Administrator’s Decision 

APL-024-20

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

 ) 

 

 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

In re:

William Brett, 

Dba William Brett Farms 

Adrian, Georgia 

 

 

This Decision responds to appeals (APL-024-20) of two Notices of Noncompliance and 

Proposed Suspension under the National Organic Program issued to William Brett, dba William 

Brett Farms (William) of Adrian, Georgia by Americert International (AI). The operation has 

been deemed not in compliance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (Act)1

 and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic regulations.2 

BACKGROUND 

The Act authorizes the Secretary to accredit agents to certify crop, livestock, wild crop, 

and/or handling operations to the USDA organic regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 205). Certifying 

agents also initiate compliance actions to enforce program requirements, as described in section 

205.662, Noncompliance procedure for certified operations. Persons subject to the Act who 

believe they are adversely affected by a noncompliance decision of a certifying agent may appeal 

such decision to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) pursuant to § 205.680 

1

 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522 

2

 7 C.F.R. Part 205 

Page 1 of 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adverse Action Appeals Process – General, and § 205.681, Appeals of the USDA organic 

regulations. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On August 22, 2017, William was certified organic for crops by AI. 

2. On January 14, 2020, AI issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension to 

William for numerous noncompliances found during the prior on-site inspection. 

3. On January 15, 2020, William filed an Appeal. 

4. On March 24, 2020, AI issued a Formal Request for Information to William. 

5. On April 11, 2020, AI issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension. 

6. On April 13, 2020, William filed an Appeal. 

DISCUSSION 

The USDA organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103, Recordkeeping by certified 

operations, state that, “(a) A certified operation must maintain records concerning the 

production, harvesting, and handling of agricultural products that are or that are intended to be 

sold, labeled, or represented as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic 

(specified ingredients or food group(s)).” Further, “(b) Such records must: ...(2) Fully disclose 

all activities and transactions of the certified operation in sufficient detail as to be readily 

understood and audited; (3) Be maintained for not less than 5 years beyond their creation; and (4) 

Be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part. (c) The 

certified operation must make such records available for inspection and copying during normal 

business hours by ... the certifying agent.” 

Page 2 of 13 
 

 

 

The organic regulations at §205.201, Organic production and handling system plan, state 

that, “(a) The producer or handler of a production or handling operation...intending to sell, label, 

or represent agricultural products as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic 

(specified ingredients or food group(s))” must develop an organic production or handling system 

plan that is agreed to by the producer or handler and an accredited certifying agent...An organic 

production or handling system plan must include: (1) A description of practices and procedures 

to be performed and maintained, including the frequency with which they will be performed; ... 

(3) A description of the monitoring practices and procedures to be performed and maintained, 

including the frequency with which they will be performed, to verify that the plan is effectively 

implemented; (4) A description of the recordkeeping system implemented to comply with the 

requirements established in §205.103; ... and (6) Additional information deemed necessary by 

the certifying agent to evaluate compliance with the regulations.” 

The organic regulations at §205.202, Land requirements, state that, “Any field or farm 

parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as “organic,” 

must:...(c) Have distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones such as runoff diversions to 

prevent the unintended application of a prohibited substance to the crop or contact with a 

prohibited substance applied to adjoining land that is not under organic management.” 

Additionally, the regulations at §205.601, Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop 

production, state that, “...(i) As plant disease control...(2)...copper-based materials must be 

used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides...” 

The organic regulations at §205.400, General requirements for certification, state that, “A 

person seeking to receive or maintain organic certification under the regulations in this part must: 

(a) Comply with the Act and applicable organic production and handling regulations in this part; 

Page 3 of 13 
 

 

 

(b) Establish, implement, and update annually an organic production or handling system plan 

that is submitted to an accredited certifying agent as provided for in §205.200; (c) Permit on-site 

inspections with complete access to the production or handling operation, including noncertified 

production and handling areas, structures, and offices by the certifying agent as provided for in 

§205.403; (d) Maintain all records applicable to the organic operation for not less than 5 years 

beyond their creation and allow...the certifying agent access to such records during normal 

business hours for review and copying to determine compliance with the Act and the regulations 

in this part...” 

The organic regulations at §205.406, Continuation of certification, state that, “(a) To 

continue certification, a certified operation must annually pay the certification fees and submit 

the following information, as applicable, to the certifying agent:...(4) Other information as 

deemed necessary by the certifying agent to determine compliance with the Act and the 

regulations in this part.” 

AI issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension to William after an 

inspection on November 13, 2019 revealed numerous noncompliances. AI issued a second 

Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension after William failed to fully respond to a 

subsequent Formal Request for Information. AI contends the noncompliances cited in the two 

notices constitute violations of various provisions of the organic regulations, and therefore, 

demonstrate an inability to comply with the regulations. 

William stated in its Appeals that it provided all required and requested records at or 

subsequent to the inspection and submitted all records/information requested by AI’s formal 

request; corrected all errors on trip/haul tickets; and that it didn’t deny access to its facilities or 

records during the inspection. William also stated it would begin soil testing to monitor copper 

Page 4 of 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

usage accumulation in February 2020 and would plant sunflowers in the Spring of 2020 as a 

buffer for the identified field. 

William has been certified organic since August 22, 2017, for crops, including corn, 

soybeans, onions, yellow peas, wheat, and broccoli, in fields totaling approximately acres 

(Exhibit 1). The farm has only organic production. Also, the April 11, 2020 Notice of 

Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension was issued during the pendency of the Appeal of the 

January 14, 2020 Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension. The violations alleged in 

the second notice include additional incidences of the recordkeeping violations noted in the first 

notice. Therefore, it was determined that both notices and the Appeals thereto would be handled 

together. 

A review of the voluminous amount of documentation substantiates that William violated 

several provisions of the organic regulations. As stated in the January 14, 2020 Notice of 

Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension, the prior onsite inspection conducted November 13, 

2019 revealed that William’s input usage records didn’t consistently record the date of 

application for certain inputs, specifically feather meal and copper, thereby failing to document 

all activities in sufficient detail as to be readily understood and audited. William stated that it 

subsequently provided the application dates; however, though AI states it has no record of 

receiving the information, and the complete input usage records were to be available at the 

inspection. Records created and/or submitted after the fact don’t satisfy the recordkeeping 

requirements of the organic regulations, and therefore, William violated the regulations at 7 

C.F.R. §205.103. 

An additional recordkeeping violation was found during an unannounced inspection on 

November 8, 2019 at a handler of crops sourced from William, which revealed receipt tickets 

Page 5 of 13 
 

 

 

 

listing William as the source of 22 loads of corn identified some fields, which didn’t match with 

William’s certified fields. Further, at the subsequent inspection of William’s operation on 

November 13, 2019, none of the tickets obtained from the handler were provided by William, 

despite the inspector’s request for all tickets and harvest records and William’s statement that all 

such records were submitted to the inspector. William couldn’t explain the absence of, or 

provide their own copies of, harvest records related to the deliveries. William explained the 

discrepancy regarding farm/field identification by telling the inspector that perhaps the truck 

drivers wrote down the wrong farm/field names; and stating in the Appeal that there was a 

miscommunication with the drivers. However, engaging in harvesting activities and delivering 

crops to a handler, for which tickets were created, and not maintaining those tickets constitutes a 

failure to maintain documentation of all transactions and activities in sufficient detail so as to be 

readily understood and audited as required in the recordkeeping regulations; and also prevented 

AI from successfully completing a mass balance audit. It is also William’s responsibility to 

ensure that correct information is entered onto all documentation of said transactions and 

activities. The subsequent submission of corrected tickets as claimed by William, but denied by 

AI, doesn’t negate that William didn’t have accurate records available at the inspection. 

William further violated the recordkeeping regulations, as well as the regulations at 7 

C.F.R. §205.400 by failing to provide access during the inspection to the silos where harvested 

crops are stored so that the inspector could visually verify the contents. AI contends that 

William’s failure to provide access to the crop storage area prevented the comparison of the 

contents of the silos to William’s records, and therefore, an accurate audit of crops harvested 

couldn’t be completed. William states that its insurance carrier prohibits anyone but William 

from climbing to the top of the silos, and therefore, William climbed to the top and took pictures 

Page 6 of 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for the inspector, provided the measurements of the silos, and opened the bottom doors. 

However, while acknowledging William’s actions, AI found the pictures taken by William 

weren’t sufficient as they couldn’t accurately reveal the contents of the dark unlit silos and 

therefore, those harvested crops also couldn’t be included in the mass balance audit. William 

hasn’t substantiated its claim that the inspector was not allowed to climb the silos due to 

insurance restrictions. Therefore, not allowing AI to do so is a failure to allow access to a part of 

the operation and constitutes a violation of the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.400.

 William’s failure to maintain various records, record deficiencies, and failure to provide 

access to records also, by extension, constitutes a violation of the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. 

§205.201, which require an operation’s organic production plan to include a description of the 

recordkeeping system implemented by the operation to comply with the requirements of 7 C.F.R. 

§205.103, Recordkeeping. The many recordkeeping noncompliances show a failure to 

implement a recordkeeping system. 

Evidence substantiates that William also failed to maintain required and accurate records 

in the past. An October 19, 2018 Notice of Noncompliance stated that at the prior inspection, 

which was held September 18, 2018, William failed to provide access to all records to the 

inspector. Specifically, the inspector requested to review all harvest and sales records, but 

William presented only partial records, stating that the remaining records were in the home of 

William’s representative. However, William didn’t retrieve the records and stated that the 

inspector couldn’t enter the home. Subsequently, William’s representative, Taylor Brett, signed 

an “Acknowledgement of Recordkeeping Access Requirements under Section 205.103 of the 

USDA National Organic Program,” which sets forth the requirements under the cited regulation. 

By the signing of the acknowledgment, William also agreed to retrieve records if they are in a 

Page 7 of 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

private home, and that failure to provide access to all requested records at all future inspections 

may be interpreted as a willful violation of the organic regulations and may lead to further 

adverse actions by AI. AI also submitted a Previous Corrective Action and Noncompliance 

Update Form submitted by William on September 20, 2019, stating all records related to organic 

production would be available at the upcoming inspection and all noted recordkeeping 

noncompliances were resolved. 

Subsequent to issuance of the first Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension on 

January 14, 2020, AI sent William a Formal Request for Information with a Surveillance 

Questionnaire on March 24, 2020. The questionnaire asked William to identify all parcels/fields, 

list their acreage, whether they would continue to be managed organically, and list all crops 

currently planted or planned in the following 90 days, by field, acreage, date planted or planned, 

and estimated/actual harvest date. Additionally, the questionnaire asked if William has crop 

insurance on the listed crops, and to submit a copy of the application for crop insurance 

including information and maps for fields identified as organic in the crop insurance application. 

Within minutes of receiving the email, William contacted NOP to ask if it was required to 

answer the questionnaire. NOP told William that it must answer the questionnaire as the organic 

regulations require a certified operation to submit information deemed necessary by a certifying 

agent to determine compliance with the organic regulations (7 C.F.R. §205.406(a)(4)). 

However, while William submitted the completed questionnaire to AI on April 6, 2020 

along with some attachments, William didn’t submit the requested documentation. Therefore, on 

April 11, 2020, AI issued another Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension, to which 

William also submitted an Appeal. AI stated that William’s failure to submit the requested 

documentation is “part of a pattern of withholding records or failing to provide access to 

Page 8 of 13 
 

 

 

 

records;” and evidence substantiates it constitutes another violation of the recordkeeping 

regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103, as well as the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.201, which require a 

certified operation to provide all additional information deemed necessary by a certifier to 

evaluate compliance with the organic regulations. It is noted that on April 11, 2020, AI also 

issued another Formal Request for Information or Records to William, requesting multiple 

records and maps regarding the 2019 and 2020 crops. William informed NOP and AI that it is 

attempting to get the requested information and maps from the USDA Farm Service Agency but 

has been unable to do so due to the Corona virus pandemic. 

AI also stated in both Notices of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension that William’s 

noncompliances, in particular the recordkeeping noncompliances, constitute repeat, willful 

violations of the organic regulations and demonstrate William’s inability to comply with the 

regulations. As discussed above, William previously received a Notice of Noncompliance for 

recordkeeping violations; and acknowledged the recordkeeping requirements and that a failure to 

provide all requested records in the future could be deemed a willful violation. Also, Taylor 

Brett, the authorized representative for William (William Brett, dba William Brett Farms) is also 

the representative of another organic operation, Taylor Brett, dba Brett Farms (Taylor), which 

also received Notices of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension by AI on January 14, 2020 

and April 11, 2020, for similar recordkeeping noncompliances, which Taylor appealed (Case 

APL-023-20). Taylor Brett had also signed an acknowledgment of obligations for this operation. 

AI also identified another grain operation previously represented by Taylor Brett which received 

adverse action notices for recordkeeping noncompliances. Although involvement in other 

operations doesn’t necessarily equate to knowledge of recordkeeping obligations as contended 

Page 9 of 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by AI, William and its representative Taylor Brett’s history of recordkeeping noncompliances 

substantiates a persistent, willful violation of the regulations. 

In addition to the recordkeeping violations, evidence substantiates that William violated 

the organic regulations as to land requirements, as AI contends, by failing to maintain an 

adequate buffer zone or physical barrier for the southeast section of the Wimberly 3165 field 

which abuts a conventional cotton field. The regulations at 7 CFR §205.202 require that any 

organic field/parcel must have distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones to prevent the 

unintended application of a prohibited substance to the crop or contact with a prohibited 

substance applied to adjoining land which is not organically managed. Although William 

discussed creating a buffer of sunflowers, it hasn’t done so yet as it hasn’t formalized a plan for a 

buffer zone but states it will plant sunflowers in Spring 2020. However, stating that it will plant 

the buffer in Spring 2020 is an acknowledgment that it hasn’t done so, and hence constitutes a 

violation of the regulations regarding buffer zones. Although AI identified this as a 

noncompliance rather than part of the grounds for a suspension, it demonstrates another incident 

of not complying with the organic regulations. 

Further, as AI contends, William violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.601 by 

failing to conduct regular soil tests to determine if copper used for disease control is 

accumulating in the soil. The regulations, while allowing the use of synthetic copper for disease 

control, also require that such material must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in 

the soil. Although William stated in 2019 that it would conduct soil testing, the November 13, 

2019 inspection found that it hadn’t done so yet. William stated in the Appeal that testing would 

be done in February 2020. However, this is, in effect, an admission that testing wasn’t done, 

thus constituting a violation of the organic regulations. 

Page 10 of 13 
 

 

 

 

Lastly, AI states in the January 14, 2020 adverse action notice that William must pay the 

cited contractual noncompliance penalties pursuant to a fee schedule approved by NOP and that 

failure to pay such fees when imposed is a violation of the NOP standards. However, while NOP 

accepted AI’s fee schedule, NOP doesn’t explicitly approve such fee schedules and will not 

intervene or rule in a contractual matter between William and AI. 

In conclusion, the evidence substantiates that William violated the organic regulations at 

7 C.F.R. §205.103, Recordkeeping; 7 C.F.R. §205.201, Organic production and handling system 

plan; 7 C.F.R. §205.202, Land requirements; 7 C.F.R. §205.400, General requirements for 

certification; and 7 C.F.R. §205.601, Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop 

production. Specifically, William failed to maintain numerous required records and make those 

records available to AI at inspection; failed to fully disclose all activities and transactions in 

sufficient detail so as to be readily understood and audited, and be sufficient to demonstrate 

compliance with the organic regulations; failed to provide AI full access during an inspection; 

failed to follow the approved OSP; failed to maintain an adequate buffer zone for a field next to 

conventional production; and failed to conduct soil tests on the accumulation of an allowed 

synthetic substance. 

Further, William’s noncompliances, particularly in recordkeeping, are systemic and 

represent repeated, willful noncompliance with the organic regulations. AI issued two combined 

Notices of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension, both citing to numerous recordkeeping 

noncompliances. The organic regulations at §205.662(c) provide that, “When correction of a 

noncompliance is not possible, the notification of noncompliance and the proposed suspension or 

revocation of certification may be combined in one notification.” Section 205.662(d) provides 

for issuance of a notice of proposed suspension if a certifier has reason to believe that a certified 

Page 11 of 13 
 

 

 

 

 

operation has willfully violated the Act or regulations. Based on the totality of the evidence, 

including the fact that these many recordkeeping noncompliances occurred despite prior adverse 

action by AI, and William’s acknowledgement of recordkeeping obligations, AI had reason to 

believe that William willfully violated the Act and the regulations. Therefore, AI was justified in 

issuing combined Notices of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension. 

CONCLUSION 

The USDA organic regulations assure consumers that products with the USDA organic 

seal meet consistent, uniform standards. Key to these standards is that products with the USDA 

organic seal are produced and handled in accordance with the organic regulations. However, 

William has been unable to comply with the organic regulations at 7 CFR §205.103; 7 C.F.R. 

§205.201; 7 C.F.R. §205.202; 7 C.F.R. §205.400; and 7 C.F.R. §205.601. The noncompliances, 

particularly in recordkeeping, are systemic and represent a repeated, willful noncompliance with 

the organic regulations. Therefore, William may not remain certified organic at this time. 

DECISION 

The Appeals are denied and AI’s two Notices of Noncompliance and Proposed 

Suspension are affirmed. William’s organic certification is suspended. However, pursuant to 7 

C.F.R. 205.662(f)(1), William may request reinstatement of its certification at any time with any 

certifying agent. The request must be accompanied by evidence demonstrating correction of 

each noncompliance and corrective actions taken to comply with and remain in compliance with 

the Act and the organic regulations. Additionally, attached to this formal Administrator’s 

Page 12 of 13 
 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________ 

Decision denying William’s Appeals is a Request for Hearing form. William has thirty (30) days 

to request an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. 

Done at Washington, D.C., on this _____

 day of ________________, 2020. 

BRUCE Digitally signed by BRUCE 

SUMMERS 

SUMMERS Date: 2020.05.31 21:40:47 -04'00'

Bruce Summers 

Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Page 13 of 13