staff, so did we, and so I think 

it's time to reinvigorate that to see what we can 

do to improve it, modernize it.

MR. KERRIGAN: Because of a lot of the 

time lag that we see that you mention and that's 

obviously one of the bigger concerns upon this, 

do you see FGIS being able to take a larger role 

with the new, with an updated MOU, or is that part 

of the progress or intention?

MR. GOODEMAN: I think it's something 

to talk about, I think that, you know, you kind 

of get into what, what is our role. We're happy, 

the easier things to do is work out some of these 

things with FDA in advance. Like if they have 

standard policies where they handle things, that's, 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that's easier. If we're the ones, again, we're 

not food safety experts, we likely wouldn't put 

ourselves in the spot to say hey, we're going to 

take all these FDA rules and figure out, you know, 

what's going to be best for FDA food safety 

objectives.

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur. I agree 

with Tony, it probably wouldn't take on the full 

decision-making responsibility. One of the things 

that we'll have to talk about in the engagement 

of this update is timelines. So, are there things 

that we can do to make sure that there's better 

response time to issues. Are there things that 

they could commit to do to ensure that they jump 

on things much quicker than have been.

If there are some decisions that can 

be, you know, delegated to us that don't cross over 

into the food safety arena, can that be done? So, 

we'll have to look at those things and see what 

we can do. And it's almost similar, you know, I 

appreciate we listening to you sharing that came 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

out of it much clearer than we heard in New Orleans.

But it's similar to the FSIS 

relationship that we've got. The things that we, 

you know, we brought vital service FSIS has on 

petitioner authority, I'm sorry, I said FSIS, yeah, 

agents. In this case, you know, I'd like for us 

to see what we can do to make sure that there's 

timely response. Because I'm thinking --

relationship, there are timely responses. We want 

to make sure the same thing is happening with FDA, 

so that's the what we'll definitely commit to.

MR. KERRIGAN: And you touched on 

there, Tony, right at the very end too, you know, 

the state, kind of standard items where there's 

usually a standard process like with aflatoxin or 

sealing of bins, even if it's something to where, 

here's a standard process that you can, that they 

may allow you guys to, you know, automatically 

oversee the transfer to another bin or something 

like that so we're not tying up the facility as 

their making decisions would be a great next step 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for us. That way, we'd have to wait for three, 

four, five days to get a response that says you 

can finally move this over and then we'll be out.

MR. GOODEMAN: I think there's a lot 

of potential there.

MR. NEAL: So, one think I would 

suggest, since we're talking about this, the 

committee may want to consider looking at that MOU 

from your perspective and how you been impacted 

by it. Providing us input on ways we could 

potentially suggest updates and changes to it and 

be reasonable. Consider we're authorities while 

you're doing so, so that we could try to make as 

much progress as we can in negotiating numbers.

MR. SUTHERLAND: Bruce Sutherland, so 

this is kind of a, I know, we're getting legal 

aspects here, perhaps we will. So, an MOU, how 

does that have a weight from a statutory item, and 

also, you know, we're up for renewal of the Grain 

Standards Act. Could Congress supersede this and 

take this from FDA? And strictly put, you know, 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

deal with these issues for FGIS, since you're 

dealing with handlers and deal with it on the spot 

and take FDA out of the picture. If they, you know, 

put that up in the Grain Standards Act, I'm curious 

how that, what your thoughts are on that? Do you 

want to go there?

MR. GOODEMAN: Well, I definitely 

don't, but sometimes I can't help myself. So, a 

lot of the provisions in the FDA, the reason that 

we have this is that FDA has the law they work under 

and the regulations that have all these 

stipulations in there. So, whether we enforce them 

or FDA does, I mean, we assume this to be somebody, 

but they're in the, they're codified already. 

So, as far as our relationship to having 

an MOU, I think it's designed with AFIS, you know, 

there are people out there don't have some of the 

government officials coming through. We're already 

out there, know the business, know you all, by 

relationship, so that part, it makes sense to me. 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It puts us in an awkward spot sometimes, 

because then we've got to, you know, try to enforce 

somebody else's rules effectively, but from a 

taxpayer standpoint, it's nice to have some 

efficiency there, you don't have multiple folks 

coming out and doing business and things, so ---

MR. NEAL: Let me add to that, too, 

Bruce. It also gets complicated if you try to 

modify authorities in that way, because now you've 

got, they all have to deal with the FDA regulations 

and their statutes, and pull -- their guardian and 

give to FGIS which then complicates our, if we 

become focused on too many different issues, we're 

not helping safety. That's FDA. 

So, what FDA does as they do in other 

cases, they don't have enough people on the ground. 

So, they're trying to figure out how can we still 

assure consumer safety without having to stretch 

our resources too thin. So, they allow other 

federal agencies to do that. Not too much 

different in the food processing department. 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

They may not have enough, you know, feet 

on the ground to handle all of the processing plants 

and manufacturing plants and have things going on, 

so they might not visit them all. And with knowing 

USDA, you are in certain locations where they have 

responsibility. They're just relying on us to be 

their eyes and ears. 

So, what we want to try to do is figure 

out how we can help them as we're their eyes and 

ears, and help us serve our customers more 

efficiently without putting us in a bind. Because 

we're doing, we're helping them. We need them to 

help us, too. Because this is ag trade and we need 

us to continue to be, we need to continue to move 

product out of the country, without delaying, 

without incurring additional costs. And so, and

I will share with Sara Lee this would be a win-win 

relationship.

MR. MORGAN: John Morgan, Supreme 

Rice. Thanks Tony, appreciate that. I think you 

guys are looking at this and I appreciate you guys 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

because when you dig into the, I encourage everyone 

on the committee to read the Stefano 60 directive 

in USDA and its implementation. And it talks about 

what's actionable, what's not actionable. 

When you read through it, you know, I 

know the last update was '97, but I would say that 

some of this language is probably from 1980.

MR. GOODEMAN: At lot of it was 

probably early '80s.

MR. MORGAN: So, it's really time to 

take a look at it and see if we can update it. 

But also, it digs, when you dig into that and you've 

got, actually pull the MOU out, the actual MOU 

between the two parties. I'm not sure exactly what 

the statute is, yeah, MOU 225-80-2000. When you 

read through it, it's a little deeper than just 

when you're doing your normal services. It talks 

about facilities and warehouses and grain 

facilities. 

So, anytime FGIS is in your facility, 

there's always the potential that they see 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

something in the facility and seems like they have 

the authority or, correct me if I'm wrong, they 

see some in your facility, it's more than just 

officially sample product. So, I just wanted to 

make that clear. I don't think FGIS goes into any 

facilities looking for that type of deal that, you 

know, typically they weren't going to discuss.

We've had some facility issues and, you 

know, we corrected it, we can get FDA involved. 

They'll tell you, which is nowhere in this MOU or 

guidelines or anything I've ever read, they've got 

10 days to respond. We all know the grain business, 

that's just too long. So, I encourage you guys 

to work with them, because I think the mitigation 

plans that we come up, FGIS has the expertise more 

so than FDA on those mitigation plans.

You guys understand grain, you guys 

understand how we can mitigate the problems. There 

are certain things that aren't mitigatable, you 

start talking about glass and stuff like that. 

It has to be within, from a channel. But there 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are a lot of things, I think, that if you work with 

the FDA, you can come up with ways that we can reduce 

the amount of time that it takes to mitigate the 

railcar load or truckload or whatever.

And I just encourage you guys to go down 

that path and to anyone of the committee, also, 

I encourage you to read the statute, realize what 

is possible. And I understand that the food safety 

aspect comes from the Food Safety Act, which is 

FDA's purview, and also I think my understanding 

is this only applies to exports and domestic 

business, is that correct?

MR. GOODEMAN: Anything sampled 

officially, so if that's going domestic, it would 

be, we import such little, so very little grain, 

but if something was imported and we sampled it, 

inspected it officially, then it could. Anything 

officially inspected.

MR. MORGAN: Do you guys do official 

sampling on imports?

MR. GOODEMAN: There's so little, like 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there's a lot, there's some organic grain that's 

imported, but we don't typically inspect that.

MR. MORGAN: Yeah, rice guys would 

argue different because plenty of rice --

MR. GOODEMAN: Oh, there you go, right.

MR. MORGAN: And I don't know if you 

guys are even involved in that.

MR. GOODEMAN: No, only --

MR. MORGAN: You all are not and I was 

just curious, on the import side, if that's when 

you guys are involved at all. Anyway, thank you 

guys, I encourage you all to keep the honest path

in updating this and look for ways that you could 

do some of these things, I think, more efficiently. 

Like you said, you have to educate FDA before you 

even, they can even make a decision. I think you 

guys are the ones with all, with most of the 

expertise on this and some way of finding that this 

MOU could be updated, give you guys a little more 

authority on making the suggested mitigation plans. 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, I think that's how it used to work 

in the past. If there was a problem, FGIS probably

steered FDA, here's some good, and steered the 

company, here's a good mitigation plan. They 

weren't exactly approving it, it wasn't their 

authority, but they could help and I know you guys 

try to, but getting the FDA to realize that they 

need your help and the timing is critical, it's 

a big step. Thank you.

MR. GOODEMAN: And there are further 

provisions for rice, pulses like dry peas, beans, 

lentils, and processed products like flour or corn 

soy blend that are tighter, actually, that do 

require sanitation inspections of the facility that 

are even more stringent than what we have in like 

the coarse grains, whole grains.

MR. MORGAN: Yeah, I don't, like in a 

lot of the -- you don't see corn or soy beans at 

all, because I'm assuming that's thought of more 

as a feed grain or protein or process grain.

MR. GOODEMAN: Any questions?
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. McCLUER: Hey, Tony. This is a 

very interesting discussion that we're having. 

And by the way, Jess McCluer with National Grain 

Feed Association. Because I'm reading in an e-mail 

that I received from a member yesterday and IDK 

and wheat, right? 

MR. GOODEMAN: Yeah.

MR. McCLUER: So, and, you know, and 

I've checked it, I've had this question many times 

I think, and it kind of gets back to, you know, 

the guidance that we can provide to the industry 

and the members. And if you look at the FDA page 

that refers to the FDA GIPSA Q&A section, how you 

grade the IDK for wheat and the IDK for wheat on 

the, from the FGIS side, and from the FDA side are 

totally different, right? On how you grade. 

So, the question would be is if you're 

a grain elevator and you're sending your wheat to 

a flour mill, where does the jurisdiction stop and 

where does it end for FGIS for FDA? So, for 

example, how are you supposed to grade the IDK for 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

wheat if you're a grain elevator versus, you know, 

sending it to a flour company. So, what am I 

supposed to, because the question is, do I follow 

what FGIS has or do I follow what FDA has?

MR. GOODEMAN: I'm talking about like 

a three-stage process for IDK. When we look at 

--

MR. GOODEMAN: Yeah, so I'm looking at 

the IDK. So, you have, it says, you know, and the 

reason I'm bringing up this technical issue, 

because this is kind of a prime example of, you 

know, the importance of the same MOU because of 

the discrepancies between what the FDA requirements 

are and how they grade and from the FGIS side. 

And so, what I'm saying is, if I get 

a question, right, being a trade association and 

I know there's others in here, you know, if they 

ever call me, what am I supposed to tell them? 

You know, what is, who has jurisdiction, what is 

the right avenue to pursue, you know, who should 

be doing what. 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I think that's where there's still 

some of this confusion on, you know, you go to the 

FDA page and you read IDK about wheat, that's 

different on the IDK, on the FGIS side. So, you 

know, and I guess the question is is you know, does 

that mean for grain elevators, is it once physically 

it goes, you know, you ship the wheat physically 

from the grain elevator to the flour mill, does 

that mean once it's at the flour mill, then it's 

FDA requirements? 

Or, you know, what does that mean? 

What are you supposed to be following? So, I guess 

that's kind of the, you know, things like that, 

and I'd be kind of curious.

MR. McCLUER: Yeah, there shouldn't be 

too many disparities. Like to help speed the 

inspection process, we have a three-stage process, 

looking at, again, wheat, you turn around 100 grams, 

you look at 15 grams first, and if they're just 

one or two, you stop there. Haven't looked in the 

handbook in a while. You can tell I'm rusty. I 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

hate coming up here and trying to cite handbook 

and be wrong. And so we have a procedure that may 

go a little bit quicker and FDA recognizes, you 

know, the three-stage process. 

You're trying to get to 100 grams total 

and make sure you don't have an excess of 32 or 

32 or more rather. But if somebody were to say, 

oh, if their procedure was to look at just 100 grams, 

that would be pretty similar, because we have a 

process to do that real similarly. 

MR. GOODEMAN: I think that's 

recognized. I think that FDA recognizes it.

MR. McCLUER: The question is, where 

does this, once it gets to a flour mill, does that 

means it's under FDA?

MR. NEAL: Yeah, I mean, it's not us. 

We don't, we process.

MR. McCLUER: Well, that's, see, this 

is what I'm, these are the questions that they are, 

you know, we're talking MOU and we're talking these 

types of issues that come up. I know, the answer 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is yes. But I'm providing this as an example. 

These are examples, questions that come up.

MR. GOODEMAN: I would also say, too, 

you know, we work also with Jess, Andy LaFollette, 

Negan on these things. I know Jess has a lot of 

good contacts. We do, too. If there's ever an 

issue that comes up, I would offer that. 

If you haven't heard from FDA in the 

amount time that's keeping you up at night, or 

whenever you're starting to feel uncomfortable 

about it, feel free to give us a call and we'll 

see if we can get in contact with some of our 

contacts over at -- hey, this customer's kind of 

waiting, just to try to help, to help facilitate 

however we can.

MR. McCLUER: All right, thank you.

MR. GOODEMAN: Any other questions?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: I just have one 

comment, and I don't know if it's correct or not, 

but my understanding, you have been a grader for 

a long time, but when you there's differences in 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

grading, FDA doesn't grade, we grade. But the 

point is is that, you know, there's the criteria 

for the sample grade factors, for example, the 

treated seeds. You know, there's four in a 

thousand grams, then it's sample grade. 

You know, but it's still sample grade 

yellow corn versus if there was 11, I believe under 

the memorandum of understanding and that's when 

we contact FDA. So, there's some for sample grade, 

but they can still, the customers can still do what 

they choose to do with that. Offload whatever they 

choose to do, but we don't contact FDA until we 

get to those limits for the memorandum of 

understanding. Some of them are the same and some 

of them are different.

MR. McCLUER: That kind of gets back 

to the question of your company, and if you have 

a question, right? What do I need to use or which 

standard applies or how am I supposed to use this. 

What I'm saying is is that there's still questions 

out there, right?
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: You're saying 

that you want them to be the same?

MR. NEAL: Can you repeat that for the 

record?

MR. McCLUER: Sure. What I'm saying 

is here, I understand what you're saying about who's 

supposed to be doing the sampling, who's supposed 

to be doing the grade . And I understand the 

question, right, if a company process inside your 

-- and you have a grain elevator, you're primarily 

going to say, and the question is is who's supposed 

to be doing what. You know, which one am I supposed 

to be following. Because there's discrepancies 

here on, you know, what, you know, what grade should 

I be here, what process should I be using? That's 

all I'm saying.

And that's an example of, you know, if 

I get a questionnaire about this, and I'm saying, 

well, you know, what's it to -- it's, you know, 

FDA, it's not, you know, what's in the elevator, 

essentially yes, you know, but where does it say 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that?

MR. TUNNELL: I don't think you can 

hear, can you, over here?

MR. McCLUER: It's very soft.

MR. McCLUSKEY: And I think the answer 

to your question, Jeff, is is it codified under 

7 CFR or under the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, 

actually 21 CFR, and that covers everything that's 

processed, not -- lobby for us.

MR. NEAL: So, this is Arthur. We'll 

make sure that when -- can be provided, if there 

are distinctions that need to be made or when lines 

are crossed, we can update that.

MR. GOODEMAN: Any questions, Mr. 

Morgan?

MR. MORGAN: In the clarity 

discussion, when you read this particular statute, 

it talks about rice, I'm not sure if it means mill 

rice or rough rice. Is it already processed, is 

rough rice included? So, it is a little ambiguous 

at times when we're looking at the different 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

requirements. Because rough rice, in our mind, 

is unprocessed. 

MR. GOODEMAN: Right.

MR. MORGAN: There's steps in doing it. 

We'll also argue that rice is not ready to eat 

once it's processed because that's a food. So, 

and I think at times that we can treat it on rice 

side as if ready to eat and it's not ready to eat. 

It has to be cooked unless you're pretty hard core 

and want to eat just rice and something.

So, anyway, in these distinctions, you know, 

because I think people get worked up sometimes over 

rice and insects, and the reality is it's not ready 

to eat. You know, there's ways to mitigate, take 

the, you know, it's a bad insect, take them out, 

but you've got to reprocess in this part of the 

mitigation plan or whatever, and I just want to 

bring that up. 

And you guys work with the FDA. 

Sometimes it's good to be a little more clear into 

what we're looking at, because that was questions 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

posed to me, rice, what do I mean, is it rough rice? 

I mean, look at some of these regs. I mean, rough 

rice, we have a lot of problems, processed rice, 

no. Meal rice, we would not. Thank you.

MR. GOODEMAN: Kind of like Arthur 

said, any of those points be good to bring up the 

sooner the better so we could bring that, our 

discussion with FDA.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: What is that?

MR. GOODEMAN: Anything else? All 

right, thank you, everyone.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Thank you, Tony, 

and we'll move on to the next item, which is public 

comments. I think we have one, correct, Kendra? 

Okay. And then, so Tom, if you'd like to go to 

the podium so we have a microphone. And please 

state your name and your affiliation, please.

MR. RUNYON: I'm Tom Runyon with 

Seedburo. For those of you that don't know 

Seedburo, just briefly, we're a manufacturer and 

distributor of grain testing, inspection, and 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

grading equipment. We are traditionally known as 

a catalog company, providing a catalog to the 

industry of all of our testing and inspection 

equipment. It extends not to just grain, but seed 

and feed ingredients, also.

I wanted to speak briefly here about 

the barge storage exam camera system. There's been 

a lot of work in the pilot program to advance this 

to the program notice. And we've picked up that 

arrangement with the two subcontractors that had 

developed the, first the prototypes and then the 

final product on the camera system, the software, 

the hatch mount, all the components that go into 

making a complete kit.

We recognize that each location is a 

bit unique in distance from pier to office, physical 

location, communication differences. So, that's 

why this system will be a menu, if you will, of 

the basic components and then various options to 

be added or configured based on each location. 

And the arrangements will be with a consultation 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to make sure that each location will have the 

appropriate set-up and communication capability, 

not only the camera system for inserting into the 

but then also a secondary camera for viewing the 

hatch, the hatch cover, the ID of the barge.

Seedburo will be distributing this, 

what we feel primarily is a safety system to get 

personnel off of the barges, to allow for official 

inspection agencies to conduct their appropriate 

inspection without being on, physically on the 

barge. And as a safety device, should be of 

interest to both the official agencies and the 

elevators to talk to their risk management people 

about the benefits of keeping personnel off of a 

barge, those contractors as inspectors away from 

a hazardous location, and just hopefully is a 

general safety component to make us all safer and 

work in an environment where we can come home at 

night.

So, I just want to introduce that to 

you all. If you have any questions, I do have a 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

quickly prepared brochure that kind of outlines 

what we've done that I can distribute if you like. 

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Thank you, Tom. 

We will open the floor up now to, if there's any 

other public comments?

Okay, hearing none, the next item on 

our agenda is the discussion of the policies and 

procedures manual. If we can take a quick five 

minute break, that way we can pull it up on the 

screen. That way, everybody can see what we did. 

Okay? Five minutes.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

briefly went off the record.)

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Your name and 

affiliation, I'd appreciate it.

MR. WATNE: I'm Mark Watne, GIAC 

Director and I'm the Agency Manager and I'm Linsey's 

boss. She doesn't know what I'm going to say that; 

I've got her a little nervous right now. 

Yesterday, Linsey thanked FGIS for all the work 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

they did on the barge camera so, and I just wanted 

to give credit where credit is due. The driving 

force behind this whole project was Linsey. If 

it wasn't for Linsey, we never would have got the 

project approved. Is that right, Tony?

MR. GOODEMAN: That's 100 percent 

true, yeah, it's, use the microphone for the record, 

but that's for sure.

MR. WATNE: She's still sweating up 

here.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: What else are you 

going to say?

PARTICIPANT: Eastern Iowa, very 

modestly gave credit. That's definitely not the 

case. This was 95 percent or more Eastern Iowa, 

the official agencies, industry working together 

to bring the thing to reality. They spent multiple 

years working on this project, bringing it to 

fruition, trying different things. It had a lot 

of dogged determination there to, and that's why 

it was so easy to approve, because they put in the 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

work, they put in the time. 

They tried different things, and it 

wasn't just to try to get something approved 

quickly, it was try to get the right thing approved. 

And so much credit goes to Eastern Iowa, to Linsey, 

and to your team there, for pushing this thing 

across the finish line. And again, thanks to 

Eastern Iowa and the official agencies and to the 

industry -- in particular for reviewing it and 

providing feedback and comments. It was really 

a great effort and it was easy for us because you 

guys did all the background and it was just a matter 

of saying, yes, it's approved.

PARTICIPANT: Yes, these guys put in 

all the time, effort and money. We did get an eye 

chart from FGIS, we do appreciate that. But again, 

I think we need to give Linsey a round of applause 

for all the work she did it on it.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Thank you. 

Okay, we're going to get started here. Sarah's 

going to give my voice a little break, so she's 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

going to give the introduction.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: We're now going 

to move to the policies and procedures manual to 

provide context for what this is and the true 

application. First need to give credit to 

authorship. This was inspired, really, I believe 

with Arthur coming on and looking at how can we 

operationalize and professionalize the work of this 

committee and also be able to give the committee 

members the ability to emphasize our efforts and 

contribution to the right areas of impact, for the 

overall support of the efforts of grain inspection. 

And then really want to give credence 

to the work of Kendra in drafting and doing the 

brute force of authorship. And not just doing it 

in an isolated way. Also reaching out to other 

committees and gleaning from best practices in 

other committees, did a lot of collaborative work 

in that. So, thanks for the product from staff 

to give us a great starting point. We appreciate 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that.

Another conventionalization of this is 

it's meant to be a living document and so as the 

work of the committee will go on far beyond the 

current committee members, we want to make sure 

that we provide a stabilization of continuum, but 

also an ability to be responsive and adaptive, to 

have the right policies and procedures to support 

the efficiency and the optimization of having a 

committee like this.

And so, this is a first stab at this, 

but it certainly has an opportunity to evolve as 

the work and the needs of the committee evolves. 

Last night, widely attended by all audience 

members, we took note, was a working session to

go through the editorial process. And certainly 

Kendra had given us a great first product. But 

we sort of spent some time -- a few prioritizations 

as strategic, and then also doing a bit of 

wordsmithing. 

And so we'll review that today at this 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

point, go through the sections, make point to items 

that are more strategic in nature and you'll see 

a few edits marked up in the Word document here.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Thank you, Sarah. 

And I know that this is the first time that a lot 

of people have seen the policies and procedures 

manual. It will be on the AMS website under the 

grain inspection advisory committee, correct, 

Kendra? Okay. So, you're going to post that.

MS. KLINE: We'll get it posted, try 

to get it next week, whatever you guys pass today.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Next week, all 

right, perfect. So, the first page, we're just, 

we're not going to go through every line of this. 

I'm just going to give you an introduction of what 

this actually is. So, it tells you this document 

brought it's procedures for functioning under the 

grain inspection advisory committee and is designed 

to assist the GIAC in its responsibilities. 

So, this lays out our roles, our GDs, 

what our mission is. We did add to some of this, 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as you can see, and our authorization. So, the 

GIAC is authorized under Section 21 of the USGSA 

and abides by all provisions of the FACA as amended.

Now, we have our charter now with our 

goals and objectives and then the next section is 

the administration. So, it tells you about our 

membership and USGSA specifies that membership of 

the GIAC is as follows. It has 15 members who 

represent the interest of all segments of grain. 

It talks about the nomination and appointment 

process, responsibilities, responsibilities of the 

Chair, the Vice Chair, and the Secretary.

Have we always had a, just a Chair and 

then is this new to have a Vice Chair and a 

Secretary?

MR. AYERS: No, I believe we had a Vice 

Chair but no Secretary previous to this.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay, so this 

lays out the responsibilities of the Vice Chair, 

is to help maintain the policies and procedures 

manual and ensures its accuracy and takes the place 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of any absence of the Chair. The Secretary's 

duties, records all GIAC members votes at the 

meetings, assist with annual elections of officers 

and may delegate tasks to others, but retains 

responsibility for the official records.

This is probably one of the most, well, 

I shouldn't say the most important section, but 

I really like this section. It talks about the 

collaboration between FGIS and the grain inspection 

advisory committee and tells you the importance 

of the partnership between the two and how it's 

important to facilitate changes and improvements 

that enhance the official inspection system and 

promoted United States grain.

So, the next section talks about the 

designated federal officer, which is our deputy 

administrator to FGIS. It also talks about the 

advisory committee specialist, which I believe 

Kendra was assigned that permanent role last night, 

a life role. Additional administrative items, 

professional and ethics standards, codes of 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conduct, to act impartially, additional standards 

of conduct. 

This I have highlighted, to the maximum 

extent possible, GIAC members should speak with 

one voice whenever possible. Declaration of 

interest, how do you go about that, how do you recuse 

yourself if you feel that there is a conflict of 

interest. Then it goes into the descriptions of 

what the subcommittees are, abstaining 

subcommittee, ad hoc subcommittee, and task force, 

what's the difference between them and what should 

they be used for.

GIAC procedures, what we do in our 

committee meetings. All committee meetings 

assemble for the purpose of making recommendations 

to, I believe we changed that to Secretary, correct?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Yes, to the USDA 

Secretary.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And then we did 

add under conducting business, we added a committee 

working day on the day before. Like we said, this 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

was a living document, but that was something that 

this committee felt was very important to, instead 

of just show up on the first day, that we met and 

worked together, talked about issues, got to know 

each other, got a feel for each other.

So, that was really important to us to 

have a working day before that. So, that was one 

of the changes. Obviously, establish a quorum, 

our decisive vote is a two-thirds majority. It 

talks about the parliamentary procedures and their 

recommendations. That's another thing that we 

changed, is that instead of putting recommendations 

or resolutions, we decided to go with 

recommendations.

So, there are no more, I don't believe 

there's any more resolutions in this document, 

correct? Okay. Our procedure for submitting

final recommendations is in here, and then public 

comments. And then it talks about if you want to 

comment in person at public meetings, we do want 

you to go through the Federal Register if at all 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

possible, so we all have note, and so we can look 

at what those notes are before the meeting starts.

Obviously, we can, we always try to make 

it so everybody has a chance to talk. Everybody 

that comes here has an interest and should be heard, 

I believe. Then it talks about the election of 

officers. Our nomination process, our voting 

schedule, and how we count the votes. The invited 

speakers, that was new to me this year. Usually 

it's FGIS talks about what they're working on and 

what their goals and objectives and their updates. 

But as this new mindset moving forward, 

and when we have invited speakers, that to me was 

very important. It gives us the background 

information into what we are trying to, trying to 

get to. We're trying to reach our goals. So, when 

we have the national organic program here, that 

was really important to get all that background 

information as well as the, as well as Tony, and 

as well as Charles yesterday.
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I believe we moved the duty of care, 

correct?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: We moved those 

under role of the --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: So, that is the 

policies and procedures manual. You will get to 

see that in about a week after we vote on it today. 

As far as today, we went through everything and 

discussed everything yesterday. Is there any more 

changes, additions, deletions, that we would want 

to add to the policies and procedures manual?

MR. AYERS: Linsey, I'd like to make 

a motion to vote for approval of the procedures 

as recommended.

MR. BECNEL: I second. Chad, I'm 

sorry.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: We have a motion 

and a second to approve the policies and procedures 

manual. When we vote, we're going to raise our 

hands high, okay? So, everybody in favor of 

approving the policies and procedures manual? The 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

motion is approved.

On the agenda, we were scheduled for 

a break, but we're going to keep moving forward, 

if that's okay with everybody?

And we're going to move on to the 

recommendations. So, Sarah e-mailed everybody the 

Google docs, and so we're going to start putting 

those on there. Some people wanted just to submit 

one as well in writing, but each recommendation 

we're going to discuss and then we'll have a vote 

on it, okay? So, if you wanted to, can you announce 

the first one, please?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Yeah, the first, 

actually, why don't we take a one minute pause so 

I can check my e-mail. I think I have a few more 

e-mails that I'll enter into the document, is that, 

or, let me start, does someone have something that 

they've e-mailed me that is not in this? Okay. 

So, why don't we read the first one and you can 

start discussion on it while I do a quick check 

on that.
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Yes, so the first one, establish a 

subcommittee to review the need for and scope of 

establishment of grading standards for hemp seed 

and hemp oil. The subcommittee will work in 

conjunction with staff and report findings and 

recommendations at the 2021 meeting. That's the 

first one.

MR. NORDEN: Can you enlarge that?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Yes, although, 

let me do the quick change. That's, I'm going to 

shutter this and you can start a conversation on 

that, but then I'll enlarge it. And so do we want 

to start conversation?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: I did, it was in 

collaboration with Sarah. Give us one minute, and 

then we'll announce. I'll have her talk about it 

again and then we'll start discussion on the hemp. 

If there's anything that anybody wants to add or 

change, we'll discuss.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I believe 

subcommittee is the appropriate committee 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

structure for this. And it's more of a scoping 

of the issue in regards to understanding the purview 

as qualify and support of that information supplied 

yesterday does fall under federal grain inspection 

and so scoping of what would those standards be 

and was the need for the establishment of standards.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Sarah, could you 

please repeat it again so everybody can, if they 

can't see it, they can hear it?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Yeah, if you need 

to talk with your eye doctor and have yet to do 

so, I'll read this for you. Establish a 

subcommittee to review the need for and scope of 

establishment of grading standards for hemp seed 

and hemp oil. The subcommittee will work in 

conjunction with staff and report findings and 

recommendations at the 2020 spring meeting.

MR. AYERS: I have just one question. 

Is this a little premature for the subcommittee 

when the federal government hasn't even established 

theirs for us to make comments on?
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: This was more 

for, to work in conjunction with FGIS and see what 

those quality factors would be, and to see if we 

can establish procedures. What would it look like, 

what would those, what would those factors be?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, not 

necessarily leading to a recommendation for 

standards, but still being of, what does standards 

even look like, quality standards, for this crop.

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur. So, from 

my perspective, because this sector is so new, 

someone said it yesterday, it would be best for 

us to be prepared to take advantage of the 

opportunity than to have tons of product on the 

market that need work and we have to be in position 

to take advantage of the work. 

So, based on the agreement between FGIS 

and AMS from 1997 or '92, I can't remember the actual 

year, hemp seed and hemp seed oil fall under the 

jurisdiction of FGIS, under the Agricultural 

Marketing Act, services that can be provided. We 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

don't have standards for those products but we know 

those products are currently on the marketplace. 

Hemp seed oil out there.

If there are companies that begin to 

ask for services, what guidance, what instructions 

or standards have been contemplated that we can 

provide to official service providers to aid them 

and take advantage of that market, of that 

opportunity.

So, FGIS alone probably would be able 

to take that on immediately. You've heard some 

of the names we're prioritizing, prioritizing this 

ourselves will probably take a long time for us 

to accomplish. And so I think, it may not premature 

to do it, but if it's something that the committee 

decides not to do, you know, we'll get to it when 

we can.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And Ryan, I know 

that you're the one that brought the hemp seed oil 

to the table and we appreciate that. So, what are 

your thoughts about this recommendation?
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. KUHL: I do think a subcommittee, 

it is ready to start, to organize some sort of 

standard. There are plenty of growers in our area 

that is starting to wonder how to market their hemp.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yeah, and we come 

from inspection and criteria and quality factors, 

I think that we could do a pretty good job with 

this subcommittee, you know, and start researching 

and what can we do.

MR. MORGAN: Arthur, John Morgan, in 

the deep dark archives of federal grain inspection, 

is there, were there ever any grain specifications 

for hemp seed and hemp oil? Because at one time 

it wasn't legal, correct?

MR. NEAL: To my understanding, the 

answer is no on that. That agreement between AMS 

and FGIS, they're just kind of sharing who would 

be responsible for covering commodities within USDA 

for graining and inspection services. So, just 

because it gave us that responsibility, it didn't 

necessarily mean that we were doing the work. 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, you know, when this new stuff began 

to emerge and the states began to change their laws, 

right now most people have been focused on AMS doing 

the regulatory work to facilitate the market of 

hemp. Hemp seed oil is different than hemp and 

hemp seed is different than hemp. 

And AMS' specialty product program 

isn't right now focusing on those items because 

they're focusing on production. This is processed 

product, the hemp seed oil, and the hemp seed, you 

know, falls into the realm of kind of, well, kind 

of, I don't want to call it grain, but typical work 

when we facilitate. 

We've already been made aware by 

receiving some e-mails from official agencies that 

clients have come to them asking them, hey, can 

you do moisture tests for us, can you do protein 

tests for us on hemp seed. And we don't have 

anything in place for that.

So, if this committee believes that 

this market may grow, it may be an opportunity to 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

begin to get out in front of it and position people 

to take advantage of another revenue strength.

MR. KUHL: I would tend to agree with 

David a little bit, simply from a resources side. 

While I understand, you know, this would be for 

a subcommittee to explore it but my fear would be, 

is with all of the other existing issues and 

recommendations that are out there and the finite 

amount of staff time and in budget, that I would 

not want to, if I don't want to try and get out 

in front of items, but I think that the marketplace 

has, you know, everything is still growing. 

I think we may be, you know, one year, 

if that, a little bit ahead of the game, that the 

industry is still trying to figure what they may 

need, that I would not want to be spending a lot 

of resources on that while everybody is still asking 

questions, I guess.

MR. TUNNELL: Question, would this be 

better in the category of the task force or the 

subcommittee?
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Why does that 

make you want the task force instead of the 

subcommittee.

MR. TUNNELL: Well, it just requires 

fewer GIs, task force, I mean, members. 

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: No, I believe 

you're correct because, and if you could help us 

with this, the difference between a subcommittee 

and a task force?

MR. TUNNELL: You have more resource 

people from a task force. Subcommittee is made 

up only of members of the GI group.

MR. NEAL: So, one of the things, and 

we've got Tony, want to make a comment about just 

this. One of the things that I notice that is 

missing from the policies and procedures manual 

is the process of establishing task forces. We 

say what task forces can do, but we didn't say how 

it should be established. It's something we 

probably need to look at.

What has typically happened because, 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

if, when USDA typically establishes a task force, 

we do it similar to how we establish a committee, 

except there's not appointed by the Secretary. 

So, we'll look at that. Typically, a task force 

is led by one or two members of the committee, but 

is comprised of other members from the industry 

that represent different aspects of the industry. 

So, it may be the processing side, let's 

use just as an example, processing side of hemp, 

hemp seed oil, the production side of it, the 

scientific and testing side of it, to make sure 

we're capturing all of these different 

perspectives, getting expertise from the various 

areas, to inform us of the challenge, you know, 

the problem, so that we can then learn more about 

the subject matter to decide how will we move 

forward.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And just to add 

on to that, just to clarify for myself, then the 

task force then would report back to the committee, 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and then the committee would vote from there.

MR. NEAL: The committee would decide, 

based on the work that was done, where do we go 

from here, yeah.

MR. TURNIPSEED: Brent Turnipseed, 

SDSU. I think the task force is a good idea to 

do with this just because there around, the state 

of South Dakota, it's not approved there yet, but 

we're starting to work on it with our own task force 

from the university side and the state side, just 

to look at it. 

But in our neighboring states, 

Minnesota, North Dakota, it's already happening 

and you can bring in a couple of the state officials 

who are already having to deal with this and they 

probably wouldn't even have to pay for their travel, 

and they would probably be willing to do it from 

the state side with a task force. They already 

have an answer to these questions.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Is anyone opposed 

to a friendly amendment to change subcommittee to 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

task force? Friendly amendment, meaning that we 

don't need to vote, any sign of --- okay.

MR. GOODEMAN: Tony here from FGIS. 

I've got just a quick clarifying question. Is 

this, this is exclusively focusing on hemp seed 

and hemp oil, is there any need to look at the hemp

plant itself or is it assumed that somebody else 

would grade that with an AMS or USDA or that grading 

isn't needed on that commodity? I just want to 

clarify that. 

Because I think that we're all part of 

AMS now, I think it's, the assignment goes for 

commodity, is still up in the air for things that 

are so new and different, you know, especially --

and then also on the seed part of it, just for 

awareness, FGIS doesn't currently do testing like 

for purity or germination, stuff that like that 

occurs there, that is NSDSU. 

It was something that, I'm not sure, 

I don't about commodity or this industry, but that's 

what we're looking for, that purity testing for 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

propagation. That's not something that we 

typically do now. If it's something worth getting 

a commodity, like wheat where they just want to 

know FM content or quality of the seeds that is, 

you know, maybe more in our ballpark. 

I know that we do some oil sampling, 

hemp oil sampling in the past, maybe Dr. Morgan 

can help me out on what kind of quality testing 

they may have done on hemp oil. But, like for 

example, we have a process commodity handbook now 

that instructs us how to sample for vegetable oil. 

We did a lot of that for government contracts back 

in the '90s, but I'm not sure to what extent the 

quality testing on 

that and it stands.

MR. NORDEN: Well, I'd say it's about 

hemp seed --

MR. NEAL: You're name, too.

MR. NORDEN: Tim Norden, Tree 

Scientist. So, we do oil testing for like soy bean 

oil, so, I mean, the oil is of concern and the 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

quality, I mean, obviously, the hemp seed, that 

could be developed and do a rapid test and accrual, 

so it seems like that's in our, this wheelhouse.

MR. NEAL: So, this is Arthur again. 

So, on the, who would be responsible for the hemp 

plant right now, if I'm not mistaken, especially 

crops would be and what we'd have to do on the FGIS 

side is get more involved into the development of 

it and having these conversations proves here 

recently, to get us more involved in what's 

happening. Charles mentioned yesterday that they 

hadn't gotten that far down the road on standards 

for the plants. 

Right now, they're figuring out what 

states and what tribes have to do to get the plans 

approved and certified and all that other good stuff 

and I'll be working on that. The other question 

you had was, and I'm, we currently don't do puree 

testing and things of that nature, and I think if 

the committee did establish a task force, one of 

the things that I think would be asked, what's 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

needed. What are the needs in this space, just 

to learn and gather that information and then we 

can sort out what type of services could we provide, 

could we not provide, where do they best belong.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And speaking of 

types of services, do you look at everything that's 

covered that our AMA commodities on that list and, 

you know, for example, mustard seed. We used to 

sample mustard seed. We don't grade it, but we're 

involved with the sampling of it, sending it out.

So, is there other avenues that we could 

explore as well, not just creating quality factors 

for it, but how can we facilitate the marketing 

of oil seed, the whole plant. You know, is that 

something you want just the same, just hemp, not 

hemp oil and seed. Can we just say hemp? Is that 

fair or am I way off?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I think that's 

fair and I also made proposed edits here, establish 

and upgrading standards for hemp oil and seed and 

other ideotypes and uses with commercial need for 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

standards. That qualifies it but also gives us 

broad enough scope, or the committee or task force 

determines the scope, has applicability to other 

commercial interest.

MR. WATNE: I was just going to comment 

on the flag portion and I think you covered it with 

what you did. And I know we just heard a -- plant 

over in France that makes flax, straw into linen, 

and I was amazed at the different quality levels 

of the fiber that comes in. And a substantial hit 

to the agricultural world based on the quality that 

you bring to that plant, the quality closing they 

have. I'm guessing that this is probably doesn't 

have a similar impact in the fiber world that the 

farmers are going to need some way to verify if 

they're getting graded properly on what the quality 

of the fiber is.

MR. MORGAN: John, I would just caution 

as you develop these things to make sure that when 

you gage the processors, you're not getting into 

commercial terms. It's more of just a quality, 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

here's the quality product, not the commercial 

viability of the product. Sometimes there's 

people want to reach into the standards world to 

affect their commercial business, so I would just 

caution on this task force. So, whatever we do 

moving forward takes that into consideration.

MR. AYERS: I have one additional 

comment. David Ayers from Champaign. And I'm 

going to reference the DDGS in the ethanol industry. 

FGIS years ago went out to ask if they wanted 

standards set up for it and it was almost a unanimous 

no. So, maybe the hemp industry will not want 

standards established. So, that's another reason 

to maybe curtail this for a while. Everybody 

thought it was a great idea on the committee back 

then for DDGS to have standards and then we find 

out the industry didn't want them. Just a point 

of fact.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: David, I think 

that's appropriate, but also the subcommittee could 

do the work of surfacing, not feedback. So, a 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

potential outcome report in the spring would be 

the industry, at this point in time, does not see 

a commercial need for facilitation of marketing 

with standards. I think that certainly should be 

under scope of the --

MR. AYERS: I would make that the 

primary scope in the beginning, instead of doing 

the work and then finding out the industry doesn't 

want it. Contact the industry and see what their 

wants and desires are and then proceed from there.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I was intentional 

leading with need four as the first question here 

and then scope of, not to determine and create the 

scope but what would be the scope of, if there's 

a need for, what is the scope of, that means.

MR. AYERS: All right, thank you.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Is there any more 

discussion points from the committee? Can you go 

to the back mic please, thanks. Don't forget to 

state your name.

MR. McCLUER: Jess McCluer, NGFA. I 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

just want to follow-up what Dave Ayers said. If 

you recall, it was back in 2007 when the Agency 

formally known as GIPSA came out with the request 

for comment on DDGS and comments were submitted 

and they said no, industry said no to creating a 

standard for DDGS. They came back again and I 

believe it was 2013, 2014, somewhere around that 

time, once again asking, does industry want a 

standard for DDGS, and the response was once again, 

no.

So, just over that period of time, once 

DDGS became, really became a major commodity, came 

into the market, there was the initial request, 

the response was no, followed up several years later 

once it became, I guess you could say, imbedded 

into the market, and the response was still no. 

So, I think that's just a good reminder, Dave, and 

something for the committee to consider. Thank 

you.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Thank you, Jess. 

On the DDG note, too, but look how much we're 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

involved with DDGs. You know, so maybe it's not 

establishing standards, but maybe there's 

something else that the task force can come up with 

that we can facilitate the marketing.

MR. KUHL: Ryan Kuhl. These points 

are very good and I do think that maybe we should 

see if industry wants similar to the DDGs, so maybe 

not for a standard, maybe just to get their interest 

for possible standard.

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur again. I 

agree. The standards may not be the work, they 

may be guidance or instructions to agencies who 

are getting requests for work. So, it's not all 

just about standards. Like I said, we're currently 

getting agencies calling us now, asking us, should 

they take on this work and if so, you know, how?

And what this is saying, is there a need 

to review the need for scope of staff's grading 

standards. Maybe you consider not just standards, 

but also guidance on how to facilitate needs of 

this industry that may require services from 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

agencies.

MR. MORGAN: I think the DDGS comments 

are good, valid. The only thing I would make 

distinction is DDGS is a byproduct of the process 

and it's not an engagement with a farmer. I think 

from talking to the guys at North Dakota, South 

Dakota here, I think it's farmers asking, how do 

we know we're growing good hemp from hemp.

Looking for ways that they could be 

standardized on that front. So, it's a little 

different in my mind, but you've got to take into 

consideration the facilitation of an industry, a 

farmer who's growing a product is going to want 

something to help him understand when he goes to 

that processor and the processor tells him you're 

good or bad. 

So, that's my comment on it, and I think 

this is a little bit of a distinction from the 

current market, but I do agree, you should engage 

both sides of that, the growers and the processors, 

to see how they do it currently and what are their 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

recommendations for, for how to handle it.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And just a 

reminder, this is just developing a task force to 

review these needs. They're not coming up with 

anything, they're not taking any actions. This 

is just to review. They might spend a week talking 

to growers, talking to the industry about it, and 

say this isn't for us. You know, whatever the task 

forces comes back with, that's the information that 

they're put before the committee to decide. 

So, this is just a pathway to see if 

this, if there's potential there. Is there any 

more discussion on this recommendation?

MR. SUTHERLAND: This is Bruce 

Sutherland. Interesting discussion, but just to 

point this out. If you are going to serve an 

industry to see if there's interest in moving 

forward, I hate to get caught up in this 

nomenclature, but subcommittees have a lot less 

requirements. It's pretty general and it's just, 

you know, two or three members. 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

A task force, if you read our policies 

and procedures manual, it's pretty specific, have 

a specific work agenda approved by FGIS, have a 

clearly articulated project deliverable, and 

include at least one member of the GIC, record and 

maintain meetings or conference call minutes made 

available to the committee. It spells out some 

pretty detailed stuff.

I think perhaps a subcommittee, if 

you're just going to do a survey of industry, might 

be maybe more appropriate. Just to make a point 

of order.

MR. TUNNELL: I agree with what you're 

saying. I just think the distinction is whether 

or not FGIS does the research for committee members. 

So, the responsibility needs to be whether or not 

a committee member would want to make these calls 

on industry or not, or the government agency. 

That's all I'm saying.

MR. SUTHERLAND: No, no, I understand.

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur again. 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Whatever, whatever is done, whether it's task force 

or subcommittee, FGIS is going to be involved, so 

that we make sure we're doing everything in decency 

all along. Subcommittee and task force still need 

to make sure they keep a record of things that are 

happening. The force still alone could come back 

to the committee, full committee. 

Those reports are still going to be 

available for the public to see them on our website. 

It's just a matter of who's involved in the work, 

that's a big difference. The subcommittee is going 

to be the most, is going to be all of them. A 

smaller collection of committee members, task force 

committee with a smaller collection of the 

committee members plus others. That's the biggest 

difference.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Bruce, since you 

have it right in front of you, I know that he just 

read off everything that a task force, the 

responsibilities, was the subcommittees just as 

intense?
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. SUTHERLAND: Say that again?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Was the 

subcommittee's responsibilities just as intense 

when you said the documentation and 

reporting in --

MR. SUTHERLAND: No, actually not. 

The subcommittee holds meetings once or twice a 

month, yet it's all phone conference calls. Calls 

are scheduled well in advance. Additional 

meetings can be held if the subcommittee requests 

additional time and FGI agrees to provide resource 

support for additional meetings. The majority of 

members of the subcommittee shall constitute a 

quorum for the purpose of conducting subcommittee. 

There's, the way I read it, it's just not as formal 

as the task force.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay.

MR. TURNIPSEED: I have a question. 

I see where the subcommittee might be better. Is 

there anything that would prevent the subcommittee 

under -- and telephone conference from bringing 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in some outside expertise? 

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Absolutely. 

MR. TURNIPSEED: The subcommittee may 

be build a task force eventually. 

MR. SUTHERLAND: What did you say?

MR. TURNIPSEED: The subcommittee may 

want to eventually build a task force for it, on 

what they find.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I think the 

onerous of the conversation here today doesn't, 

it's captured by this language, but to be captured 

for the record is that we're wanting to do a 

preliminary surfacing, I guess, and asking the 

first entry type conversations of need for and scope 

of, but we are not looking for outputs and onerous 

of an entire development to those standards or 

development of guidance. And so whether or not 

we use task force, which going back to the protocol 

that Bruce read off in defining that question, my 

question can be defined very narrowly and that's 

really the onerous of this conversation or 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

consensus of it.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: I agree, and I do 

agree that we should amend the task force and say 

subcommittee. 

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Is that consensus 

of the group?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: All those in 

favor of changing task force to subcommittee? Okay, 

approved.

Is there any more discussion on the 

recommendation?

All those in favor of approving this 

recommendation, raise your hand high. Sarah, are 

you counting the votes?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Thirteen.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Thirteen.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: And I guess, 

Kendra, would you mind recording, writing them 

down? The totals, for documentation purposes.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Kendra, do you 

want me to do that?
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. KLINE: How do you want me to mark 

13 yes --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes.

MS. KLINE: Okay.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Thank you.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Do want to -- for 

votes in opposition for the record?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes. All those 

opposed? One?

MR. BECNEL: Yeah, I opposed as well.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Abstentions. 

MR. BECNEL: You can go on record that 

I oppose.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Oppose?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: So, we have two 

opposed.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, I think I 

miscounted. I can't do elementary math. Because 

we have 14 committee members in total, right? 

Fifteen, I'm sorry. And then you didn't vote.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: I did.
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: You did?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: I voted in favor.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Okay, and so the 

Chair normally shouldn't vote, correct?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: The Chair votes.

MS. SEXTON-TOBIN: Okay, then we're 

good. Sorry.

MS. KLINE: Thirteen yes, two no.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: One abstained. 

Chad, did you abstain?

MS. KLINE: No, he said no.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Okay.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: So, we have 13 in 

favor, two nay. The recommendation is approved.

Let's move on to the next.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: The Grain 

Inspection Advisory Committee recommends that the 

standing sports members be extended to no longer 

five years to strengthen commitments of service, 

foster collaboration, and encourage cohesive 

acumen of the committee. No member of the 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

committee may serve successive terms. And the 

author of this --

MR. BECNEL: Myself.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Would you like to 

speak to it.

MR. BECNEL: Well, Chad Becnel, so 

okay, it's a little wordy. So, I need help on the 

wordsmithing aspect of it, but this was basically 

brought about on Wednesday when we got a more 

advanced course and lesson of the inner workings 

of this committee as it stands. We have a much, 

I wouldn't say a broad perspective, but now it's 

a more focused direction. 

And I think it warrants more committee 

members to stay on for a longer period of time in 

order to get that cohesiveness that we need to 

promote what we're here trying to do. And that's 

by, you know, through learning, mentoring, et 

cetera, et cetera. It's self-explanatory. The 

wording might be a little bit off, but in some cases 

I think members who are serving two or three year 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

terms, depending on what we came on or when others 

came on, some might only have two meetings. 

And just when we're able to get the ball 

rolling and understand what the mission is here 

set forth were then going to get off the committee 

and that momentum gets lost. So, the staggering 

side of it is still in place. We just feel that 

the length of time in which we're appointed to this 

committee extends to a period of five years.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: You have in your 

language that you submitted extended to no longer 

than five years, which would put the emphasis on 

the maximum duration but not the minimum. I hear 

you speaking to the minimum duration. Would you 

accept a modification of your first sentence, 

recommends that appointments are for a five year 

period of service? Please correct if I'm not, the 

way you have that is extended to no longer than 

five years?

MR. KUHL: I think the comments from 

Wednesday were that were that we wanted to make 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sure that we maintain a staggered approach, which 

would extend it out to a maximum of five, but to 

keep with a continuous rolling on and off, that 

that could be less than five was the intent.

MR. MORGAN: Sarah, we have a group 

that was really supposed to be appointed in 2017 

that didn't get appointed until 2018, because we 

missed an entire year for this committee. So, it's 

just a little bit of a short-term issue in the way 

it's staggered, so there's really a group that's 

going to be more four years to keep the stagger 

in place, five rolling off at a time. So, that's 

why the wordsmithing was needed for this particular 

proposal, or recommendation, I'm sorry.

MR. ROBINETTE: This is Rick 

Robinette. So, does this, are we asking to amend 

the charter, then? Because in the charter, it says 

three-year terms. So, does that require us to 

amend the charter?

MR. KUHL: This was for a 

recommendation to, because this was put into law 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that we only have three years, so this is the 

recommendation to change the law. Once the law 

would change, we would have to amend our policies 

and procedures. But we can't amend our policies 

and procedures if law still says three. So, this 

is the recommendation to the government to extend 

the terms out, because I have had them first. But 

even if we added policies and procedures that's 

five, we still legally would not be able to go beyond 

three.

MR. ROBINETTE: But it's still in the 

charter, too.

MR. NEAL: So, like what Matthew is 

getting at is that, because pre-authorization 

discussions are happening now, the committee is 

having a conversation about a recommendation that 

could get conveyed to those who are working on the 

reorganization as the Grain Inspection Advisory 

Committee was a topic of discussion by Congress.

And so, would you all are discussing 

now is whether or not you want this to be conveyed 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to Congress as they're discussing the 

reorganization. If Congress so chose to establish 

committee appointments at five years, then we would 

automatically then change the charter accordingly. 

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Thank you. And 

just to add to that, you know, I think it's a good 

continuity and that's what we're trying to do with 

this recommendation is to provide better service 

through the GIAC.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Can I read the 

edited version?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Committee 

recommends that appointments are for a five-year 

period of service with allowance for shorter terms 

to stagger appointments. Appointments should be 

consistent with maintain of staggered terms of 

service with members eligible to serve multiple 

terms, but no successive terms. Did that deviate 

from intent at all? Dave?
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. AYERS: I understand the intent of 

what's being written there. I would just be 

worried about or concerned about the 

implementation. The ideal situation would be 

three members go out every five years, so there 

would be a clear staggering. How would we be able 

to create that if every member is extended out five 

years, five members. 

So, somewhere down the future, you 

would need to stagger and somebody would only serve 

or three, and that does them an injustice that we're 

trying to correct being done now.

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur. So, right 

now, everybody is staggering. I think five at a 

time. Now, that doesn't guarantee, well, we can't 

figure that out. There have been situations where 

board members or committee members on other faculty 

committees have had to exit the board for family 

reasons, for illnesses, for various things.

What has happened is that USDA would 

then do charter group to facilitate a special 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

appointment to have someone fill the remaining 

balance of the member's time versus appointing them 

for a full five-year term. They would fill that 

time that's been vacated so that we maintain the 

staggering that has been established. 

Then there's also instances where 

administration changes again and we could very well 

be facing not having appointments made because we 

don't have politicos in place to make the decision. 

And we have to have the flexibility to do what 

we need to do to ensure that that staggering of 

members still exist. 

So, I think that's kind, will still try 

to make sure that people aren't short-changed, but 

at the same time we want to ensure that we don't 

find ourselves in the position where 10 members 

have appointed to five-year terms and where we're 

in a position of replacing 10 members at the same 

time when their five-year term has lapsed.

MR. AYERS: And that's where I would 

say that I think the, instead of stating a hard 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

five-year term of service, I would say for a, up 

to five years or a maximum of five years to allow 

the committee flexibility in creating that stagger, 

depending on how they are, you know, promoted with 

administration or whatever may change.

MR. TUNNELL: Is this, this is Tom 

Tunnell. Is this a unique request? Should this 

be recommended to Congress or recommends, typically 

we recommend to the agency.

MR. AYERS: Recommended to the 

Secretary.

MR. TUNNELL: To the Secretary, well, 

he can't make a decision.

MR. NEAL: Well, what's happening is 

that as they held a hearing a couple of weeks ago, 

you all as individuals, as industry members, you 

can, you know, make your individual comments to 

the ag committee. What you're doing now is making 

a recommendation to the Secretary, so that when 

they engage USDA and the Secretary on what should 

they do regarding the GIAC. The Secretary has 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

input from you all on what you think should be done.

MR. TUNNELL: Okay, thank you for that 

clarification.

MR. BECNEL: I think when you wordsmith 

some things, you took out the extended to no longer 

than five years.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, I did not, 

then, if you look at that comma, with usage of 

shorter terms to stagger appointments.

MR. KERRIGAN: I think it's awfully 

wordy.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, that no longer 

than five years could be a recommendation, not we 

always have one year appointments.

MR. KERRIGAN: But it would be the 

flexibility of the committee. So, the idea is that 

we get in there the verbiage of no more than five 

years, right?

MR. NEAL: I want to add a point of 

clarification, Matt.

MR. KERRIGAN: Yes.
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. NEAL: So, what happened is that 

the committee wouldn't necessarily make a decision 

of how long a member got appointed, it would be 

the Secretary.

MR. KERRIGAN: Okay.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I read the back end 

of appointments extended, recommends the, extend 

to no longer than five years.

MR. KERRIGAN: Arthur, do you have a 

recommendation for how we could word this that would 

get us what we're looking for, I guess, for the, 

to try and get a longer term of service while 

maintaining staggering?

MR. NEAL: I don't know if that 

changed, but how it was worded before with the comma 

and having assorted terms for keeping staggering 

actually would work.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: To qualify, are 

you speaking to --

MR. NEAL: Right, that.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: -- this, the with?
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. NEAL: Right. That would work.

MR. KERRIGAN: Okay.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: And have with 

allowance of, I changed that to usage, to encourage 

as opposed to consider as an exception. This is 

our working draft and highlight there, but first 

and foremost, Chad, I want to ensure you have 

comfort.

MR. BECNEL: Just the wording 

recommends or for --

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Recommends 

appointment of --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Sarah?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Yeah.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Just a 

suggestion. If we could delete appointment should 

be consistent with maintaining of standard terms 

of service with, and then just period. And then 

start with members eligible to serve multiple, but 

not successive terms are eligible.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, delete that 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

highlighted there?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes, and 

appointments.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Of service of 

members, or just start with the in?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes. So, it 

reads, the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee 

recommends appointment of a five-year period of 

service with uses of shorter terms to stagger 

appointments. Members are eligible to serve 

multiple but not successive terms. And then if 

we could add in that last paragraph, just to explain 

why we feel this way. Commitments of service, 

foster collaboration, and encourage cohesive 

acumen.

MR. BECNEL: Linsey, does that, does 

that capture the current membership as well? In 

other words, it kind of reads, I'm looking from 

the outside. Maybe future appointments versus 

standing appointments?

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur. I think 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

what you're asking is if Congress, through the 

current re-authorization process accepted or 

changed the appointment period for GIAC members 

to five years, is your current question, what would 

USDA do with the current members?

MR. BECNEL: This is Chad, yes.

MR. NEAL: I think for the purposes of 

the committee, if that's something you want to 

address, you probably want to include language that 

would give the Secretary a recommendation on what 

he should do should it happen. So, if the 2020 

re-authorization does extend GIAC's membership to 

five years, a five-year appointment, you can, 

through this recommendation, advise his Secretary 

on how he should handle current membership.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Help me out here, 

folks.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: To extend the 

current members for that allotted time. So, just 

to keep with the staggering, you know, the ones 

that we only have one year, you know, we wouldn't 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

serve a full five years, we just serve two years. 

So, then the staggering goes back into effect. 

So, we wouldn't serve a full five years, but we'd 

have two years. So, that way, that staggering can 

go back in place.

MR. BECNEL: This is Chad. It would 

be considered time served minus the five years, 

so I don't know how we word that in there, 

but ---

MR. NEAL: So, I think what you could 

do is you could say upon extension of the 2020 

re-authorization if committee appointments are 

extended to a five-year period. The GIAC 

recommends that current GIAC members be extended 

according to this policy, yeah, this policy, this 

recommended policy, or recommended schedule, 

however. And what that does, it can give, it gives 

USDA a recommendation. We could follow that with 

respect to a possible extension of term.

MR. McCLUER: This is Jess McCluer. 

Just for clarification, it probably should say upon 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

extension of the U.S. Grain Standard Act, 2020 

re-authorizations charter, right, because it's in 

the Grain Standards Act and that's where they extend 

the charter of the advisory committee, correct? 

So, it probably would just be good to force that 

in without sentence.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Help me. What did 

I miss in my --

MR. McCLUER: Upon extension of the 

U.S. Grain Standards Act, 2020 re-authorization, 

that's, so then, that would be, and subsequent 

extension of the GIAC charter, something to that 

effect. Something that, just to work that all in 

there, because that all ties together.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Arthur's looking 

it up right now for clarification. Thank you, 

Jess.

MR. KUHL: I think what we're all after 

here is more so in the future. So, if we do it 

this way, it would be a five-year term. The 

rotation should be more of a three person rotation. 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, every year, three more people come on in the 

committee. I would --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Do you think that 

that doesn't say that in the first paragraph?

MR. KUHL: I would say it would be tough 

to figure out this rotation with adding on the years 

to our term, although I think a lot of members 

wouldn't mind that. But it would almost have to 

be the new elected members in five years.

MR. NEAL: So, just to give you a 

possibility, because it's already staggered. 

Let's say that Congress, you know, they extend the 

appointments for five years. Some people have a 

two-year appointment. So, they would be extended 

probably about another two years instead of three 

years. Some people have a three-year appointment. 

They would be extended by another two years with 

that environment. So, we still have that 

flexibility based upon that language and ensure 

that rotation or staggering remains reasonable.

MR. BECNEL: We were, it's Chad. We 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

were appointed in --

MR. MORGAN: We got the '17, but --

MR. BECNEL: We had, it never did 

happen until '18, so technically we lost a year, 

but to keep in the natural order and allow us to 

go off and others come on. We would just serve 

an additional two years to our term. So, it 

wouldn't change anything. Us knowing that it's 

not a lot of years, it's two years for us. Three 

years for a second group and five years after that, 

but in respect to your three person on and off, 

that's something I guess in the future, it's all 

in how they, you know, bring -- I think they brought 

10 already one time.

MR. AYERS: That was why there was two 

--

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Sarah, can you 

please read this aloud.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Yeah. Before I do 

it, can I qualify that we do want the first version 

of the language, we want this tightly connected 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as a directive of the sequence events. So, with 

that, I created this as a sub and so I'll read that.

In the situation of extended 

appointments of members upon extension of the U.S. 

Grain Standards Act 2020 re-authorization and 

subsequent decision of GIAC's charter, the 

committee provides guidance to support endurance 

strengthening and commitments to service, 

fostering of collaboration, and cohesive acumen 

of the committee.

The Grain Inspection Advisory 

Committee recommends appoint of a five-year period 

of service with usage of shorter terms to stagger 

appointments. Members are eligible to serve 

multiple terms but not successive terms. And then 

I would delete this last sentence. Because I had 

pulled out language up into the first. Is that 

accepted by the body?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Is there any 

change that anybody wants to make to that? Any 

supporting documentation?
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur. I think 

what you want first is to make the recommendation 

that appointments, the appointment period going 

five years, which is the bottom part here, Grain 

Inspection Advisory Committee recommends 

appointment of five year period of service and then 

with the, well, if he didn't do that, in the 

situation of extended appointment of members upon 

extensions. 

So, the U.S., it's the re-authorization 

of the U.S. Grain Standards Act. And what you're 

trying to do is convey a message to the Secretary 

that you might, for the re-authorization, to extend 

GIAC membership for five years. So, you want to 

convey that somehow.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, you want to 

break it back apart?

MR. NEAL: You just have to order it 

properly so that you are conveying what you want 

first. You want the re-authorization, but USGSA 

re-authorization to extend the appointment terms. 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And if they are extended, we want the appointments 

to be handled a certain way.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, I created this 

as a titled reference here. Sorry, I'm having some 

--

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: No, you're fine. 

You have added pressure. There's no pressure. 

So, we'll wait for you.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I put it on the 

overhead.

So, this is now recommends, appointment 

guidance, qualifying this as appointment guidance, 

and now, in this subsequent, shall follow the 

appointment guidance. So, that's a way to link 

but also to allow the first developed language to 

have more of an evergreen.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Sarah, will you 

scroll down a little bit. I think what we should 

start with is the grain inspection, if you could 

switch those, the Grain Inspection Advisory 

Committee.
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, you want --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Right there, 

Grain Inspection Advisory Committee. Right where 

your cursor, down, right there, down, down.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Yeah, I'm having, 

I can't click on --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Sorry.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Having problems 

there. I can't just highlight.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: The Grain 

Inspection Advisory Committee recommends the 

appointment of a five-year term of service. I 

think what we're trying to say is that needs to 

go first.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: And that's what I 

have. So, here's the first. Is that, so there's 

one, and this is now qualified as titled appointment 

guidance. If my mouse was being kind to me, I'd 

italicize that and then italicize in the subsequent 

one.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: I don't know 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

where that appointment guidance came from. The 

only thing that I was trying to say, and everybody 

can disagree, was that I think the first part should 

say the Grain Inspection Advisory recommends the 

five-year terms.

MR. NEAL: So, listen at this one for 

consideration. The Grain Inspection Advisory 

Committee recommends that re-authorization of the 

United States Grain Standards Act establishes a 

five-year term of service for GIAC members. 

The GIAC recommends that 

re-authorization of the U.S. Grain Standards Act 

establishes, or add establishes, a five-year term 

of service for GIAC members with usage of shorter 

terms to stagger appointments. And then you can 

add -- if it happens.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And just a 

suggestion. Right after that, I would suggest the 

reason why, after the five years, because we want 

this.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I may need to close out. 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I lost mouse functionality and so that's what my problems are here. So, 

I can't click and paste to note.

MR. KERRIGAN: I don't know where the 

microphone is, but does our procedural, policies and procedures allow 

for voting on the, in the essence of time, I'm pretty sure that we can 

vote on the essence and then can we still tweak this afterwards? Or it 

has to be exact when we vote on it?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: It does say that we have 

30 days for final, but we do have to vote on it. So, how does that 

work? If you can give us guidance.

MR. NEAL: You could still tweak the language. 

You want to make sure, though, what would happen is that if you tweak 

the language, you still need to get everybody to affirm that they are still 

in agreement with the language. And that means you'd be doing it 

electronically. 

Although you agree to principle, now you're creating 

additional work, to basically to do this all over again electronically. 

That's fine, as long as the intent doesn't change from what happened 

here.

MR. KERRIGAN: Okay, thanks.

MR. BECNEL: Sarah, yeah, I'll let you cut and finish, 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

but just please make sure that we put the intent and why we want this to 

apply, first and foremost.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, this is our leading 

sentence, right? We want this to lead?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: It should say the Grain 

Inspection Advisory Committee.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Grain Inspection 

Advisory Committee.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes, so take out the 

second inspection on that top line. There you go. Can I ask you a 

question? What's the appointment guidance?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, that's when I was 

trying to link where we could have those as separate, so it was 

appointment guidance, and I'm saying this was our guidance now, and 

then in this follow, we could say in the event, we'll follow the, we 

recommend following of appointment guidance.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And this is my opinion, 

but I think we should lead with the GIAC recommends that the 

re-authorization of the United States Grain Standards Act establishes a 

five-year term of service for GIAC members with the utilization of 

shorter terms of staggered appointments, and then say why. And then I 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

feel that we should have the staggering underneath that just for 

clarification purposes, but I think the meat of it needs to be the 

re-authorization and then the reason why.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: We're happy with the 

things that's highlighted right now?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes.

MR. KERRIGAN: Yes, other than staggered --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And then right after the 

appointments, after that first sentence, you know, the reason being for 

continuity, better service, everything that Chad had stated previously?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Do we have the 

staggering in there?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes, I feel like that should 

be the second part.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Is there anything missing 

from this?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: So, appointment of five 

years, right? So, right now, we have the GIAC recommends that the 

re-authorization of the United States Grain Standards Act establishes a 

five-year term of service for GIAC members with the unitization of 

shorter terms to stagger appointments. This structure to appointment 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

serves to strengthen commitments of service, foster collaboration, and 

encourage cohesive acumen of the committee.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: This appointment process 

or process to appointing?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Does that 

encompass all of our, did we need to go back and 

capture the subsequent extension of the charter? 

MR. KERRIGAN: The only thing I don't 

think this has, I mean this is great for the first 

step, as Arthur had pointed out, and the only thing 

we don't have in there is kind of the second part, 

assuming it gets approved of the extension of 

existing appointments.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Is there any more 

discussion about the order. I believe that should 

be the last part as well.

MR. KERRIGAN: Agreed. 

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Bruce? I'm 

sorry, I thought you had something to say.

MR. SUTHERLAND: Oh, no.
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay.

MR. McCLUER: Excuse me, this is Jess 

McCluer, NGFA. I just want to get a clarification here. So, this is 

the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee recommends the 

re-authorization of the U.S. Grain Standards Act establishes a five-year 

term. Is that proposing legislative language? You're saying the 

re-authorization of the Grain Standards Act establishes a five-year term. 

The way I read that, so you're saying that's the, you're 

saying within the Grain Standards Act itself, I mean, is that how they, is 

that, so the re-authorization of the U.S. Grand Standards Act establishes 

a five-year term of service. Right, because it's in, it's in the law, so 

that's written within the Grain Standards Act itself.

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur, and right now, the 

advisory committee established in Section 87(j) of the USGSA. And 

the paragraph eight says, establishment, number and terms of members. 

And so that basically, what they're saying, this is where --

MR. McCLUER: It's in the regs; it's not in the law.

MS. KLINE: It's not in the regs; it's in the law.

MR. NEAL: It's in the law. This is a statutory thing, 

so our regulations, USDA doesn't establish this. Congress establishes 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the GIAC and so --

MR. McCLUER: The three year term is in the law.

MR. NEAL: That's in the law. So, that's why 

Congress asked the panelists that they had at the hearing, should they 

re-establish the grain inspection advisory committee. And so, if, you 

as a committee are trying to convey a message to the Secretary about a 

recommendation you have for him, that when they ask him what should 

he do about the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee, you've got 

something to share with the Secretary that he can share with Congress. 

That's how this works.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I did go ahead and change 

this first language to reflect terms, up to five years instead of five years, 

be at five.

MR. KERRIGAN: I think Arthur, did you state that 

you wanted that back to just five instead of up to five?

MR. NEAL: I didn't state it. Let me read this for you 

all. It says not later than 90 days after October 24, 1988, the Secretary 

shall establish an advisory committee to provide advice to the Secretary 

with respect to implementation of this chapter consistent with the 

declarations of policy in Section 74 of this title. 

Advisory committee shall consist of 15 members 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

appointed by the Secretary, who represent the interest of all segments of 

the grain producing process and storing merchandising, consuming and 

exploiting industries, including grain inspection and weighing agencies, 

and scientists with expertise in research related to the policies 

established in Section 74 of this title.

Members of the advisory committee shall be appointed 

to three-year terms, except that of the initial 15 members of the 

advisory committee first appointed following the enactment of this 

session. Five shall be appointed for terms of one year. Five shall be 

appointed for terms of two years. No member of the advisory 

committee may serve successive terms. That's in the United States 

Grain Standards Act.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, I'll go back to the 

specific question of up to five years or five years.

MR. BECNEL: This is Chad. I think stating up to 

five years might imply the way it currently is, may be germane in or up 

to five years. So, when we said it earlier and had it listed, establishes 

terms of five years but we had some stagger of, shorter terms are 

staggered, so putting a hard line at five years, I think reflects what we're 

trying to convey in a more appropriate and direct manner.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I switched it back there, 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thanks, Chad.

MR. BECNEL: Thank you.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, we have two pieces 

here?

MR. BECNEL: It's like in 1993, they assumed a role, 

this language as amended. It gave the Secretary broadly way in how 

you appointed them and how long you appointed them to ensure the 

continuity of the committee.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Are we ready to re-read 

these?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes, please.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Okay. The GIAC 

recommends that the re-authorization of the U.S. Grain Standards Act 

establishes a five-year term of service for GIAC members with the 

utilization of shorter terms to stagger appointments. This process to 

appoint serves to strengthen commitments of service, 

foster collaboration, and encourage cohesive 

acumen of the committee. Second one, the 

extension of appoints upon extension of the U.S. 

Grain Standards Act 2020 re-authorization and 

subsequent extension of GIAC's charter shall follow 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the appointment of a five-year period of service 

with usage of shorter terms to stagger 

appointments. Members are eligible to serve 

multiple but not successive terms.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Didn't we say 

most of that in the first paragraph, except for 

the members are eligible to serve multiple but not 

successive terms?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Yes. So, we just 

need to move the sentence --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And then put 2020 

at the top. That one, yes. Or put it after. And 

then delete that second --

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Yeah, delete.

MR. McCLUER: Put 2020 before 

re-authorization.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Thanks, Jess.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And the only 

other thing I would add here is to establish 

continuity after commitments of service.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: You want service 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to be a descriptor of continuity?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: No, just put 

comma and then establish continuity.

MR. KERRIGAN: Yeah, the third line, 

terms to stagger, there you go. So, this doesn't 

address current numbers. Do we want to try to write 

that in there or are we happy with just all new 

members having a five year --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Could you repeat 

that, Matthew?

MR. KERRIGAN: I believe that this was 

the first part we had before cleaned up that 

authorizes five-year terms, but does not address 

all that's currently here and the question is, do 

we want to write that in or are we good with just 

moving forward?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Sarah, are you 

ready? Will you write this down and then we'll 

adjust it.

MR. McCLUER: Just put five-year terms 

of service for current and future.
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: After that, can 

we say, Sarah, ready?

If the re-authorization of the 2020 

USGSA extends the terms of service for GIAC members, 

the committee recommends that the Secretary extend 

current GIAC members' terms according to this 

policy.

I'll say it again. If the 

re-authorization of the 2020 USGSA extends the 

terms of service for GIAC members, the committee 

recommends that the Secretary extend current GIAC 

members' terms according to this policy.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: The committee 

recommends the --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: That the 

Secretary extend current GIAC members' terms 

according to this policy. So, this way, we have 

established what we want. We want the five years, 

the reason why, and then what to do with the current 

membership now. Okay, is there any more discussion 

on this recommendation?
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: It was the most 

controversial one, I'm sure.

MR. BECNEL: Linsey, I'd like to make 

a motion.

MR. BURNS: This is just picky. The 

second sentence, this process of appointing members 

serves to -- strike that.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER:: You want of 

incentive? 

MR. BURNS: What?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: You were asking 

for of instead of to?

MR. BURNS: Of appointing members.

MR. SUTHERLAND: Bruce Sutherland. 

Just a matter of point about cohesive acumen. I 

just want to make sure that's right. Acumen is 

saying cohesiveness of committee, because, you 

know, acumen means the ability to make to make good 

judgments and quick decisions, and I'm not sure 

that, you know, I don't know, cohesive acumen seems 

kind of odd. So, just for clarity, I think it's 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

just cohesiveness of committee. Strike acumen. 

That's my opinion.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER:: Chad, is that

-- we added established continuity, but I feel like 

we're almost starting to get -- of all the 

descriptors there, which dilutes.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Of the committee.

MR. BECNEL: The word acumen, when I 

was putting it in there, clearly was meant to state 

specifically only, just as you stated, it would 

allow us to make correct decisions by extending 

our terms. Those that have less than, I mean, it 

was clearly spoke about the other day that the 

longer we have with the current members, current 

structure, that it would allow our acumen to, you 

can strike it if you want. I really don't care.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Sarah, will you 

read it as is.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Okay. The GIAC 

recommends that the 2020 re-authorization of the 

U.S. Grain Standards Act establishes a five-year 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

term of service for GIAC members with the 

utilization of shorter terms to stagger 

appointments. The process of appointing members 

serves to strengthen commitments of service, 

establish continuity, foster collaboration and 

encourage cohesiveness of the committee.

Members are eligible to serve multiple 

but not successive terms. If the re-authorization 

of the 2020 USGSA extends the terms of service for 

GIAC members, the committee recommends that the 

Secretary extend current GIAC member terms 

according to this policy.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Do we have a 

motion to approve this?

MR. SUTHERLAND: So moved, Bruce 

Sutherland.

MR. BECNEL: Second.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: All those in 

favor, raise your hands high.

We have 14 in favor. All those 

opposed. One no. The motion is approved.
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Okay, I'll read 

the next one here, and then ask that the author 

speaks to it.

Recommends that FGIS work with FDA to 

update their MOU to define a timeline, the shorter 

the better, to address actionable items, referred 

to them by FGIS, and have clarification on the 

problem potential remediation solutions, whether 

from FGIS, FDA, or the party involved.

MR. TURNIPSEED: I don't know if I need 

a microphone. I talk pretty loud. 

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes, yes.

MR. TURNIPSEED: In looking at the MOU, 

it does not define a timeline at all and we've heard 

there has been delays. I think it would be best 

if we could get that put in. And when they do have 

an actionable item referred to them, that it is 

clarified exactly what the problem is and some 

potential remediations, remedial solutions, 

however you want to word it, so that they're 

addressed quickly or can be addressed. 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And whether the remedial solutions come 

from the party involved, the FGIS or FDA, it doesn't 

matter. It could be more than one. And I would 

recommend that we change the front of it to say 

the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee recommends 

that FGIS, I left that out.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes. Is there

any more discussion? Do we have a motion to approve 

this recommendation? Yes? Second?

MR. KERRIGAN: Are we done with the 

wordsmithing here? I don't want to --

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I think that's 

good there. 

MR. TURNIPSEED: Well, I have one 

question. Should it be remedial instead of 

remediation? I'm okay with it --

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I think 

remediation is --

MR. MORGAN: It probably ought to be 

mediation plan.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, solutions for 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

mediation and that would the encompass the plans.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Can you say it out 

loud?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: The GIAC 

recommends that FGIS work with FDA to update the 

MOU for inclusion of a defined timeline, the shorter 

the better, to address actual items referred to 

them by FGIS, and have clarification on the problem, 

potential solutions for mediation, whether from 

the FGIS, FDA, or the party involved. Do we need, 

I'm not sure we need this qualifying of who 

remediation will be from, but we're asking for 

potential solutions for mediation and that should 

provide that scope.

MR. MORGAN: No, I think when you do 

an action, when they ask for an, when it's reported 

as an actual item and you basically heard Tony say 

we turn it to FDA and it's done. FDA may ask them 

for guidance, but this is saying, when they find 

an actual item, FGIS should have the expertise to 

understand the remediation plan, that should be 
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

done anyway. So, there should be ability to offer 

potential solutions in the reporting of the actual 

item in conjunction with working with the party 

involved. 

So, FDA has something that's more 

solid, not to sit down and figure out what he's 

got and what they want to do, how do they want to 

do it. It's just a plan of action be proposed 

versus waiting for FDA to come back, ask for 

guidance on how to do the proposed action. Does 

that sound right?

MR. GOODEMAN: Mr. Morgan proposed 

FGIS for the --

MR. MORGAN: I think when it actually 

gets reported, there should be the availability 

by FGIS to give FDA guidance on how it should be 

remediated, given their expertise in the field.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER:: We might not 

need what I added there. I said and offer as 

agency, qualifying it by the potential actors in 

the situation.
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur. I got a 

point of clarification for me. That last phrase, 

and have clarification on the problem and potential 

solutions for mediation and the authorized agency, 

whether from FGIS, FDA, or the party involved. 

Is that a phrase, is that something that we need 

to make a suggestion we include in the MOU?

MR. TURNIPSEED: I think it should be 

because they, the party involved should be able 

to suggest a remediation or some solution to that 

problem that FDA and FGIS isn't giving to them.

MR. NEAL: So, really, you're talking 

about process? You want MOU to establish a process 

for helping to --

MR. TURNIPSEED: Timeline and process.

MR. NEAL: Because every situation is 

going to be different and MOU is not going to have 

a clarification in there.

MR. TURNIPSEED: No, each time there's 

an actionable item referred to, the clarification 

should come from, they're telling the company what 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the problem is. They need to be very clear about 

what it is and suggest some possible remediation, 

whether it's something they heard from the client, 

what they're dealing with, or the party involved 

or the FGIS through their expertise.

MR. NORDEN: Doesn't remediation have 

a very specific meaning in that remediation means 

you're solving the problem. It may not, it may 

be a process; they might have to put a seal on 

something or, you know, it may not be able to 

mediate.

MR. TURNIPSEED: The reason I clearly 

said potential --

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, I added 

language to update the MOU for inclusion of a 

process defining, that defines, so we designate 

that we're asking for a process that defines these 

things? 

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Is that what you 

agree with? Defining a process?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: And then the 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

process is --

MR. TURNIPSEED: I think the timeline 

needs to be, there isn't a process for that. You're 

given three, four, five days for them to have a 

timeline to address this with FDA.

MR. MORGAN: The 10-day timeline 

doesn't exist in the MOU or the directive. It 

exists at FDA, they'll tell you, if you run into 

it, you don't know what you're dealing with until 

you run into it.

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur again. I 

think, I think for the point of clarity, we should 

probably put a period behind FGIS at the right, 

where that comma is, and really think about what 

it is you're trying to communicate on that second 

phrase.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: We do have 30 days 

for this, so this is something that, you know, if 

you want the right verbiage, we can still get an 

agreement on. So, for the interest of time, put 

that period and then think about what, exactly what 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you want it to say. Do you agree with that?

MR. KERRIGAN: Are there other 

changes? You know, will seem to tell me about the 

MOU is outdated and I asked some other stuff. While 

I am 100 percent behind we need to update and make 

some of these, is it better for us to put it on 

the agenda at the next meeting, review the entire 

MOU and make more specific changes to that document 

for them to try to work with them to implement versus

ad hoc-ing a couple items in this meeting. That's 

just a question to the group.

MR. MORGAN: I'm okay with putting it 

on our work agenda between now and the next meeting. 

I think Arthur is already working on it. I'm just 

really trying to help guide him a little bit and 

put in the record so the Secretary understands why 

he's working on it. That's really what we're 

trying to do here.

MR. KERRIGAN: Okay, perfectly fine 

putting the recommendation and continuing the work 

product in mean time as well.
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORGAN: I would even, I mean, I 

would even say the GIAC recommends that it just 

gage FDA, update the MOU to modernize and better 

define timelines and procedures around actionable 

items is how and then describe.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Right there.

MR. MORGAN: I don't think I can repeat 

that.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Can you repeat 

what you just said? Do we have a motion to approve 

this recommendation?

MR. MORGAN: You should withdraw that 

motion and the second you have.

MR. TURNIPSEED: I'll withdraw my 

original motion then.

MR. MORGAN: I would just change the 

MOU to modernize, and modernize.

MR. McCLUER: I withdraw my motion.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: The GIAC 

recommends that FGIS engage with FDA to update the 

MOU to modernize and better define timelines and 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

procedures around actionable items.

MR. McCLUER: Move to approve, motion 

to approve.

MR. McCLUSKEY: Second.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: We have a motion, 

we have a second. All those in favor of this 

recommendation, raise your hands high.

All those opposed. Fifteen, zero. 

Motion is approved. This recommendation is 

approved.

We're going to suggest a quick five 

minute break for everybody.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

briefly went off the record.)

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Sarah, will you 

read that for the record?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: For the record, 

the GIAC committee recommends that FGIS maintain 

transparency and utilize pre-2017 factors when 

considering the class of grain elevators prior to 

the completion of a more detailed inceptions 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

policy. The advisory committee supports the 

non-use of the service exception program allowing 

the grain elevator to request such service from 

another provider of official designated inspection 

and weighing agency outside of the designated 

service area. 

Further, the committee supports the 

agency's plan to conduct an advance notice of 

proposed rule-making on exceptions in order to 

provide a transparent process for non-use of 

service exceptions.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: As a 

representative of the official agency, I might have 

to recuse myself because we're supposed to be 

impartial. So, there are some agencies that don't 

want the pre-2017 factors considered, and if they 

did want the pre-'17, '17 factors, considered, 

those are what caused all the issues and the 

problems. So, that's the only part that I have 

a problem with is that if you put the pre-2017 

factors back in the way that they were, that's what 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

caused all the problems. 

So, I think if we would write something 

up that was more to the point of having clear, 

concise language in the regulations, so the 

director can follow the regulations, it may be 

establishing a subcommittee that could work with 

FGIS. I think Dave would be a great person for 

that to work with as the member of the committee, 

as a member of AAGIWA, work with FGIS and develop 

that language. Because if you put in what you had 

before, you're going to have the same situations 

come up that caused all that issues.

MR. KERRIGAN: I think because, so the 

intent here is that there's an 18 to 24 month time 

gap of getting those regulations in place, and 

what's going to happen in the dual time. You know, 

Arthur stated yesterday that he would conduct a 

transparent process and do those and what I'm trying 

to do is try and say there were some there. I 

realize that nobody likes them or there was a lot 

of point of contention, but there was at least 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

something in place to go off of and hopefully do 

that in a more transparent selection of criteria 

to encourage that.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yeah, and there 

is the process to place.

MR. KERRIGAN: That again, for the gap.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes.

MR. KERRIGAN: So, you know, I think 

we all support the new regulations and the process, 

but trying to get some clarity around what's going 

to happen in the meantime.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Then I think 

that's what the recommendations should say. Dave, 

didn't you submit a recommendation on this one?

MR. AYERS: No.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay.

MR. AYERS: But I do have comments.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay.

MR. BECNEL: I think Jess has a comment 

he'd like to make on that.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Well, I'd like to 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

hear Dave first.

MR. BECNEL: Oh, excuse me.

MR. AYERS: Following up what Linsey 

said, I do have a concern when you just say pre-2017 

factors. The economic impact portion of one of 

the determining factors is the one that created 

the problem, because it set it up, it was set up 

in the changeover of staff that, for FGIS that 

handled it, that went to zero economic impact. 

So, to go back to 2017 factors under the current 

guidelines, you're not improving anything. 

It's still, if they follow what they 

have in place when it was removed, economic impact 

is the reason why it was requested that the non-use 

of service be taken out because absolutely nobody 

qualified for it. So, I'm not opposed to what 

you're doing, but I think the wording should not 

go back to the point where you include zero economic 

impact, and that's what I'm saying.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: What is the 

committee's opinion on developing a subcommittee 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

with one or two members from the committee to look 

at the possibilities and where the, I don't want 

to say ramifications, but what are the reactions 

on both sides. You know, because I do want to 

remind ourselves that we're supposed to be 

impartial, you know, so on the good of all agencies. 

So, what are your thoughts to developing a 

subcommittee?

MR. KERRIGAN: A notice of advanced, 

advanced notice of proposed rule-making, you said, 

is going to go out here in days, right? In days, 

correct?

MR. NEAL: The end of the year.

MR. KERRIGAN: Oh, that won't be until 

the end of the year, okay. I don't have any issues 

with creating a committee, it's just trying to find, 

I would like a recommendation to provide some clear, 

some clear structure or at least some 

recommendation for what to do in that two-year 

interim. 

And if there's an issue with one piece 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of it, I think we can discuss that. This was a, 

more of a stopgap that there is criteria that has 

been out there. We all know that there are issues 

with the criteria, which is why the last line is 

in there about the notice of proposed rule-making.

And, you know, but in trying to figure 

out that we can point, help Arthur, help FGIS point 

to what they can use in that interim, to where we 

all know that it's not perfect and there are other 

items that other groups don't like. And trying 

to figure out, you know, giving them some guidance 

in the interim. I agree with the committee for 

the advance notice. It's what do we do in the 

middle term.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: That middle term, 

that's for the subcommittee before we meet next, 

does all the work, does the talking to agencies 

such as AAGIWA, what are their thoughts. Member, 

or agencies that aren't members of AAGIWA, FGIS, 

you know, so there's that work agenda in between 

now. If we put it on the next agenda, we can work 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on items and suggestions and then the subcommittee 

presents what their findings to the committee at 

the next meeting.

MR. KERRIGAN: But in that, because of 

the time gap, doesn't that then just roll into more 

recommendations for the advanced notice, because 

then you're going to pull off six months out of 

that timeline, which is more going to go into the 

advance notice comments versus kind of just figure 

gap here again. We're just trying to, again, 

knowing that there's issues, but also knowing that 

there's going to be a two-year, 18 month to two-year 

time period that there still could be exceptions 

come through.

MR. McCLUER: That needs to be out by 

the end of the year though, right, Arthur? The 

next meeting is kind of too late.

MR. NEAL: Yeah, well, our goal is to 

have advance notice of proposed rule-making out 

before your next meeting.

MR. KERRIGAN: Correct.
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. NEAL: So, what I hear you're 

saying, you're trying to give us interim 

suggestions on how we could put something in place 

and we get requests for exceptions. The committee 

would recommend we do, you know, something that 

was in place prior to guide our decision-making.

MR. KERRIGAN:: Correct.

MR. NEAL: That's what I understand 

you.

MR. KERRIGAN:: That's what my 

recommendation is, yes.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Linsey, as a 

committee member, can I ask that we hear from Jess?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes.

MR. McCLUER: Thank you. I think just 

for clarification, I think what's being referred 

to here in the, I'm sorry, Jess McCluer, National 

Grain and Feed Association. What's being referred 

in the pre-2017 factor is there's the 2017 

directive. They came out, right, that had the I 

guess you could call it some of the controversial 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

language in that directive. They caused a lot of 

the issues that led to, you know, the language that 

was in the Farm Bill that led to the restoration 

of the exception. 

So, what's being referred to here is 

that you have the 2017 directive and what Karen 

Guagliardo was referring to during our discussion 

yesterday was that those are some of the factors, 

you know, pre-2017 there in the previous 

directives, right? The 2013 directive, that is 

something that's going to be referred to, that the 

agency is going to be referring to if there are 

requests for future exceptions. So, I 

think that's where that kind of comes in, that 

pre-2017 issue, saying, you know, since that 

directive, there hasn't been anything released yet 

to replace that. So, that's where, that's the 

pre-2017. But I understand what you were saying, 

Dave, that some of those factors were, what we're 

contributing. But that's what that's referring 

to.
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I think also the committee should 

consider that once the advanced notice of proposed 

rule-making starts, there's very little that the 

agency can do to provide any feedback to the 

committee on what's, you know, once the rule-making 

process starts, is that correct, Arthur, that, you 

know, once the formal federal rule-making process 

starts, there's going be very little that you are 

going to be able to provide to the committee itself. 

Can you provide, you know, there's 

going to be comments that stakeholders are going 

to be submitting to the agency in response to the 

questions on the advanced notice of proposed 

rule-making. But because it is a formal 

rule-making process, there's going to be very 

little that you're going to be able to provide to 

the committee itself on what, you know, what you're 

planning to do or what the policy may be, or, is 

that correct?

MR. NEAL: To some degree. So, when 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

rule-making begins, we enter into this phase called 

ex parte, where we can't, we can't share all that 

we're thinking and doing. However, the way we 

operate is that we engage with folks all the time. 

Any comments that will come in, we're going to 

make sure that they're publicly available and 

accessible.

 Two, things, conversations that 

we're having, you know, there's a way to still say, 

hey, this is what we're hearing. This is what we 

understand us to hear. We can share things like 

that. We can't say what we're going to do. So, 

just like right now, we don't know what we're going 

to do, but we're making sure everybody's engaged 

in this process. So you know where we are and what 

our current thinking is about what we're hearing.

Now, we may be not say what our decision 

will be on what we're hearing, but we're trying 

to always seek understanding about what we're 

hearing, so that we process and formulate the path 

forward, we've got as much information as possible 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and people have been included in that process. 

And, you know, we did that very extensively when 

we drafted and finalized the national volunteer 

rules, we disposed of the rules. We worked closely 

with NGFA on that one, too.

MR. McCLUER: So, and just to add to 

that, so I guess in question, I guess the thought 

on all of that is there's a subcommittee or task 

force dealing with this advanced notice of proposed 

rule-making that input. You're going to be able 

to provide it and you're not going to be able to 

provide them as you said, you know, what you're 

decision is going to be or anything like that. 

You can share the information, the 

public comments, and so forth, from stakeholders, 

but you're not going to be able to provide the 

subcommittee or task group any specifics on the 

direction that FGIS is planning to go based on those 

comments, correct? Okay, that's what I just wanted 

to clarify. Thank you.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: I'm going to open 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it up to the floor for three minutes. If anybody 

would like to say something. Okay, never mind. 

Does the committee have any more discussion. Would 

they like to recommend something? An amendment 

to your recommendation?

MR. KERRIGAN: Yes, so that's why 

you've got to ask David. So, if there's one 

specific item, I know there's a lot of items that 

are heartburn, but there's one specific item that 

is a biggest heartburn, is there a different set 

of dates, different set of criteria that would be 

amendable to the committee for this recommendation 

instead of as currently phrased?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Can you say just

the non-use of service?

MR. AYERS: We would have to go all the 

way back to the 2010 program directives. But, that 

is where, that's the directive where the economic 

impact came in to affect by. It was, whoever was 

in charge for FGIS, the compliance division, 

enacting this program, they were the ones that 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

decided that economic impact was a key factor. 

And so, actually, you have to go back before the 

2010 to really have any effective method of changing 

the way we're operating right now.

Going back to 2017, reinstating the 

non-use of service would still allow them to utilize 

the same factors for determining if the exception 

request was not granted or granted.

MR. KERRIGAN: So, are you stating that 

if we went to the 2010 directive, minus the economic 

impact, that that would be what you would propose 

for the interim?

MR. AYERS: I would propose that any 

of the factors that they use to determine it be 

set and not be allowed to, depending on who's 

sitting in the position, be allowed to deviate.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: So, we could say 

something as far as the GIAC recommends that with 

the implementation of the non-use of service 

agreement, state in the regulations, clear, 

concise, what's the word for non-subjective, 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

factor, objectives, sorry, I'm just trying to 

ramble in my head.

Something less aggressive, and just say 

this is what the committee recommends. When you 

do implement the non-use of service, be clear, be 

concise, and not allow for subjectivity in that.

MR. AYERS: In my opinion, that is the 

correct way to go forward.

MR. KERRIGAN: So, basically, you're 

just giving a recommendation for objective criteria 

in the next 18 to 24 months, but not recommending 

any defined criteria?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes, and that's 

something that we can also do before the next 

meeting, before the advanced notice of proposal, 

is to keep this conversation continuing as thoughts 

go in your head. We can add to this in the next 

30 days, but as far as today goes, I think that 

that should suffice.

MR. NEAL: And be reminded that the 

advanced notice is just the first step. That at 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

your next meeting, anything you do still will be 

able to be considered for our process, as we develop 

the proposed rule.

MR. KERRIGAN: I saw this as a stopgap.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay, thank you.

MR. TURNIPSEED: Brent Turnipseed 

again. I'm a little bit confused on this non-use, 

non-use of service or as it's known as, we were 

told open season. We have geographic boundaries 

for each official agency, correct? 

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes.

MR. TURNIPSEED: For someone to 

request to go to a different one, to me, there needs 

to be clear cut, a real reason why they need to 

be allowed to do so, and I think that criteria needs 

to be put in there. For example, the current agency 

within that geographic area is not able to provide 

the specific test under the FGIS services they're 

supposed to have. It needs to be clear cut. You 

don't do it just willy-nilly, just -- that would 

people out of business.
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: If you wanted to 

go further and say after that first sentence that 

we talked about, if there is a reason that the 

industry wants to go to another agency, that FGIS 

looks into why that is. Tony?

MR. GOODEMAN: Yeah, it's an 

interesting recommendation. I understand the 

interest in wanting to know what FGIS would do right 

now, since it's in the law, non-use of service 

exceptions are in the law, what we do if we got 

a request? And I'm also taking time to go through 

the rule-making process. I get that.

My concern would be that if we wanted 

to expedite that without the rule-making process, 

but do it different then when we stopped with a 

2017, then we're going to go back to what Mr. Ayers 

said, with having career folks making calls, 

implementing the policy effectively before this 

rule-making process takes place. 

Like it would be fairly easy to 

implement what we did in say 20, 2015, '16, yeah, 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

from '10 to '17, where very few exceptions were 

approved because of that economic impact. There

was almost none approved. It would be easy to go 

back to that because the, you would still have the 

stressors of what -- and the law change. If we 

remove that criteria and granted exceptions, it 

has the potential of being controversial and again 

be ahead of this very transparent and, deliberate 

rule-making process.

So, I would just caution the committee 

and us. I understand the need to want action, and 

that's something in place in the meantime, but if 

anything is in place is it a change, it could prompt

more conflicts.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: So, would it be 

fair to say the GIAC recommends implementation of 

a non-use of service exception be executed in a 

manner that is transparent, consistent, and 

non-subjective, and take out everything else.

MR. KERRIGAN: But isn't this, isn't 

that just leaving it to the career people in the 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

interim, exactly what you said we didn't want to 

have happen? So, there's no set criteria to at 

least reference?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: There is set 

criteria, correct? They will follow what it is 

now.

MR. NEAL: So, non-use of service 

exceptions that were in place, this is from the 

2017 directive, non-use of service exceptions that 

were in place prior to the USGSA re-authorization 

of 2015 will remain in effect until one or more 

parties cancel the non-use of service exception. 

Significant changes such as change of ownership 

occur with one or more parties involved and/or they 

have not been utilized in the past 18 months.

I don't see anything, also, it says 

exceptions, it talks about time of service, if the 

incumbent OA cannot provide service within six 

hours, that's one. Barge probe services, an OA 

may provide probe sampling and inspection service 

for barge lots of grain with no restrictions due 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to geographical locations. And then there's the 

written agreement. A facility may request 

additional services be provided by an alternative 

OA who's geographic area is adjacent to the 

incumbent OA's geographic area. 

If the incumbent OA agrees to allow the 

alternate OA to provide a service at the facility, 

at that facility, a written agreement exception 

request must be submitted to QACD and we'll review 

the request and provide documented approval of the 

written agreement exception to all parties. 

And what has to be submitted, date of 

request, documentation naming the location and 

contact information, names and contact information 

of the incumbent OA, an alternate OA, and some other 

things. It doesn't get to the level of specificity 

that you're looking for. It's the written 

agreement piece.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: I believe when 

Karen came and talked to us, wasn't it in the 2010, 

what they used to evaluate that criteria? Do you 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have the 2010 in front of you? Isn't it 2010?

MR. KERRIGAN: Yes.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Sarah, can you 

read what we have so far?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I have, well ---

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: At the bottom.

MS. SEXTON-TOBIN: And I went ahead and 

added, because I felt there was general consensus, 

the -- in relation to the rule-making process?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes.

MS. SEXTON-TOBIN: So, that is, the 

GIAC committee recommends implementation of the 

non-use of service exemption be executed in a manner 

that is transparent, consistent, and 

non-subjective.

Further, the committee supports 

agency's plan to conduct an advanced notice of 

proposed rule-making on exceptions in order to 

provide a transparent process for non-use of 

service exemptions. And say that only, as we 

continue, I think these sentences in general are 
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

supported by the whole. The question is whether 

or not you want to address the interim time period 

by adding language in between here. But for 

fitting of it, I think we have consensus of these 

two.

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur. Tony, help 

clarify me because I guess anybody on the staff, 

right now it's based on a written agreement. All 

parties have to agree that that exception should 

be granted, right?

MR. GOODEMAN: The written agreement 

has to be in writing.

MR. NEAL: Right, the written 

agreement has to be in writing, right.

MR. GOODEMAN: But that's the only 

avenue in writing, at this moment, aside from the 

other existing exceptions that have not changed. 

But the availability of service and --

MR. NEAL: So, that's the current 

process. In the past, the decisions, from what 

I've heard, although we have the criteria that was 
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

too much subjectivity in how we would interpret 

it inside the USDA, what those things meant, what 

was the threshold. You know, and so what the change 

to the 2015 re-authorization Act did is take that 

negativity out and place the burden on the parties 

who want the exception. So, that's our current 

process. That's kind of where we are.

MR. GOODEMAN: Then it was changed 

again to reinsert the non-use exception language 

from 2021.

MR. NEAL: That's right. In the Farm 

Bill, and so that's where the -- yeah.

MR. McCLUER: I just want to, this is 

Jess McCluer. Yeah, I just want to make sure we 

have clarification here. Right, so the 

clarification is and I think further the resolution 

with the stopgap measure, right? So, the stopgap 

measure, so the language that was withdrawn in the 

2015 U.S. Grain Standards Act re-authorization is 

reinserted in the 2018 Farm Bill, right?

So, that language was taken out, that 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

led to the 2017 directive that we were talking about 

that caused all the controversy. That 2017 

directive is still out there. That has not been 

replaced, right? So, that's part of that pre-2017, 

which led to the 2013, or I'm sorry, 2010, you were 

saying, directive. 

So, right now, if you had a grain 

elevator such as right next to Bruce Sutherland. 

I'm not receiving timely service and I want to 

make a request for a non-use of service exception 

for an official inspection agency to come and 

provide the service to me. What I want to make 

sure here, and I think members of the committee 

want to make sure, is what is the process, right? 

So, if Bruce were to make a request, 

what is the process that FGIS, you know, how would 

that work? What would FGIS be considering as if 

he were, or anyone else, were to be submitting a 

request. And I think that's in this, while we're 

going through this advanced notice of proposed 

rule-making, which that could take 18, 24, who knows 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

how long. It's, we want to make sure, I mean from 

the grain elevator standpoint, we're all on the 

same page with what the considerations are going 

to be and who's going to be doing what.

MR. AYERS: Jess, I think I can address 

your questions. Bruce commented in the 

re-authorization hearing, that he was having some 

concerns over a service, I believe. Non-use of 

service. So, there's two different items you're 

looking at. Timeliness of service and the non-use 

of service. They are totally separate.

Non-use of service is that they, an 

elevator request service from the incumbent agency, 

cannot receive it I believe in six hours, they have, 

the elevator has the option of going out and 

requesting another agency come in and provide that 

service.

MR. McCLUER: That's timeless.

MR. AYERS: That's timeless service. 

But non-use of service is something different, 

where you have to go 90 days without somebody
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in inspection services --

MR. McCLUER: Correct, it's the 

timeliness and non-use of ---

MR. GOODEMAN: I was going to say, 90 

days, that's how it was defined by regulation, it's 

not a law. And that's something that we, it's a 

critical point, so what does non-use of service 

mean? Is that non-use of service for 30 minutes? 

Is that non-use of service forever? Like we never 

use official services at the -- and that's the part 

that gets -- it was 90 days -- services, or were 

stopped for 90 days and then, the idea behind it, 

as we talked about was give more people in the 

official system, right? 

They remember using services or --

official services to say, well, not really using 

anybody right now, so they can use somebody else. 

But that's the part that I think is really 

important, to work with all the stakeholders, all 

the stakeholders and define by regulation, which 

is transparent, you know, comments and ideas to 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

say where that mark should be.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Thank you, Tony. 

And for the sake of time, I think this embodies 

that. You know, and I think that if we want to, 

that's what we're asking is for those, for the exact 

language to be transparent, to not be subjective. 

So, I think, if we could go back to those two 

paragraphs that we had, if you could read those 

aloud and then for the sake of time, we have members 

leaving in a half an hour and we still have items 

on the agenda. So, I suggest we vote for this.

MR. KERRIGAN: That's not my 

recommendation, but if you're changing it then --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: So, do you want 

to, we should vote on your recommendation?

MR. KERRIGAN: You have to have a 

motion --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes.

MR. KERRIGAN: -- so if you want, if 

somebody wants to motion those two paragraphs, 

that's fine. My recommendation that I put forward 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

was for the interim, but if not --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: We'll start with 

yours.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I think it's just 

a matter of sandwiching or not sandwiching that 

sentence, or option one and option two.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Separate.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Yes.

MR. KERRIGAN:: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Do we have a 

motion to approve the one that is highlighted, that 

she's highlighting right now.

MR. BECNEL: Can we have a minute to 

read it?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes.

MR. KERRIGAN: There's two of them 

highlighted.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: The green, I'll 

read the entirety of the green. I'll read the 

entirety of the green and I'll define what's not 

in the yellow. They're exactly the same except 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

---

MR. NEAL: Can you unhighlight one. 

Some of us get see color that well.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: We'll do one and 

two.

MR. NEAL: Thank you.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Number two is, 

the GIAC committee recommends implementation of 

the non-use of service exemption be executed in 

a manner that is transparent, consistent, and 

non-subjective. The GIAC, this sentence here, it 

is unique to this recommendation. The GIAC 

committee recommends that the FGIS maintain 

transparency and utilize pre-2017 factors when 

considering a request from grain elevators prior 

to the completion of a more detailed exceptions 

policy.

Further, the committee supports the 

agency's plan to conduct an advanced notice of 

rule-making on exceptions in order to provide a 

transparent process for non-use of service. So, 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

explicitly the bolded sentence is added in the green 

or number two. Number one, or the yellow, is 

everything in the second without the bolded 

sentence.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay, we'll start 

with number two. Do we have a motion to approve 

number two?

MR. KERRIGAN: I so move.

MR. BECNEL: I second.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: All those in 

favor for number two?

MR. BECNEL: Can we have a discussion 

now before we vote?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes.

MR. NEAL: I want to call in question 

to vote on the recommendation. So, it was second. 

Discussion should happen before you call a vote. 

It did, got something to say then --

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER:: We lean on 

parliamentary procedure rules. Rules of orders 

would dictate that a motion can be considered in 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

discussion with or without a second. If the body 

starts considering it prior to the second, it means 

the second is in third because -- to consider it. 

So, we can discuss, it's appropriate without --

MR. ROBINETTE: I've just got one 

question. If this passes, and FGIS uses this, 

which they don't have to, just because we recommend 

it, will this change the existing exceptions out 

there?

Because that's my concern, is you're 

going to have, we're going to have customers that 

have been flip-flopped a few times now and if 

they're forced to change again, that's just going 

to create a mess. So, that's my only concern is 

that we don't mess with our customers on this 

decision.

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur. This is a 

recommendation. It doesn't bind us to do anything. 

This is a recommendation that whatever we do, we 

try to make sure it's transparent, and it allows, 

is asking us to use pre-2017 factors. It doesn't 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

mean that we have to, it doesn't mean that we even 

can. But these are thoughts from the committee 

to us for consideration.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: To further 

qualify that, it means for new requests you would 

use those factors, but for currently established, 

it would have implement, it's only for new requests, 

am I correct in understanding that?

MR. NEAL: Well, this really doesn't 

have impact on any request. This is for us to 

consider as we move forward.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: For new --

MR. NEAL: Yes, trying to make a 

decision.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, it only 

addresses the window of requests starting today 

until the rule?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: So, we had a 

motion and a second for number two. All of those 

in favor for number two, say aye, raise your hands 

high. All those opposed?
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. KLINE: So, five yes, eight no.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Five yes, eight 

no. How many abstentions, abstain?

MS. KLINE: Two?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Kendra, could you 

please repeat that?

MS. KLINE: Okay, so I have five yes, 

eight no, and two abstain.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay, so the 

motion is dead. Do I have a motion to approve 

number one?

MR. AYERS: I will move to approve 

number one.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Do I have a 

second?

MR. BECNEL: Second.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: All those in 

favor for approving number one, raise your hands.

MS. KLINE: Fourteen, am I counting 

right, fourteen? Fourteen and one abstain?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Thank you.
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. KLINE: Fourteen and one abstain.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Fourteen 

approved.

MS. KLINE: Yes.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Fourteen yes. 

Okay, the motion is approved. 

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: The final one 

submitted, do you want me to go ahead and read?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes, please.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Since FGIS was 

created in 1976, there have been significant 

changes in the number and operations of both grain 

handling facilities and officially designated 

inspection agencies. The amount of grain and oil 

seeds handled and produced within each geographic 

boundary and the number and number of quality 

attributes and other quality tests conducted by 

these agencies.

The advisory committee believes that 

these changes in the domestic marketplace 

necessitate that FGIS comprehensively update 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

information data upon which the geographic 

boundaries are based. FGIS can make 

recommendations, if necessary, to modify the 

boundaries based upon the comprehensively updated 

information and data gathered through the review 

in order to provide more reliable, uninterrupted, 

consistent and cost-effective service to grain 

handling facilities. And the author of this?

MR. SUTHERLAND: Bruce Sutherland. 

So, we talked about quality of service and 

delivering service and that was the objective, and, 

you know, we have stated a couple of times that 

we have seen significant changes within the grain 

industry since 1976. We have seen more qualitative 

factors, demand of shippers, we've seen shippers 

get bigger, grain elevators bigger. You know, 

larger unit trains being shipped. 

We got, now we've got container 

business ramping up. And I think that for FGIS 

to truly be monitoring the boundaries and official 

designated agencies in a cost-effective manner and 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

efficient manner and delivering quality service, 

I think we need a comprehensive review. We really 

haven't seen, at least, unless you go to the Federal 

Register, you know, notices or penalties or changes 

or exceptions without, you know, really digging 

into it.

And I think that if FGIS has that 

information now that they've done it, they should 

make it public, they should be transparent with 

it. If they haven't, they haven't updated it, if 

they truly need to assess what's in -- within those 

boundaries, I think now is the time to do it, get 

it done.

I know sounds perhaps daunting at 

first, but once it's done and then, you know, a 

review again with that re-authorization period 

within five years, it should be not necessarily 

a formality, but basically an update moving 

forward. So, that's why I put this on the table 

for discussion as a current issue.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Discussion?
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BECNEL: I'd like to make a motion 

to call, call for question.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay.

MR. AYERS: It is my understanding that 

FGIS does this when they renew the designations 

for every agency, they go through the audit, the 

quality of the service, quantity of the service, 

timeliness of the service, and all the other 

requirements that we have to meet to be a designated 

or delegated official agency.

I'm questioning how much information 

FGIS can release on a private entity doing business 

publicly. And that's my question. Now, if there 

are complaints within the grain industry of quality 

of service, quantity of service, that should be 

taken from the grain industry location and directed 

to FGIS, in my opinion.

I'm not opposed to this because they 

already do this. Now, what information they 

release is a whole other story.

MR. SUTHERLAND: Well, this review, 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the geographic boundaries, is not only the 

officially designated agencies, but it's the 

shippers, the elevators, the processors within 

those boundaries. And so are these designated 

agencies adequately staffed, supplied necessary 

equipment to be serving these grain elevators and 

the shippers within that boundary.

And I guess I question if the FGIS 

really knows, what do they know about MAC and our 

shipping capabilities. What do they know about, 

you know, to use another firm, the Andersons within 

a boundary and their size of shipping and those 

types of things. So that's, so this is more 

comprehensive than just the official designated 

agencies. They should know, those shippers in 

those territories, what their capabilities are, 

and what their needs are.

MR. AYERS: Bruce, a comment to that, 

if I may. When they come out, they do go out to 

the customer base and talk to the customers during 

these reviews. So if you have not been contacted, 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you can request to be contacted by them to discuss 

your concerns and your needs.

But they do, in all honesty, they do 

do that. They go out and they talk to certain 

customers, not every customer, but certain 

customers. And if you want to be included in that 

list, all you have to do is say so.

MR. NEAL: This is Arthur. So, yeah, 

the designation process is where this would take 

place. Now, I heard a comment a couple of days 

ago that I think we need to, from an FGIS 

perspective, consider. When we do the designations 

review, we should probably, as much as we can, we've 

got to figure out how to do it, go out to all 

customers and let all customers know that a 

designation is about to expire and give those 

customers an opportunity to provide input to us 

on whether, you know, on the type of service that 

they're getting from the designated agency. 

What I, I'm a little bit concerned about 

is suggesting that based on data, we adjust 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

boundaries subjectively. That is what the 

exceptions process is for, in my opinion, where 

people, if they are not getting serviced, things 

of that nature, then they make those requests. 

But I don't think we should initiate the movement 

of boundaries based on what we think, what we're 

seeing in data coming in from the industry. That's 

my only challenge. 

That opens it up to another whole level 

of subjectivity. But I do believe in that 

designation process, when we're reviewing service, 

the feedback that's coming in about capacity, 

timeliness, and all of those things, we need to 

actively get that information, broader than what 

we're currently doing, probably. 

So that we make sure all the customer 

base's voices are heard, should they choose to 

participate in that gathering of data as we conduct 

that review. Because you're right, we need to 

know.

MR. SUTHERLAND: Who sets the 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

boundaries?

MR. NEAL: The boundaries, from my 

understanding, when FGIS was established in the 

1970s, it was established when those organizations 

were designated. And, so that's how they, what 

they were handling then is what set the boundaries 

in motion. That's how, from what I understand, 

am I wrong about that, Tony?

MR. GOODEMAN: No, you're correct.

MR. NEAL: So, I want to help the Chair 

for a second. We've got 15 minutes left on the 

agenda, so we've got to kind of expedite this topic.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And, Bruce, if we 

could put this on the next agenda, I think that 

would be a good idea, too. I did hear a call to 

question, to stop the debate. Did I hear a second?

MR. McCLUER: Excuse me, I had a point 

to raise, just for clarification on here. Jess 

McCluer, GFA. So as I understand it, and FGIS, 

correct me if I'm wrong, if there's going to be 

a change in the boundary, you publish a Federal 
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Register notice, correct? 

So the Federal Register notice, that's 

where you, because you mentioned they'll announce, 

like for the designation of an agency or delegation 

of a state they'll post on there saying, hey, this 

designation is about to expire. You know, we want 

to renew, whoever wants to apply can apply. 

And at the same time, you also, what 

I've seen, you'll publish a Federal Register notice 

saying, hey, we're changing the boundary. We're 

making an adjustment to the boundary for this 

officially designated agency. And I look at it 

and to be honest, I have no clue what it means.

You know, we might be changing, you 

know, the latitude, longitude, the county. You 

know, we're moving it here, we're moving it there. 

And I look at that and what does that mean? You 

know, and I guess that's kind of getting back to 

this entire point, the justification, right?

Why is that boundary being adjusted. 

Why is the boundary being made, I think, getting 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

back to the whole point, there's really no, I mean, 

for public information, if I was to look at, you 

know, when the boundaries were created in 1976, 

where is the information to justify, why were these 

boundaries created.

Because I understand, it's primarily 

because, well, that's where these agencies have 

been operating, you know, since they were created. 

Well, okay, that's great. But I think that's the 

point that Bruce is trying to make, is that, well, 

look how many -- how times have changed and the 

boundaries have changed as well. That information 

too, you know, there's the officially designated 

agencies and the state agencies, right?

So, if you have a state department of 

ag, the information on what they're handling, that 

should be public information. That should be out 

there. So, that's public information for a state 

department of ag to make public, shouldn't that 

be information, too, that an officially designated 

agency should also make available.
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So that's what we're trying to say here 

is that, you know, this information, you know, if 

you have a certain boundary, you know, why are these 

boundaries, how are they, why are they -- I guess, 

why were they created that way. And if they are 

going to be changing, shouldn't that be, you know, 

what's the justification. 

And shouldn't that whole process be 

reviewed so you can have some type of format or 

process to make it transparent because just as we 

were talking about Federal Register notices, people 

aren't going to read that. You know, maybe make 

it a notice of trade or something to that effect, 

but just trying to make the whole process more 

transparent.

MR. NEAL: So just for clarification, 

what we're going to be doing is making more 

information available. Legally, we do have to get 

a review on what we can release. We'll try to do 

that through our interactive maps so people can 

look at that themselves. Regarding the 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

transparency component, how and why we made 

decisions, I'm not sure why that was the case in 

the past, but all I can really address is moving 

forward, that that information will be conveyed 

if we make such a decision to quote unquote move 

a boundary.

MR. TUNNELL: Linsey, I'll second the 

motion.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Can you hold that 

real quick.

So, the two changes are first to make 

this --

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Wait one second. 

I'm sorry, go ahead. Could you say it?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: So, to make it 

parallel structure to what we've done, make the 

recommendation, and then I'd ask first if you would 

consider, instead of saying FGIS can make 

recommendations, FGIS can establish a process 

that's consistent, transparent, and 

non-subjective, to mirror -- to not open us up. 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, to ask that they don't just start 

making modifications to the boundaries. If they 

see a shift in data where there needs to be a 

resolving to the market, that they establish a 

process to do so. So that process would lead any 

changing of boundaries.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Could you please 

read it as stated, out loud?

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Okay. The GIAC 

committee recommends a comprehensive survey of the 

market and scope -- scope of the market and scope 

of service -- and scope of service needs in each 

boundary for official grain inspection services, 

and the number of official agencies. Since FGIS 

was created in 1976, there have been significant 

changes in the number and operations of both grain 

handling facilities and officially -- and 

officially designated inspection agencies, the 

amount of grain and oil seeds handled and processed 

within each geographic boundary and the number of 

quality attributes and other quality tests 
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conducted by these agencies.

The advisory committee believes these 

changes in the domestic marketplace necessitates 

the FGIS comprehensive update information --

comprehensively update information data upon which 

the geographic boundaries are based. FGIS can make 

recommendations, if necessary, to modify the 

boundaries based upon the comprehensively updated 

information and data gathered through the review 

in order to provide more reliable, uninterrupted, 

consistent, and cost-effective service to grain 

handling facilities.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay, the 

question has been called and seconded, so that is 

the debate. So, all those in favor of this 

recommendation, raise your hands.

MS. KLINE: Thirteen yes.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: All those 

opposed?

MS. KLINE: One, did somebody abstain?

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Abstain?
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. KLINE: Or I missed somebody. 

Hold them up high, because I can't see.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay, all those 

in favor of this recommendation? Fourteen?

MS. KLINE: Oh, sorry. Fourteen.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: All those 

opposed? One. 

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: And going 

forward, it's important to note, if you call the 

question, we need to vote on calling the question. 

It's not appropriate to remove the body's ability 

to discuss something without a vote on that first 

and then move to the vote.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: And Sarah, from 

what I understand, to call the question, you have 

a motion to call the question, and then a second, 

and then --

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Then you need to 

vote on calling the question.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay.

MR. WATNE: So, the motion is to move 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to previous question and second, and then you vote 

to move --

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: The body accepted 

it today, so we can flow with the process, but I 

think the practice of stopping that without voting, 

we should correct.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay, thank you. 

All right, so now it's time for our nominations. 

Kendra, do you have the paper?

MS. KLINE: Just give me paper and I 

can pass it out.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay, we're on 

the officer elections. So, the first one we will 

vote for is Chair. Does the committee want to 

nominate anyone or self-nomination? Sir, can you 

please use your microphone.

MR. BECNEL: Oh, sorry about that. 

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Just wait one 

second.

MR. KERRIGAN: I would like to nominate 

current Chair, Linsey Moffit-Tobin, for Chair for 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this coming placement. If she would accept the 

nomination.

MR. AYERS: I have a concern on the 

people that are scheduled to go off, that we're 

nominating somebody for an officer position on the 

committee that may not even be here. I think that's 

inappropriate. I think if they do go through with 

the recommendations from the committee, that 

afterwards and the next time, they could be 

reinstated, but I think it's important that we 

establish the Chair, the Vice Chair and the 

Secretary based on the people that are going to 

be here for certain. This is a point of order in 

my opinion.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Just for 

clarification, when it comes to the Chair, Vice 

Chair, and Secretary, there are, I believe, five 

of us that are set to go off in June. So we will 

still have one more meeting this spring, and we 

can talk about it then. But just for clarification 

purposes, we will have one more meeting in the 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

spring. Do I have any self-nominations for Chair? 

Okay, write your votes.

MR. WATNE: Do we need to vote?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: If you could 

modify it to casting --

MR. WATNE: Can she do that? That 

usually happens after the fact. Now you would move 

a motion to casting --

MR. AYERS: So we are going to vote for 

a potential person that may not even be on the 

committee to be chairperson.

MR. KERRIGAN: If I'm not mistaken, our 

policy states that we'll do elections once a year, 

so nothing says that we have to wait for the second 

meeting to run elections for next year, is that 

correct?

MR. NEAL: The other --

MR. AYERS: It says fall meeting.

MR. KERRIGAN: I thought we took fall 

out.
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Yes, I thought we 

took fall out.

MR. NEAL: We took fall out. Once a 

year, the thing is, too, if you vote on someone 

who's not going to be here after the next meeting, 

the Vice Chair would take the role. If the Vice 

Chair is not going to be here at the next meeting, 

you still may have to take up a vote for a new Chair 

and Vice Chair. So that's, I think that's what 

they're bringing up. You may have to vote again, 

and that's okay.

MR. KERRIGAN: I will make a motion 

since there's only one nominated candidate for 

Chair, that it be approved by acclimation per the 

policy.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Second.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay, approved. 

Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next position 

will be Vice Chair.

MR. SUTHERLAND: I have a nomination.

MR. BECNEL: Sorry, you go first.
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. SUTHERLAND: Are you sure? Bruce 

Sutherland, for Vice Chair, I'd like to nominate 

Matthew Kerrigan.

MR. BECNEL: I make a motion the 

nominations be closed.

MR. AYERS: By unanimous acclimation, 

you have the vote.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Second.

MR. NEAL: So, somebody second his 

motion to close?

MR. AYERS: Sarah did.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Matthew 

Kerrigan, congratulations, you are Vice Chair.

MR. WATNE: We've got to vote yet.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Sorry, I thought 

we did.

MR. WATNE: We've still got to vote. 

We've got to vote for the motion.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: We're making it 

unanimous.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Okay, it's 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

unanimous. Everyone in favor say aye.

(Chorus of aye.)

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Raise your hands. 

Thank you. All right, now moving on to Secretary. 

Do we have anybody that -- I would like to nominate 

Sarah Sexton-Bowsher, if she accepts.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: I'd accept, 

unless there is someone who won't roll off that 

would have interest. And if that's the case, I 

would certainly -- I wouldn't accept, and I hand 

it over.

MR. AYERS: I move that nominations be 

closed and by unanimous acclimation.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: All those in 

favor, raise your hands. Okay, all those opposed. 

Okay, congratulations Sarah.

MS. SEXTON-BOWSHER: Thank you.

MR. NEAL: For closing remarks, I just 

want to say this has been a great experience. I 

know everybody's got flights to catch. I 

appreciate the level of effort, attention, work 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that's been placed into this, my first meeting, 

some of your second and third. But anyway, I look 

forward to doing, you know, working alongside you 

moving forward and agenda items for the next 

meeting, we can prepare to take those on in the 

upcoming months. Anything that you need from us, 

we are ready, willing, and able to assist.

CHAIR MOFFIT-TOBIN: Thank you again, 

everybody, for coming. This meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 12:00 p.m.)