National Organic Standards Board

Policy Development Committee

Proposed Discussion Document

Public Comment Procedures

October 4, 2011

Introduction

With the goal of involvement from all parts of the organic community, the National 

Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has historically sought to ensure that public input is 

central to its decision making process. The Policy Development Committee (PDC) 

seeks to collect public input on its miscellaneous policy on this subject, in an effort to 

assess the effectiveness of its public hearing process and its perceived utility in 

assisting the Board to make decisions that build public support for and trust in the 

standard. In order to do this, the PDC seeks public input regarding the establishment of 

a policy that clearly defines an effective public comment process in NOSB deliberations.

Background

Activities of the NOSB include, “conducting public meetings, soliciting and taking public 

comments” (NOSB Policy Procedure Manual [PPM] p5), in order to carry out the NOSB 

mission. 

As discussed in the PPM (p27 - Miscellaneous Policies), several items stand out as vital 

for public comment at NOSB meetings. Specifically, it is stated that people who wish to 

comment at NOSB meetings during public comment periods can do so by following the 

rules in place, as well as using suggestions to better ensure that they are well-received. 

Further, current policy states, “Each person will be given 5 minutes to speak, unless 

otherwise indicatd by the Chair,” (p27) and continues, “No person will be allowed to 

speak during the public comment period for more than 10 minutes, unless otherwise 

indicated by the Chair.” (p27) 

Finally, it is put forth that written proxies can be submitted to allow another person to 

speak on behalf of a member of the public, and that, “Individuals providing public 

comment will refrain from any personal attacks and from remarks that otherwise impugn 

the character of any individual.” (p27)

The policy gives the NOSB Chair discretionary authority in determining time allotments 

for public commenters within the established parameters. The PDC is seeking public 

input on issues that may require additional clarity, including, but not limited to, the 

following:

• How the NOSB informs the public of time allotments for public commenters 

during NOSB meetings; 
Page 2 of 5

Public Comment Procedures

October 4, 2011

• How the NOSB publicly acknowledges public comment;

• How the NOSB responds to popular or pressing issues raised in numerous 

public statements, but not included in the meeting agenda;

• Whether the time designated refers to presentation time, or to question and 

discussion time by NOSB members, or a combination of both; and,

• Whether comments from those who cannot be present can only take either the 

form of submitted written comment, or of proxy-delivered live comment, or

whether, in addition, other options with modern media tools might allow live- or 

pseudo-live input from public members who are not present. (Along these lines, 

although Skype may not be an appropriate method, should the public input 

process make available by electronic or real-time technology a means for 

fostering broader public access to the public comment process?)

This document presents a set of questions and seeks public input. In addition, there 

may be additional questions and issues raised by the public that merit responses and 

the PDC encourages those being brought to this process. 

Relevant Areas of the Rule

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) establishes the National Organic Standards 

Board at §2119 (7 U.S.C. 6518), “(a) The Secretary shall establish a National Organic 

Standards Board (in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 

app. 2 et seq.) [hereafter referred to in this section as the "Board"] to assist in the 

development of standards for substances to be used in organic production and to 

advise the Secretary on any other aspects of the implementation of this title.” The PPM 

[http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3013893] (Section 

VI, Miscellaneous Policies) includes (p27), “Policy for Public Comment at NOSB 

Meetings.” This lays out the process and the time designations of public comments, 

including that, “Each person will be given 5 minutes to speak,” and, “No person will be 

allowed to speak during the public comment period for more than 10 minutes.” Both of 

these statements are followed by the caveat, “unless otherwise indicated by the Chair.” 

Furthermore, process and time designation points are made in a subsequent section 

entitled, “Other suggestions that would be appreciated by NOSB members,” which 

provides additional direction to the public comment process 

Discussion

In both policy and practice, the NOSB has traditionally put great value in comments 

delivered in person. The NOSB moves meetings around the country to allow easier 

access by a broad group of people and organizations, that otherwise would not have 

access, during each meeting. The Board sets aside a large proportion of the meeting 

time for public comment. And, the Board has adopted policy that guarantees those who

have pre-registered and attend meetings at least a minimum amount of time in which to 

deliver their message.

A modification to the basic structure that the Policy provides for public comment is being 
Page 3 of 5

Public Comment Procedures

October 4, 2011

considered. The Committee seeks input and discussion from all interested parties that 

will assist in clarifying and addressing public needs, and ensuring the effectiveness and 

efficiency of the process. Public comment is sought to address questions included 

within the discussion points that follow.

Time limits and adequate representation

In the Federal Register notice announcing an NOSB meeting, the public is informed 

about the public comment period and the time restrictions. As increased numbers of 

people seek to participate in this process, time limitations become a factor in scheduling 

time allotments for individual participants.

There may be several ways to handle a large number of requests for public comments. 

1. A special announcement could be posted in the Federal Register subsequent to 

the initial announcement indicating that a time reduction is being put in place for 

public comments. This was done for the Spring 2011 NOSB meeting, reducing 

the time allotment from 5 to 3 minutes.

2. A need to condense public statements could be announced at the beginning of 

the NOSB meeting, indicating that there are many who wish to make comments 

and requesting that comments be kept as brief as possible. In addition, NOSB 

members could be asked to keep their questions limited. This voluntary time 

reduction approach may achieve the time savings needed.

3. An assessment of those signed up and those actually present at the meeting 

could be made at the beginning of the meeting (or at the beginning of each day 

of the meeting), and a determination made as to whether time reductions are 

necessary.

4. The Board could decide to extend public comment into the evening hours to 

accommodate more people.

Given that the public comment period cannot be unlimited, should the requests to make 

public comment be prioritized? Should the total number of public comment slots be 

limited by category/topic or by some other means? Should more time be allocated for 

public comments (including going into the evening/night as necessary)? Should the 

published announcement indicating time periods for public comment be eliminated and 

full authority be given to the NOSB Chair or designated Board committee to determine 

how the issue can best be decided?

Another component regarding public comment at NOSB meetings pertains to whether 

the allocated time refers to „presentation‟ time, „question and discussion‟ time from 

NOSB members, or a combination. Should the policy be clarified to state a fixed 

presentation time, as well as a maximum question and discussion time? Should NOSB 

member questions be limited? Who should allow the variation or combine the time into 

some clear total? Or, is this best done by the Board Chair during the meeting, subject to

the circumstances at hand? Also, should the time allocated be flexible or related to the 

number of requests? Or should it remain as it is now in the PPM? Is some other 

designation of time(s) more appropriate? 
Page 4 of 5

Public Comment Procedures

October 4, 2011

Hearing from those who cannot attend

Comments from those who cannot be present be present during public comment could 

be submitted in written from, through a live proxy, or by electronic means with modern 

media tools that allow for live- or pseudo-live input. (Along these lines, while Skype may 

not be the appropriate method, it may be necessary to identify and maintain an 

electronic or real-time means of fostering public comment access.) Should public 

comment through live/”remote” means be allowed and/or encouraged? Furthermore, 

given the limits of time, should the recent revisions to the PPM to clarify proxy 

procedures (p27) continue, or should the proxy practice be abolished1?

Responding to public comment and serving the advisory role

It can further be posited that the NOSB should respond to overarching issues, which are 

repeatedly raised by the public at the meeting, even if those issues were not on the 

agenda. Some stakeholder groups have suggested that at the end of each Board 

meeting a communication from the NOSB be sent to the Secretary of Agriculture to 

convey issues that have come up during public comment and to fulfill the Board‟s 

statutory responsibility in its advisory capacity. According to some stakeholders, both 

those within and outside the NOSB, it is a responsibility of the Board that public 

comment is publicly acknowledged in this and possibly other ways. How should this be 

handled: prior to, during, or after public comment has occurred? Furthermore, what type 

of response or action should the public expect from the NOSB when issues not on the 

agenda are raised repeatedly in public comment? Should communications to the 

Secretary on issues raised in public comment be formalized? Does this communication 

and advisory function serve as an important public-private partnership that is responsive 

to the concerns raised by the broader organic community?

Conclusion

In order to best meet the goals of the NOSB and incorporate public comment into its 

decision making, the PDC is seeking public input on the Board‟s decision making 

process and efforts that may better ensure that the public feels welcome and is heard 

through its participation. Time for clarification and discussion has been viewed as 

helpful to both NOSB members and the public. How can this be balanced with the 

number of interested public commenters vis-à-vis the time available on the schedule?

The PDC is seeking the public‟s perspective on the questions below. (Please indicate 

the question number in responses provided on this topic.) 

 

1

The PPM (p27) on this point reads, “The NOSB will attempt to accommodate all persons requesting 

public comment time, however, persons requesting time after the closing date in the Meeting Notice, or 

during last minute sign-up at the meeting, will be placed on a waiting list and will be considered at the 

discretion of the NOSB Chair depending on availability of time. Similarly, persons who have signed up to 

address the NOSB for their 5-minute slot and have also served as a proxy for another person will be 

placed on a waiting list if they wish to speak for a third time on the same topic, and will be considered at 

the discretion of the NOSB Chair depending on availability of time. This should allow more members of 

the public time to present.”
Page 5 of 5

Public Comment Procedures

October 4, 2011

1) Given that the public comment period cannot be unlimited, how should the 

requests to make public comment be prioritized? 

2) Should the policy be clarified to state a fixed presentation time for public 

comment?

3) Should policy also define a maximum question and discussion time once public 

comment is received? 

4) Who should allow the variation or combine the time(s) into a defined total in #3 

above? 

5) Is time setting best done by the Board Chair, at the time of the meeting, 

depending upon the circumstances at hand? 

6) Should the time allocated be flexible or related to the number of requests? 

7) Should the public comment time allowed remain as it is now in the PPM? 

8) Is some other designation of time(s) more appropriate? 

9) Should public comment through live/”remote” means be allowed and/or 

encouraged? 

10)Given the limits of time, should the recent revisions to the PPM to clarify proxy 

procedures (p27) continue? Or, should the proxy practice be abolished?

11)How can this function (NOSB serving as an advisory role) best serve as a publicprivate partnership that is responsive to the concerns raised by the broader 

organic community?

The public is encouraged to provide any additional questions and thoughts regarding 

the most effective and efficient approach for the NOSB to manage the public comment 

process associated with its Board meetings. 

Committee Vote

Moved: Colehour Bondera Second: Barry Flamm

Yes__6___ No__0___ Abstain__0__ Absent__0___