UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

) 

) 

) 

 ) 

) 

) 

In re:

 

Jim Beyer 

New Carlisle, Ohio 

 )

 ) 

Administrator’s Decision 

APL-084-22 

This Decision responds to an Appeal (APL-084-22) of a Notice of Denial of Certification 

under the National Organic Program (NOP) issued to Jim Beyer (Beyer) of New Carlisle, Ohio 

by USDA accredited certifying agent Organic Certifiers (OC). Beyer 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 

INTRODUCTION 

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 or NOP 

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

1

 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522 

2

 7 C.F.R. Part 205 

Page 1 of 31 
 

 

 

 

 

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

organic regulations. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On September 27, 2019, Beyer was certified for crops, livestock, and handling under the 

name of Erath County Dairy Sales (ECDS) by former USDA accredited certifying agent 

Ecocert ICO (ICO). 

2. On November 6, 2020, Beyer-ECDS notified ICO that it was surrendering its livestock 

and handling certification. Therefore, only the crop certification remained after this point 

for ECDS, which changed its name to ‘Jim Beyer.’ 

3. On December 1, 2020, ICO notified Beyer that it was surrendering accreditation effective 

January 31, 2021. This was later extended to April 1, 2021. 

4. On July 15, 2021, Beyer withdrew its certification application from USDA accredited 

certifying agent Ecocert S.A. (Ecocert) to which it had applied for crop and livestock 

certification on December 11, 2020. 

5. On June 16, 2021, Beyer applied to OC for crop and livestock certification under the 

name ‘Jim Beyer.’ 

6. On March 22, 2022, OC issued a Notice of Noncompliance to Beyer. 

7. On July 18, 2022, OC issued a Notice of Denial of Certification to Beyer. 

8. On August 23, 2022, OC denied Beyer’s mediation request of August 16, 2022. 

9. On September 22, 2022, Beyer filed an Appeal. 

Page 2 of 31 
10. On January 5, 2023, NOP issued a Notice of Warning to Beyer for the continued 

handling of livestock after Beyer had surrendered the ECDS livestock and handling 

certification. 

REGULATORY CITATIONS 

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)). (b) Such records must: (1) Be adapted to the particular 

business that the certified operation is conducting; (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 ...” 

The 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 

system plan must meet the requirements set forth in this section for organic production or 

handling. 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 

Page 3 of 31 
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; ... (6) Additional 

information deemed necessary by the certifying agent to evaluate compliance with the 

regulations...” 

The regulations at §205.236, Origin of livestock, then in effect, state that, “(a) Livestock 

products that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic must be from livestock under 

continuous organic management from the last third of gestation or hatching ... (b) The following 

are prohibited: (1) Livestock or edible livestock products that are removed from an organic 

operation and subsequently managed on a nonorganic operation may be not (sic) sold, labeled, or 

represented as organically produced ... (c) The producer of an organic livestock operation must 

maintain records sufficient to preserve the identity of all organically managed animals and edible 

and nonedible animal products produced on the operation.” 

The regulations at §205.237, Livestock feed, state that, “(a) The producer of an organic 

livestock operation must provide livestock with a total feed ration comprised of agricultural 

products, including pasture and forage, that are organically produced and handled by operations 

certified to the NOP ... (b) The producer of an organic operation must not: ... (2) Provide feed 

supplements or additives in amounts above those needed for adequate nutrition and health 

maintenance for the species at its specific stage of life; ... (c) During the grazing season, 

producers shall: (1) Provide not more than an average of 70 percent of a ruminant’s dry matter 

demand from dry matter fed ... This shall be calculated as an average over the entire grazing 

season for each type and class of animal ... (2) Provide pasture of a sufficient quality and 

quantity to graze throughout the grazing season and to provide all ruminants under the organic 

Page 4 of 31 
system plan with an average of not less than 30 percent of their dry matter intake from grazing 

through the grazing season: Except, That, (i) Ruminant animals denied pasture in accordance 

with §§205.239(b)(1) through (8), and §§205.239(c)(1) through (3), shall be provided with an 

average of not less than 30 percent of their dry matter intake from grazing throughout the periods 

that they are on pasture during the grazing season ... (d) Ruminant livestock producers shall: (1) 

Describe the total feed ration for each type and class of animal. The description must include: (i) 

All feed produced on-farm; (ii) All feed purchased from off-farm sources; (iii) The percentage of 

each feed type, including pasture, in the total ration; and (iv) A list of all feed supplements and 

additives...” 

The regulations at §205.238, Livestock health care practice standard, state that, “(a) The 

producer must establish and maintain preventative livestock health care practices, including: (1) 

Selection of species and types of livestock with regard to suitability for site-specific conditions 

and resistance to prevalent disease and parasites; (2) Provision of a feed ration sufficient to meet 

nutritional requirements, including vitamins, minerals, protein and/or amino acids, fatty acids, 

energy sources, and fiber (ruminants); (3) Establishment of appropriate housing, pasture 

conditions, and sanitation practices to minimize the occurrence and spread of disease and 

parasites; (4) Provisions of conditions which allow for exercise, freedom of movement, and 

reduction of stress appropriate to the species; Performance of physical alterations as needed to 

promote the animal’s welfare and in a manner that minimizes pain and stress; and (6) 

Administration of vaccines and other veterinary biologics... (c) The producer of an organic 

livestock operation must not: (7) Withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to 

preserve its organic status...” 

Page 5 of 31 
The regulations at §205.239, Livestock living conditions, state that, “(a) The producer of 

an organic livestock operation must establish and maintain year-round livestock living conditions 

which accommodate the health and natural behavior of animals, including: (1) Year-round access 

for all animals to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas ... Except, that, animals may be 

temporarily denied access to the outdoors in accordance with §§205.239(b) and (c)... (2) For all 

ruminants, management on pasture and daily grazing through the grazing season(s) to meet the 

requirements of §205.237, except as provided for in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section... 

(b) The producer of an organic livestock operation may provide temporary confinement or 

shelter for an animal because of: (1) Inclement weather; ... (6) Sorting or shipping animals and 

livestock sales ... 

The regulations at §205.240, Pasture practice standard, state that, “The producer of an 

organic livestock operation must, for all ruminant livestock on the operation, demonstrate 

through auditable records in the organic system plan, a functioning management plan for 

pasture... (c) A pasture plan must be included in the producer’s organic system plan, and be 

updated annually ... The pasture plan shall include a description of the: (1) Types of pasture 

provided to ensure that the feed requirements of §205.237 are being met. (2) Cultural and 

management practices to be used to ensure pasture of a sufficient quality and quantity ... (3) 

Grazing season for the livestock operation’s regional location. (4) Location and size of pastures, 

including maps giving each pasture its own identification. (5) The types of grazing methods to be 

used in the pasture system...” 

The 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 of this part; (b) 

Page 6 of 31 
 

 

Establish, implement, and update annually an organic production or handling system plan that is 

submitted to an accredited certifying agent ...” 

BACKGROUND 

Jim Beyer (Beyer) was previously certified for crops, livestock, and handling under the 

name of Erath County Dairy Sales (ECDS), located in Dublin, Texas. This certification through 

then-USDA accredited certifier Ecocert ICO (ICO) was effective September 27, 2019. In 

addition to the Dublin, Texas location, the certification included Beyer Ranch (referred to as the 

ranch below), located in Stephenville, Texas, which is approximately 18 miles from Dublin, 

Texas. On November 6, 2020, ECDS notified ICO that it was surrendering the livestock and 

handling portion of its certification. On November 13, 2020, ICO confirmed to ECDS that the 

livestock and handling certification was surrendered. ECDS’ then-consultants responded to ICO 

that ECDS didn’t surrender the livestock certification for the ranch in Stephenville, Texas. 

However, Beyer’s ranch location wasn’t certified separately for livestock and handling from 

ECDS; never held its own certification and was only certified as a part of ECDS; and hadn’t 

been inspected for livestock and handling. Therefore, it was found that the livestock and 

handling surrender also applied to activities at the ranch. However, allegations that Beyer 

continued to conduct handling and livestock activities at the ranch location after November 13, 

2020, is not at issue here because it wasn’t discussed by OC in its denial notice. As such, the 

above is provided as background information. The crops, located at the ranch location in 

Stephenville, Texas, which had been inspected and was specifically identified on the ECDS 

certificate, remained certified, though the name was changed from ECDS to ‘Jim Beyer.’ 

Page 7 of 31 
 

-

On December 1, 2020, ICO informed ECDS that it was surrendering its accreditation as a 

certifying agent, effective January 31, 2021, though it was later extended to April 1, 2021. 

USDA accredited certifier, Ecocert S.A. (Ecocert), the parent company of ICO, informed Beyer 

that it would need to apply for livestock and handling certification at the ranch location; and 

provide all relevant livestock information and documentation. Beyer subsequently applied to 

Ecocert on December 11, 2020 for crop and livestock certification for one location - the ranch; 

but subsequently withdrew that application on July 15, 2021. 

However, on June 16, 2021, Beyer applied to Organic Certifiers (OC) for crop and 

livestock certification at the Stephenville, Texas ranch location, under the name of ‘Jim Beyer’, 

however, the mailing address provided on the certification application is New Carlisle, Ohio. 

Beyer stated that it would act as a collection point for organic livestock received from another 

certified operation, holding the livestock for one to seven days until enough head were collected 

for a full load, and then load the livestock for transportation to slaughter. Beyer stated it 

wouldn’t own the livestock, and also wouldn’t arrange for the transport to slaughter. OC 

reviewed Beyer’s Livestock and Crop Organic System Plans (OSP), received July 15, 2021, and 

subsequent updates to each OSP regarding the activities on the 

(b) (4)

acre ranch. However, OC 

didn’t conduct an inspection of Beyer, stating to NOP that Beyer’s application for certification 

didn’t ‘move’ into the inspection phase. This is because OC couldn’t successfully verify Beyer’s 

compliance with the organic regulations at the application review. 

Therefore, on March 22, 2022, OC issued a Notice of Noncompliance to Beyer, stating 

that despite numerous requests to Beyer over several months to determine its eligibility for 

certification, Beyer has not provided the necessary information and required documentation. OC 

cited to deficiencies in Beyer’s Livestock OSP involving such matters as health care practices, 

Page 8 of 31 
the use of prohibited substances, and grazing season; as well as missing or incomplete records, 

including a Livestock Offsite Location Affidavit, DMI (dry matter intake) Calculations, and a 

Pasture Management Plan. Beyer submitted a Response to the Notice of Noncompliance on 

May 5, 2022, stating that it was unclear on what the cited noncompliances were based. Beyer 

provided a response to each cited noncompliance/point in the Notice of Noncompliance. OC 

replied to Beyer’s Response on May 11, 2022, stating that it evaluated Beyer’s responses, along 

with the OSPs and supporting documents, against the regulatory requirements to verify 

compliance. However, despite numerous attempts, OC stated that sufficient information hasn’t 

been received to verify compliance by Beyer. 

Subsequently, on July 18, 2022, OC issued a Notice of Denial of Certification to Beyer, 

delineating the noncompliances which were the basis for the denial. Beyer requested mediation 

on August 16, 2022, which OC denied on August 23, 2022. Beyer filed an Appeal on September 

22, 2022, after being granted an extension by NOP. 

RELATIONSHIP WITH ECCI-EOL AND NONCOMPLIANCE REGARDING 

LIVESTOCK OFFSITE LOCATION AFFIDAVIT 

OC stated in its Notice of Noncompliance that Beyer stated the livestock cattle on his 

operation would be owned by Evans Organics LLC (EOL) of New Carlisle, Ohio and had 

submitted the EOL certificate. Therefore, OC had asked Beyer to submit a completed Livestock 

Offsite Location Affidavit to document the relationship between Beyer and EOL. Beyer replied 

that the Affidavit wasn’t applicable to their operation, as Beyer doesn’t operate an offsite 

location. However, OC had informed Beyer that although the Affidavit may not ‘seem’ 

applicable, it is necessary for OC to understand the relationship between the parties. The prior 

Page 9 of 31 
handling and livestock activities of ECDS at the Dublin, Texas, and Stephenville, Texas 

locations had been under the organic certification of Evans Cattle Company, Inc. (ECCI) of New 

Carlisle, Ohio, with Beyer’s Texas locations identified on the ECCI certificate. It is not a best 

practice for a certifier to allow this, as separate locations should have their own certification. 

ECCI and Jim Beyer had signed an Organic Certification/Right of First Refusal Agreement, 

whereby ECDS-Beyer would sell ‘claimed’ organic cattle to ECCI first; and in exchange, ECCI 

would provide administrative assistance to ECDS-Beyer to obtain and maintain their own 

certification. Subsequently, at the direction of ICO and NOP, Beyer obtained its own 

certification as ECDS on September 27, 2019. 

Also, around this time, the handling activities of ECCI were placed under EOL, which 

had obtained certification, though AMS contends that EOL is the same operation as ECCI under 

a new/successor name. Despite obtaining its own certification, ECDS continued engaging in 

livestock transactions with ECCI and then EOL; and Beyer stated that the livestock on its 

operation for which it applied to OC for certification, would be owned by EOL. As stated above, 

Beyer’s application to OC gave its mailing address as the address of ECCI at 10201 New Carlisle 

Pike, New Carlisle, Ohio, 45344. 

Beyer stated in an attachment to its Livestock OSP updated on May 24, 2022, that a 

certified operation may use another certified location for animal grazing and/or management; and 

that as previously explained to OC, EOL uses Beyer’s ranch for animal grazing and 

management. However, while Beyer stated that the requested Livestock Offsite Location 

Affidavit was attached to the OSP, OC stated it was never actually submitted to OC. Beyer 

stated that Edgar Evans, manager of EOL, is responsible for the transport of animals to and from 

Beyer and is also the responsible person for making decisions about feed purchases, feed 

Page 10 of 31 
 

supplements, additives, providing supplemental feed, and the purchase and administration of 

healthcare materials. Beyer also stated that Evans is responsible for making decisions regarding 

the housing and living conditions of the livestock. Further, the OSP provides that any sick or 

injured animals shall be provided with medical treatment as needed and then sent to the 

conventional market if treated with a prohibited substance. Such animals will be identified, with 

records being maintained; and Beyer will notify EOL as well as OC of such animals. 

However, OC stated in the denial notice that Beyer had failed to properly complete the 

Affidavit, and specifically noted the ‘declaration’ regarding the incidence of prohibited substance 

usage on livestock, and signature by all responsible parties. Due to the close relationship 

between ECCI/EOL and Beyer, and that all cattle coming to Beyer’s ranch are allegedly sourced 

from and owned by ECCI/EOL, with Beyer never having ownership of the cattle, AMS finds 

OC’s requirements are reasonable. The regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103, provide that certified 

operations maintain records that fully disclose all activities and transactions in sufficient detail as 

to be readily understood and audited. As Beyer was previously certified under ECDS by another 

certifier, it should be aware that a certifier needs to understand the workings of the operation, 

including relationships with other entities linked to the operation; and additionally, 7 C.F.R. 

§205.201 requires an OSP include any additional information deemed necessary by a certifier to 

evaluate compliance with the regulations. Further, although the livestock are owned by 

ECCI/EOL, which also makes decisions concerning the livestock as discussed above, the 

livestock are managed by Beyer, which manages its own operation and is responsible for 

carrying out the decisions of ECCI/EOL and feeding and caring for the livestock. Therefore, all 

practices and procedures engaged in by Beyer must be described in Beyer’s OSP, as well as the 

sources and suppliers of feed, feed supplements, and healthcare materials, as Beyer is responsible 

Page 11 of 31 
for maintaining the organic status of the livestock under its management. That was not done, and 

therefore, OC’s denial was appropriate. 

DEFICIENCIES IN BEYER’S LIVESTOCK OSP 

OC stated in the Notice of Denial of Certification that Beyer’s updated Livestock OSP 

didn’t include any preventative health care practices to be used as required by the regulations at 7 

C.F.R. §205.238, and only states what would happen if an animal was sick or injured. Further, 

the updated OSP failed to address any animal health monitoring practices done on the operation, 

as required by 7 C.F.R. §205.201. OC referenced Sections 8, 13, 22, and 24 of the OSP as being 

insufficient, and therefore, not compliant with 7 C.F.R. §205.201. These same deficiencies had 

been identified in the prior Notice of Noncompliance. 

Beyer stated in the May 5, 2022 Response to the Notice of Noncompliance, that it had 

already provided answers in the cited sections and questioned what additional information was 

needed. Beyer stated in its subsequent May 24, 2022 Attachment to an updated Livestock OSP 

that as livestock are held on the ranch for such a short time frame, between one and seven days, 

there hasn’t been a need, to date, to treat any animals for sickness; and further, no prohibited 

substances are kept on-site. However, in the event there is a sick or injured animal, Beyer stated 

there is a plan in the OSP which complies with 7 C.F.R. §205.238, and states that a veterinarian 

will be contacted, or the sick or injured animal shall be provided with medical treatment as 

needed and directed to the conventional market if a prohibited substance is used, with records 

being maintained to document this. Beyer stated further in the Attachment that livestock are 

monitored daily for any visible signs of sickness or injury; and if any are identified, the treatment 

plan will be followed. Beyer reiterated its statements in the August 16, 2022 Request for 

Page 12 of 31 
Mediation, and argued in its Appeal that it has worked with OC in attempts to submit all 

requested information. AMS reviewed all the documentation, notices, and submitted OSP forms 

and updates in regard to each section in the Livestock OSP cited by OC as insufficient; and 

addresses each section below. 

Noncompliance: Section 8 of Livestock OSP: Prohibited Substances

 Beyer answered Section 8 of the Livestock OSP, which only requires a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ 

response to whether prohibited substances are stored at the operation’s site. It is unclear if OC 

was trying to obtain more information on prohibited substances, but barring an inspection where 

it could be visually verified, AMS finds that Beyer answered the question, as asked by OC, for 

this specific section of the OSP. 

Section 12 of Livestock OSP: Rations 

.” Beyer hadn’t provided any reply 

in this section in its initially-submitted Livestock OSP. However, pursuant to the organic 

regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.237, any feed fed, which includes hay, would be considered part or 

all of the animal’s rations and needs to be identified in the OSP with the estimated dry matter 

(DM) amounts fed. The OSP would also have to state how Beyer intends to maintain its feed 

records. Therefore, Beyer’s statement that the feed fed hay is not a ration, and not stating how 

Although OC didn’t address a noncompliance in regard to Section 12 of the Livestock 

OSP, AMS finds that Beyer’s response to this section is insufficient. Beyer stated the following 

in the Attachment to the OSP updated on May 24, 2022, addressing rations: “ 

(b) (4) Page 13 of 31 
feed records will be documented and maintained, represents a deficiency in Beyer’s Livestock 

OSP. Therefore, Section 12 of the Livestock OSP is not sufficient. 

Noncompliance: Section 13 of Livestock OSP: Health Care Practices 

Section 13 of the Livestock OSP asks for ‘general preventative and diagnostic practices,’ 

and Beyer provided a response. However, what Beyer stated in the updated OSP of May 24, 

2022, wasn’t a description of its general preventative or diagnostic practices for animal health 

care. Beyer only stated that if there was a sick or injured animal, ECCI/EOL would be notified. 

It didn’t include any practices or inputs be used to care for a sick animal. Beyer stated in the 

OSP Attachment that “any sick or injured animals shall be provided with medical treatment as 

needed and diverted to the conventional market if treated with a prohibited substance. Records 

will be kept of the animals diverted by tag number...” However, then Beyer stated that either a 

veterinarian will be contacted, or those animals treated with a prohibited substance will be 

diverted. Further, Beyer’s response to the Notice of Noncompliance contradicts with what was 

stated in the Livestock OSP, and states instead that medical treatment would (emphasis added) be 

provided to sick animals. 

However, the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.238 require that preventative livestock 

health practices be established and maintained and list several items to be addressed in the 

practices. Health practices and health treatments, which would need to be approved by the 

certifier, weren’t described by Beyer. Removing a sick animal from the organic herd is not a 

health care practice and doesn’t constitute treatment. An operation must also state what 

medicines and inputs it will use in the treatment of animals, and how the medicines and inputs 

will be used. Typically, producers that only keep animals for 24 hours or less wouldn’t have 

Page 14 of 31 
 

 

health practices or health treatments and inputs in an OSP. However, even then the OSP would 

typically include the name and contact information for a veterinarian. As Beyer stated that it 

keeps animals for up to seven days and hasn’t described health practices, health inputs, and 

veterinarian information, AMS finds OC had cause for finding Section 13 of Beyer’s OSP 

insufficient. 

Noncompliance: Section 22 of Livestock OSP: Monitoring 

Regarding Section 22 of the Livestock OSP, OC stated in the Notice of Denial of 

Certification, that the updated OSP of May 24, 2022, failed to address any animal health 

monitoring practices that are done on the operation. When asked in Section 22 to describe the 

monitoring, Beyer stated, “annual monitoring of OSP during annual renewal. If we determine 

there is a change needed we would notify (OC) ...” Beyer stated in the attachment to the OSP 

that, “the livestock are monitored daily by Beyer Ranch employees to determine if there are any 

visible signs of sickness or injury ... to the extent such animals are identified by visual 

inspection, then the animals will be treated ...” Beyer stated in its Mediation Request that 

Section 22, per a conversation with OC, required a description of how Beyer would monitor the 

implementation of the OSP itself, which it provided in its initial response to Section 22. Beyer 

further stated that after OC indicated that more information was needed, the attachment to their 

OSP provided detail. 

However, Beyer hasn’t described any specific procedures on how it would monitor 

animal health care practices, who would be doing the monitoring, or address the specific items 

needed for a health care practice. Therefore, Beyer has failed to comply with the regulations at 7 

C.F.R. §205.201, which require that the OSP contain a “description of the monitoring practices 

Page 15 of 31 
 

 

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

performed, to verify that the plan is effectively implemented.” Beyer also failed to comply with 

7 C.F.R. §205.238 which requires that a livestock health care practice address several items, 

which include provision of a feed ration sufficient to meet nutritional needs; establishment of 

appropriate housing, pasture and sanitation practices; and administration of vaccines and other 

veterinary biologics. Therefore, AMS finds that Beyer has failed to provide sufficient 

information for Section 22 of the Livestock OSP. 

Noncompliance: Section 24 of Livestock OSP: Records Retention 

OC stated in both the Notice of Noncompliance and the Notice of Denial of Certification 

that Beyer had failed to sufficiently address Section 24 of the Livestock OSP. However, this 

section requires only a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to the question: “Does this operation a policy of 

keeping records for 5 years?” Beyer answered ‘yes’ in both its initial Livestock OSP and the 

updated OSP of May 24, 2022. AMS finds that Beyer answered the question, as asked by OC, 

for this specific section of the OSP. 

NONCOMPLIANCE REGARDING RUMINANT ATTACHMENT, ITEMS #3 – 

DMI CALCULATIONS AND #4 – PASTURE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

OC stated in the Notice of Denial of Certification that Beyer didn’t provide enough 

information or documentation in Ruminant Attachment #4: Pasture Management Plan, and 

Ruminant Attachment #3: DMI Calculations, to determine if Beyer is in compliance with the 

organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.240, Pasture practice standard, and 7 C.F.R. §205.237, 

Livestock feed. Ruminant Attachment forms were attached to Beyer’s initial and updated 

Page 16 of 31 
Livestock OSPs. Beyer had stated in its Application to OC that, “We have certified organic 

pasture and produce hay for livestock feed and have holding pens for livestock being moved to 

slaughter.” Beyer reiterated this in the initial Livestock OSP of June 17, 2021, also stating that it 

doesn’t own the cattle which it “pastures” for slaughter. Beyer only identified the animals as 

beef, of various breeds, with the feed and feed supplements identified as on-farm grazing with 

pasture/hay, and the livestock being on pasture 100% of the time, except when they are moved to 

holding pens for loading for transport to the slaughter facility, and that the owner of the livestock 

provides the transportation. Beyer answered in reply to #3 of the Ruminant Attachment 

regarding DMI, “Not applicable. Hay produced on farm is only fed in the winter months,” and 

didn’t provide any information in the DMI worksheet. Beyer also didn’t provide any 

information in #4 of the Ruminant Attachment regarding pasture management and dry matter 

availability. 

Therefore, OC issued a Notice of Noncompliance on March 22, 2022, stating that despite 

attempts to obtain the needed information, including telephone calls with Beyer, the responses 

for #3 and #4 of the Ruminant Attachment are not sufficient. Beyer stated in its Response to the 

noncompliance notice, that its OSP included a Ruminant Management Plan and asked OC to 

clarify ‘with specificity’ what information was needed, as Beyer believed its submission 

complied with 7 C.F.R. §205.237. Addressing DMI calculations, Beyer stated that the regulation 

speaks of DMI within an entire ‘grazing season,’ while the organic livestock at Beyer’s ranch are 

only onsite between one and seven days, and therefore, section 205.237 isn’t directly applicable. 

Further, Beyer contended that as the goal is to ensure that the organic livestock have access to 

pasture for grazing, it satisfies this requirement. Beyer subsequently submitted an updated 

Livestock OSP on May 24, 2022, reiterating that it doesn’t own the livestock, but merely 

Page 17 of 31 
 

-

pastures/holds them “temporarily” while on their way to slaughter. Beyer stated it had 

approximately 

(b) (4)

head of cattle at a time; and that the cattle are on pasture 100% of the time, 

and are only provided hay and/or silage as needed, i.e. winter or in a drought situation. Beyer 

again stated that the livestock are only temporarily confined when moved to holding pens for 

loading onto the truck; though the OSP doesn’t identify any records that would document this. 

DMI information was added to the Ruminant Attachment #3 submitted with the OSP update, and 

#4 stated that the livestock are on pasture the entire time at Beyer’s ranch (two to seven days), 

and there is no rotation plan since “this is a short term placement during transport to slaughter.” 

Beyer stated in the Attachment to the updated OSP, in regard to #3 and #4, that, pursuant 

to 7 C.F.R. §205.239(b)(6), the livestock are “held in temporary confinement by Beyer Ranch, in 

order to collect enough head for a full load to ship to slaughter, and during the time at Beyer 

Ranch, are maintained under continuous organic management,” given access to irrigated organic 

pasture of high quality forages the entire time at the ranch. Beyer contends in a Supplemental 

Document provided by EOL on Beyer’s behalf, that section 205.239 expressly permits the 

temporary confinement of animals for sorting and shipping animals and livestock sales, provided 

the animals are maintained under continuous organic management; and grazing isn’t required, 

though Beyer provides pasture access. Beyer stated in the OSP Attachment that each animal’s 

temporary confinement period will be documented per records listing each animal’s tag number, 

which will show the date the animal arrived at the ranch and the date it was shipped for 

slaughter. Beyer references these dates as being the temporary confinement period. 

However, this conflicts with Beyer’s statements that the animals are only temporarily 

confined for up to one day in holding pens while being sorted and loaded for transport. AMS 

finds that it is only this one day, or part thereof, which is the temporary confinement period, as 

Page 18 of 31 
the animals are on pasture the remaining time they are at the ranch, as stated numerous times by 

Beyer. 

Beyer also argued in the updated OSP Attachment that since the livestock are only onsite 

“for temporary confinement for a short period and not for a ‘grazing season’ as defined” in the 

regulations, no DMI calculation is required, but pointed to the OSP Ruminant form showing 

100% of the DMI is from grazing organic pastures or eating supplement organic hay or silage 

during the few days the livestock are at the ranch. Beyer also states via the EOL-provided 

Supplement that since the DMI worksheet requires that the total days for which information is to 

be provided be at least 120, but livestock are only at the ranch for a maximum of seven days 

under the temporary confinement exception, the DMI worksheet isn’t applicable. Beyer 

therefore concludes that as the issues with the pasture plan were limited to the DMI calculation 

question, the pasture plan issue should be resolved. 

However, while acknowledging Beyer’s submissions subsequent to the Notice of 

Noncompliance, OC issued the Notice of Denial of Certification, stating that due to the failure to 

provide enough information or documentation in Ruminant Attachment #4: Pasture Management 

Plan, and Ruminant Attachment #3: DMI Calculations, it couldn’t determine if Beyer is in 

compliance with the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.240, Pasture practice standard, and 7 

C.F.R. §205.237, Livestock feed. OC cited to Beyer’s updated Livestock OSP and Attachment 

which indicate that the operation plans to use their pasture as a temporary holding site for 

organic dairy animals until enough were collected for a full load. OC also acknowledged 

Beyer’s assertions that while being held, the animals will receive 100% of feed directly from 

pasture and that organic hay and silage may be fed during the non-grazing season or periods of 

drought as needed. However, AMS finds it is inconsistent to state that the animals receive 100% 

Page 19 of 31 
of DMI from pasture, and then state that hay or silage is sometimes used as a supplement. If the 

animals are fed hay or silage as a supplement, they aren’t getting 100% of their DMI from 

pasture. 

Further, specifically, in regard to #4, OC also acknowledged that 7 C.F.R. §205.239(b)(6) 

allows operations to provide temporary confinement or shelter to livestock due to the sorting or 

shipping of animals. This is an exception to the requirement in section 205.239(a)(1) that all 

animals be provided year-round access to the outdoors; and the requirement in section 

205.239(a)(2) that for all ruminants, the operation provide management on pasture and daily 

grazing throughout the grazing season to meet the requirements of 7 C.F.R. §205.237, Livestock 

feed. However, OC then stated that since the animals at Beyer’s ranch are kept “directly on” and 

allowed to “graze” pasture, the temporary confinement exception isn’t applicable to Beyer. OC 

states that the exemption from providing year-round outdoor access is only granted for 

temporary confinement or shelter during sorting and shipping during “times off pasture.” 

Reviewing all the evidence, AMS finds, as stated above, that the animals are only 

temporarily confined for up to one day during sorting and loading for transport to slaughter and 

therefore, it is only that time that constitutes the temporary confinement period for Beyer under 7 

C.F.R. §205.239(b)(6). Hence, this is the only time during which Beyer is not subject to the 

DMI requirements of 7 C.F.R. §205.237(c). Beyer has stated numerous times that the livestock 

are on pasture 100% of the time while at the ranch. Therefore, the livestock are not temporarily 

confined during the one to seven days at the ranch, prior to being in holding pens for sorting and 

loading for transport. Beyer can’t claim that the animals are temporarily confined when they’re 

on pasture. Therefore, as the livestock are on pasture, Beyer is subject to the DMI requirements, 

and must calculate DMI and DMD (dry matter demand) and identify a grazing period. It isn’t 

Page 20 of 31 
 

relevant that the livestock are only on pasture for one to seven days and not an entire grazing 

season such as April to October. Beyer must meet the DMI requirements for the period of time 

the livestock are on pasture. 

Additionally, regarding #3, as stated above, Beyer must meet the DMI requirements of 7 

C.F.R. §205.237(c). However, OC states that Beyer hasn’t submitted sufficient information in 

this regard as the DMI sheet was incomplete. The cited regulation requires that during the 

grazing season, ruminants be provided with pasture of a sufficient quality and quantity to graze 

throughout the grazing season and to provide all ruminants with an average of not less than 30% 

of their DMI from grazing throughout the grazing season. For ruminants denied pasture pursuant 

to exceptions in 7 C.F.R. §205.239, they shall be provided with an average of not less than 30% 

of their DMI from grazing throughout the periods that they are on pasture during the grazing 

season. 

Therefore, AMS finds that while Beyer isn’t required to meet the DMI requirement when 

the livestock are in the holding pens for sorting and loading, which by Beyer’s own statement is 

only up to one day, the DMI requirement must be met while the livestock are on pasture the rest 

of the time they are at Beyer’s ranch, which is anywhere from one to seven days. Beyer has 

made a conflicting argument by stating that the livestock are temporarily confined per section 

205.239(b)(6) during the time they are at the ranch – one to seven days – and therefore, Beyer 

doesn’t need to meet the DMI requirement under section 205.237, but then states that the 

livestock are on pasture 100% of the time at the ranch, which means they aren’t temporarily 

confined, and therefore, section 205.239 isn’t applicable, and Beyer must comply with the DMI 

requirements at section 205.237. AMS finds that OC is correct, and since the livestock are held 

directly on pasture and allowed to graze pasture 100% of the time at the ranch, section 205.239 

Page 21 of 31 
 

 

 

isn’t applicable; and therefore, Beyer must meet the requirements set forth in 7 C.F.R. 

§205.237(c). However, as the DMI worksheet wasn’t complete, Beyer can’t demonstrate how 

the DMI requirements of section 205.237(c) are met. 

Beyer contends in the Mediation Request of August 16, 2022, which was referenced in 

the Appeal, that the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103 acknowledge that not all operations are the 

same when stating that records must be adapted (emphasis added) to the particular business. 

Beyer contends it has done its best to provide requested information; however, the Ruminant 

form’s format has prevented Beyer from being able to prove that it has substantively complied 

with the organic regulations. Beyer argues it is in compliance with the livestock-related 

regulations including requirements that livestock have access to daily grazing and receive at least 

30% of DMI through grazing, as well as other pasture and living condition requirements. Beyer 

states that regardless of whether the livestock are at Beyer’s operation for a period of time that 

could be considered the “grazing season” or long enough for 7 C.F.R. §205.237(c) to apply, the 

DMI requirements are being met. However, as stated above, this hasn’t been substantiated. 

There are also inconsistencies in what Beyer considers the ‘grazing season,’ as Beyer stated to #2 

in the Ruminant Attachment form attached to the updated Livestock OSP of May 24, 2022, that 

the grazing season starts in April and ends in October, but Beyer also states in the Attachment to 

the updated OSP that, “organic pastures can be plush during December and scant during May.” 

Further, in arguing, as seen above, that the animals are temporarily confined while at the ranch, 

and hence, aren’t subject to the DMI requirements, Beyer has contended there isn’t even a 

‘grazing season.’ Therefore, Beyer’s understanding of grazing seasons is questioned. 

AMS finds that in regard to the Ruminant form #4, Beyer is correct in that it provided a 

reply to the question of whether the pasture is irrigated, responding ‘yes.’ However, as the 

Page 22 of 31 
livestock are on pasture while at the ranch, Beyer’s OSP must demonstrate how the requirements 

of 7 C.F.R. §205.240(b) and (c) will be met, which as OC states, it has failed to do. Beyer hasn’t 

provided a pasture plan or stated how pasture requirements will be met, the grazing season for 

the operation’s regional location, types of grazing methods to be used, or information on the 

pasture, along with other specific information required under section 205.240. Further, 

Ruminant form #4 asks for a description of the pasture management and rotation plan, along with 

a DMI evaluation and worksheet. While Beyer stated it doesn’t rotate pastures, no specific 

pasture practices were stated, i.e., mowing fields to control weeds, reseeding, type of forage 

available. The organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.240(a) state that, “Land used for the 

production of annual crops for ruminant grazing must be managed in full compliance with 

§§205.202 through 205.206.” The crop regulations cited to address land requirements, and 

standards addressing soil fertility and crop nutrient management practice; seeds and planting 

stock practice; crop rotation practice; and crop pest, weed, and disease management practice. 

However, Beyer hasn’t provided information or described its practices in these areas. Further, 

while Beyer answered that its pasture is irrigated, Beyer also stated in the Attachment to the 

updated OSP that, “organic pastures can be ... scant during May,” thereby bringing into question 

the sufficiency of the pasture during the ‘grazing season.’ 

As to #3 of the Ruminant form, as stated above, AMS finds that Beyer’s DMD/DMI 

calculations aren’t sufficient. By Beyer’s own admission, it provides hay and silage to the 

livestock during the grazing season due to drought in the summer and during the winter, though 

Beyer also stated that no supplemental feed is fed during the grazing season. AMS find that this 

represents an inconsistency in statements made in the Livestock OSP. Beyer didn’t identify all 

feed supplement rations in the DMD/DMI calculations for both the operation’s grazing season 

Page 23 of 31 
and the nongrazing season. Instead, Beyer stated in its OSP that the DM fed rations from pasture 

is 100% during the grazing season. AMS finds that no operation’s ruminants can obtain 100% of 

DMI from pasture when supplemental feed is provided. Further, failing to maintain actual feed 

fed records to include all the supplemental feeding is a violation of the regulations at section 

205.237(d). 

NONCOMPLIANCE REGARDING SECTION 23 OF LIVESTOCK OSP - RECORDS 

As to Section 23, the Notice of Noncompliance didn’t detail the noncompliance. 

However, Beyer stated in its Response to the Notice of Noncompliance that Section 23 asked for 

a description of the operation’s recordkeeping system, and that it had provided numerous 

documents to OC verifying the traceability of the livestock. Beyer stated in its updated 

Livestock OSP of May 24, 2022, that livestock are purchased by Ed Evans, who maintains 

ownership and hauls the livestock to Beyer, which tags the livestock with Evans’ tags (both in 

and out tags, which are recorded), and the livestock are subsequently shipped for slaughter, with 

Evans arranging for the transport. The OSP Attachment references the various documents used 

in these activities. Section 23 wasn’t mentioned by Beyer in its Mediation Request or Appeal, 

though a Supplement to the Livestock OSP submitted to OC by EOL on Beyer’s behalf, 

addressed it. 

EOL stated that contrary to OC’s allegation that Beyer’s records don’t show a clear chain 

of custody and traceability of cattle while at Beyer’s operation, and that the submitted records 

don’t appear to show how the transactions relate to Beyers, the records do show the transactions 

are related to Beyer. EOL discussed the relationship between EOL and Beyer; and discussed the 

documentation used to track/trace the livestock, including the Cattle Origin Tracking spreadsheet 

Page 24 of 31 
and Tag Verification forms. EOL stated that Producer Affidavits for every purchase identify the 

supplier, slaughter eligibility, tag numbers, date and location of dispatch; and that the Load 

Tracking spreadsheet is a weekly document that identifies every load in the week by purchase 

order, trucking ID, load date, origin, destination, organic status, head count, trucking company, 

and driver. 

However, while OC didn’t include Section 23 in the denial notice, AMS finds that OC 

was correct in citing to it in the Notice of Noncompliance, finds that the matter of traceability has 

not been resolved, and therefore supports OC’s ultimate decision to deny certification. The 

records that Beyer referenced in its Response to the notice and listed in the updated Livestock 

OSP are all forms that ECCI/EOL and Beyer create on their own. Beyer did not include any 

records in the OSP, updated OSP, or in the Response to the Notice of Noncompliance that would 

have been created from other operations/businesses related to the activities concerning the 

sales/purchase and transportation of livestock that are received at Beyer’s ranch. Specifically, 

Beyer didn’t include as part of its OSP, the maintenance of original bills of sale or purchase 

receipts for the incoming cattle received at the ranch which would in turn allow the certifier to 

verify the actual origin and organic eligibility of the animals; nor did Beyer include the 

maintenance of original transport records such as a bill of lading with a date and signature from 

the trucking company showing the actual movement of the cattle from their original location 

(origin) to Beyer’s operation. Neither of these record types are marked off in the OSP, updated 

OSP, or noted in the Attachment to the updated OSP, or in the Supplement provided by EOL on 

behalf of Beyer. Additionally, health certificates are required (pursuant to Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulations) for any cattle being transported interstate and 

not going directly to slaughter. However, Beyer only submitted a blank truck affidavit to show 

Page 25 of 31 
 

transport of the cattle, which is filled out and completed by ECCI/EOL staff. Given the distances 

involved in the inter-state transport of cattle sourced from a multitude of suppliers that 

ECCI/EOL allegedly uses to ship cattle to Beyer’s ranch, the records Beyer has referred to in its 

various submissions would not be sufficient to verify the actual origin and movement of any 

incoming cattle to the ranch. When asked by NOP about Section 23, OC stated that although 

Section 23 wasn’t cited in the denial notice, it still has concerns about the specific information on 

documents provided, and if Beyer’s application had progressed to the inspection stage, the matter 

would have been further reviewed. 

CONCURRENT NOP INVESTIGATION AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF WARNING

 Additionally, concurrent to the above activities, NOP’s Compliance and Enforcement 

Division was conducting an investigation into allegations raised in regard to Beyer transactions. 

The findings of the investigation led to the issuance by NOP of a Notice of Warning to Beyer on 

January 5, 2023. NOP stated in the notice that a review of records and transactions, occurring 

from November 13, 2020 through November 22, 2022, reveals that Beyer is handling livestock 

as organic without being certified. This finding is related to Beyer’s surrender of its livestock 

and handling certification held under the name of ECDS, noted above. 

NOP requested that Beyer submit a written response describing its corrective actions 

within 15 working days of receipt of the warning notice. Beyer responded to the NOP notice on 

January 19, 2023, stating that, “the issue of certification is currently on appeal with the National 

Organic Program ... Any issues pertaining to certification should be addressed in that appeal.” 

Beyer also stated that “as of January 1, 2023, (it) is no longer accepting or handling any livestock 

for or on behalf of Evans Livestock, including mature organic dairy cows, and Beyer Ranch does 

Page 26 of 31 
not intend to handle any mature organic dairy cows or otherwise handle organic livestock in the 

future.” However, this wouldn’t negate Beyer’s prior actions. 

Beyer didn’t provide any response to the specific noncompliances and transactions 

occurring during the timeframe referenced by NOP in its warning notice and didn’t provide any 

supporting documentation. Further, the “issue of certification” currently on appeal and 

addressed in this decision, is regarding OC’s issuance of a Notice of Denial of Certification. OC 

didn’t address any specific transactions or cite to the noncompliances cited by NOP. OC, as 

stated above, denied certification based on the insufficiency of Beyer’s OSP and other 

documents. OC didn’t address livestock transactions by Beyer after it had surrendered the ECDS 

livestock and handling certification. 

However, as Beyer has ‘opened the door’ by stating that the matter is currently on appeal, 

AMS has addressed the surrender above, initially to provide historical background regarding 

Beyer, and has addressed the insufficiency of Beyer’s response to Section 23 of the Livestock 

OSP and failure to provide adequate documentation to provide full traceability of the livestock 

received at and managed at the ranch location. AMS is not making any finding on the 

allegations of NOP, since they weren’t addressed in OC’s denial notice, which is the subject of 

the appeal. However, the statement by OC that documentation submitted by Beyer for Section 

23 causes concerns regarding traceability, along with other findings above, allude to a potential 

violation of the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.236, Origin of livestock, as published as the time of 

the notice. NOP’s investigative findings do support OC’s determination to deny certification, 

which is the subject of the appeal; therefore, it is appropriate to include this supporting 

information. 

Page 27 of 31 
BEYER APPEAL 

Beyer states in its Appeal that it has “steadfastly tried to better understand” OC’s 

position; addressed all items cited by OC in the Notice of Noncompliance, which are discussed 

in detail above; and has responded to all requests for additional documentation and information. 

Beyer states it has asked OC to provide a specific list of what is needed to address OC’s 

concerns; however, OC has not provided the requested details. 

However, as seen above, OC worked with Beyer to obtain the additional needed 

information and completed documentation; and identified in the Notice of Noncompliance, the 

relevant sections of the organic regulations for which sufficient documentation was needed, and 

also delineated the numerous contacts with Beyer in its attempts to obtain said documentation. 

The denial notice also cited to the specific regulations and provided further information on what 

documentation/information was lacking. Also, Beyer’s updated Livestock OSP and other 

documents were considered prior to issuance of the Notice of Denial of Certification. However, 

as discussed above, AMS finds that several sections of the Livestock OSP are still not sufficient 

to allow Beyer to be certified. 

Beyer also argued several procedural points in its Appeal. Beyer contends that OC 

denied its request for mediation which would be an “ideal venue to resolve this impasse;” 

providing Beyer with detail on what is needed to comply and allowing Beyer to successfully 

address OC’s concerns. However, while the organic regulations provide for mediation, certifiers 

are not obligated to grant and engage in mediation with operations to which the certifier issued 

adverse action notices. As stated in 7 C.F.R. §205.663, “Any dispute with respect to denial of 

certification or proposed suspension or revocation of certification under this part may (emphasis 

added) be mediated at the request of the applicant for certification or certified operation and with 

Page 28 of 31 
acceptance (emphasis added) by the certifying agent.” As stated above, OC worked with Beyer 

in attempts to resolve the insufficiencies of Beyer’s application, prior to issuing the denial notice, 

and was not required to grant Beyer’s mediation request. 

Beyer also argued in the Appeal that NOP’s records request should be stayed pending the 

outcome of the Appeal. Beyer referenced the numerous record requests of NOP, which included 

addressing the allegations discussed above, specifically the livestock transactions with 

ECCI/EOL, the inability to provide full traceability for these transactions, and engaging in 

transactions after Beyer had surrendered livestock and handling certification under ECDS. 

Beyer had supplied some documentation in response to NOP requests, and the Appeal doesn’t 

specifically address what request Beyer wants stayed but appears to address any future requests 

by NOP. However, there is no ‘double jeopardy’ type restriction on NOP from investigating 

Beyer and issuing records requests, while Beyer’s Appeal to OC’s denial of certification is 

pending. 

Further, as stated above, OC’s denial notice didn’t cite to the noncompliances alleged by 

NOP in issuance of the Notice of Warning, and the records requests are related to the 

subsequently issued warning. The organic regulations prohibit issuance of a final suspension or 

revocation notice when an appeal to the associated proposed suspension or revocation is pending. 

The regulations do not prohibit issuance of a separate adverse action notice, or requests for 

records, while an appeal to an adverse action notice is pending, especially when the appealed 

adverse action notice doesn’t address the subject of the other actions. The basis for OC’s denial 

of certification stands apart and on its own, separate from NOP’s record requests. 

Page 29 of 31 
CONCLUSION 

Evidence substantiates that at the time of its application to OC, Beyer was not compliant 

with the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103, Recordkeeping by certified operations; 7 

C.F.R. §205.201, Organic production and handling system plan; 7 C.F.R. §205.237, Livestock 

feed; 7 C.F.R. §205.238, Livestock health care practice standard; 7 C.F.R. §205.239, Livestock 

living conditions; and 7 C.F.R. §205.400, General requirements for certification. Evidence 

substantiates that Beyer failed to maintain and submit documentation and information to 

sufficiently complete the Livestock OSP, and specific cited sections therein, as well as the 

Ruminant Attachment form. 

Beyer failed to sufficiently address, and in some cases, address at all, such matters as 

health care practices and treatments, including how sick or injured animals will be treated; 

preventative health care practices, including the administration of vaccines and other veterinary 

biologics; and animal health monitoring practices. Further, Beyer failed to sufficiently address 

the grazing season on the ranch; DMI and DMD Calculations to ensure requirements are being 

met, including feed records to include actual feed fed records to include all supplemental feed; 

and a detailed Pasture Management Plan. 

All certified operations and applicants for certification must ensure their OSPs accurately 

describe the operation and all practices and procedures; and maintain records that fully disclose 

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

audited. Beyer’s failure to submit sufficient information and documentation didn’t allow OC to 

confirm that Beyer was in compliance with the organic regulations. Therefore, OC was justified 

in denying certification to Beyer. 

Page 30 of 31 
y _________________________________ SUMMERS 

DECISION 

Beyer’s Appeal of September 22, 2022 is denied. The July 18, 2022 Notice of Denial of 

Certification is affirmed. Beyer is denied organic certification as applied for with OC. Pursuant 

to 7 C.F.R. §205.405(e), Beyer may apply again for certification any time and with submission 

of proof that all needed corrective actions have been taken and noncompliances resolved. 

Additionally, attached to this formal Administrator’s Decision denying Beyer’s Appeal is 

a Request for Hearing form. Should it wish to further appeal this decision, Beyer has thirty (30) 

days to request an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. 

Done at Washington, D.C., on this _____ 11th

day of ________________, 2023. April 

Digitally signed by BRUCE

BRUCE SUMMERS 

Date: 2023.04.11 08:37:14 -04'00' 

Bruce Summers 

Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Page 31 of 31