Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for addition to 

or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. Please see the NOP 

website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic production and handling.

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Committee

Monday, January 10, 2012, 2:00-3:00 pm ET 

Attendees: Barry Flamm (Chairperson) & Jay Feldman (Vice Chair), Calvin Walker, Colehour Bondera and 

Jennifer Taylor Absent: Joe Dickson New Members: Harold Austin Staff: Lorraine Coke

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

NOSB Member and 

Leadership Transition

JFe Done Fall 2011

Procedures for 

handling committee 

minutes

JT Done Fall 2011

Public comment 

procedures

CB Done Fall 2011

Add admin committee 

to PPM 

JD Done Fall 2011

Conflict of interest 

proceedings 

CW Done Fall 2011

Agenda

-completion of fall work actions

-new leadership and assignments to PDC

-spring work plan and schedule

1. develop recommendations for public comment procedures

2. revise conflict of interest recommendation

3. review Board ethics rules

4. directions on material formulations and production aids

5. guidance on handling public communications 

-other business

Discussion

Fall work actions

Final Rec – Board Transition Doc will be forwarded to NOP

New leadership – this is the last PDC call as the 2011 committee members, the next call will be new PDC 

members

Spring work plan

issue of extractants – where does this belong? Handling? Materials? Is there a Policy issue about where you put 

a particular issue, especially if there is overlap? The topic of “other ingredients” seem more clear (Handling 

Committee), but extractants applies more broadly to materials.

Does the PPM clearly explain this process?

Discussion regarding number of committee members on each committee, 4 committees have 8 members. There 

is a possibility that committees may have to be reduced back down to 7 members (max) per committee. The 

NOP is communicating with the FACA representative to clarify.

Future Policy Committee Calls: 
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for addition to 

or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. Please see the NOP 

website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic production and handling.

February 14, 2012

February 28, 2012

Milestone Deadline

Spring 2012 Agenda Finalized Friday, March 23, 2012

Committee Proposals Due Monday, April 2, 2012

Spring 2012 NOSB Meeting May 21 – 24, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for addition to 

or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. Please see the NOP 

website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic production and handling.

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Committee

February 14, 2012 2:00-3:00 pm ET

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (Chairperson), Jay Feldman, Barry Flamm, Mac Stone, Jennifer Taylor

Absent: Joe Dickson, Jean Richardson and Calvin Walker (Vice Chair)

Staff: Lorraine Coke

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

Conflict of Interest CW and JD? Proposal; in progress Spring 2012

Public Comments 

Procedures 

Recommendation

CB and MS Proposal; in progress Spring 2012

NOSB ethics rules JF Proposal; Spring 2012?

Handling public 

communications

JT and BF Discussion document; in 

progress

Spring 2012?

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JF? Fall 2012?

Material formulations 

and production aids

?

Policy on “tabled 

items”

?

Agenda

A) Welcome & Introductions (5 minutes)

B) Last meeting review/discussion/approval (5 minutes)

C) View(s) of how to move onward (5 minutes)

D) "Spring" work plan review 

1. Topics (20 minutes)

 a. develop recommendation for public comment procedures 

 b. revised conflict of interest recommendation

 c. review of NOSB ethics rules

 d. directions on material formulations and production aids

 e. guidance on handling public communications 

 f. "indecisive decisions" definition

2. Deadlines (5 minutes)

3. Roles/Assignments for Topics (10 minutes) 

E) Other business (5 minutes)

F) Plans for next call (February 28) (5 minutes)

Discussion

Introductions/motivation for being on Policy Committee

Views on moving forward

In past PDC call there was discussion on work plan and how to move forward on these items. Important to have 

participation from all committee members. Having more than one committee member assigned to each topic is 
helpful. Some of the topics were previously started and need to be continued/completed. Additional topics can 

also be added at this time. 

Spring work plan topics: 

a. develop recommendation for public comment procedures 

previously assigned to Colehour. This was a discussion doc at fall 2011 meeting. Needs to be developed into a 

proposal for spring 2012. 

b. revised conflict of interest recommendation

this was previously assigned to Calvin and was developed into a proposal for the fall 2011 meeting, but it was 

not voted on at the meeting. Board/Committee decided to postpone this for further development and 

discussion. Joe had previously mentioned that he would work on this with Calvin. This will be a proposed 

recommendation for the spring 2012 meeting.

c. review of NOSB ethics rules

d. directions on material formulations and production aids

e. guidance on handling public communications (the way the public communicates with the NOSB)

f. "indecisive decisions" definition – how these are defined and dealt with by the Board, why is it not pass/fail?

This seems to be up for interpretation by the NOP. If a Board cannot reach a 2/3 vote on determining a material 

is “nonsynthetic,” then it is indecisive?

g. policy on “tabled” items (list from Zea)

Suggestion from several committee members to move forward and develop a minimum of 3 proposed 

recommendation documents. Discussion documents could be additional. These items need to be decided before 

March 23 (when the spring agenda will be finalized). As part of this, the committee must decide when drafts are 

due and when votes will take place. If only deciding on three topics, then there would just be one additional 

item because the first two items on the list (public comment procedures and conflict of interest).

What are the interests of the committee members? 

-discussion regarding handling of public communications – the NOP issued a description in an Organic Insider 

requesting (formally) that the public keep their interactions with the Board to the meeting and public comment 

process

Jennifer – interested in ethics and handling of public communications

Jay – interested in “decisive/indecisive” issue (but would suggest postponing this issue to the fall meeting)

Other business

Policy on “tabled” items – Zea has mentioned this at Board meetings several times and recently Lisa B. has 

provided this list to the Materials Committee. Committee members believe that the Board needs a policy in 

place to provide guidance on how to deal with these materials and how to prevent this from happening in the 

future. Will discuss more on next call. 

Future Policy Committee Calls: 

February 28, 2012 – discuss conflict of interest document and finish assigning issues/topics to committee 

members

March 13, 2012 – finalize items for agenda 

March 27, 2012 – review and vote on final drafts of proposed recommendations

Milestone Deadline

Spring 2012 Agenda Finalized Friday, March 23, 2012

Committee Proposals Due Monday, April 2, 2012

Spring 2012 NOSB Meeting May 21 – 24, 2012
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Committee

Tuesday, February 28, 2012, 2:00-3:00 pm ET 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (Chairperson), Jay Feldman, Barry Flamm, Jennifer Taylor, Joe Dickson, Mac Stone,

Jean Richardson, and Calvin Walker (Vice Chair)

Staff: Lorraine Coke and Melissa Bailey

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

Conflict of Interest CW and JD? Proposal; in progress Spring 2012

Public Comments 

Procedures 

Recommendation

CB and MS Proposal; in progress Spring 2012

NOSB ethics rules JFe Proposal; Spring 2012?

Handling public 

communications

JT and BF Discussion document; in 

progress

Spring 2012?

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe? Fall 2012?

Material formulations 

and production aids

?

Policy on “tabled 

items”

?

Agenda

A) Welcome & Agenda Review (3)

B) Review/Approval of Minutes from last meeting (2)

C) Meeting items

• Conflict of Interest (Calvin & Joe) (25)

• Public Comment (Colehour & Jean) (10)

• Standard Response Form (Mac) (3)

• Expert Panel members (Mac) (3)

• Material Committee liaisons - Crops, Livestock, Handling (Barry) (4)

• New Member Guide update (Barry) (3)

D) Workplan review (3)

E) Next & Extra meeting (4) 

Discussion

Welcome & Agenda Review 

-reviewed and approved

Review/Approval of Minutes from last meeting 

-minutes were reviewed and approved 

Meeting items

Conflict of Interest – last draft submitted was draft 5, it was based on comments/feedback from committee 

members. 

-The COI document was put on hold from fall 2011 meeting, it will be drafted as a recommendation for the 

spring 2012 meeting. 

-There were some previous concerns from outgoing Board members that the document was too focused on one 

particular sector. The changes have been made to address the entire Board and not a specific group or portion 
of the Board. Some previous public comments, suggested at the fall 2011 meeting, were regarding the policy & 

procedures manual (and the opinion that this document addresses COI sufficiently). After further review it 

appeared that the COI portion of the PPM does not adequately address when or how a NOSB member should 

announce conflict of interest. 

-One member mentioned the idea of having a standard form that is filled out each year. Another member 

explained that it is most important for this information to be transparent and presented at a point in the process 

that is meaningful. There was a discussion regarding the document/form for declaring COI – some committee 

members felt this document is not needed. The process/procedure of declaring COI is more important.

-Definition of “other interest” in recommendation document – something other than financial gain (i.e. 

promotion, outside influence/pressure, or other type of gain). In the interest of transparency, the Board

members should disclose their possible conflicts.

-Overall, committee members seem fairly supportive of the existing document. The PDC may be able to vote on 

this on next call. 

-Anything for conflict of interest issues with TR contractors? No, this issue is not currently addressed in the 

document. Additional revisions needed.

Public Comment – This is currently under “miscellaneous policy for public comments” in the Policy & Procedures 

manual. This document was a discussion document at fall 2011 meeting and now is being developed into a 

recommendation for spring 2012. 

-One big issue is the time issue, 3 min. vs. 5 min., and how the Board will move forward with this. It could 

initially be assigned as 5 min per person, but it could be reduced/adjusted by the Chair. 

-The number of people that sign up for public comments is an issue that has to be addressed. 

-If people have some sort of advanced notice that the time may change, it would be more constructive. It is 

easier to allow additional time than to cut time. If the time is short, then people have to be more precise. 

-Suggestion to make comment time 4 minutes (as compromise between 3 and 5). 

-Will the NOP’s proposed meeting changes have an effect on the public comment structure?

-Other issues include - communicating with the NOSB outside the public comment process and other forms of 

addressing the Board would 

Work plan review

-suggestion to put ongoing items at bottom of list

-this idea needs further discussion

Next meeting(s)

Tentatively for March 19 or 21

Future Policy Committee Calls: 

March 13, 2012 – review final draft of COI and vote, finalize items for agenda 

March 27, 2012 – review and vote on final drafts of proposed recommendations

Milestone Deadline

Spring 2012 Agenda Finalized Friday, March 23, 2012

Committee Proposals Due Monday, April 2, 2012

Spring 2012 NOSB Meeting May 21 – 24, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for addition to 

or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. Please see the NOP 

website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic production and handling.

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Committee

Tuesday, March 13, 2012, 2:00-3:00 pm ET 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (Chairperson), Jay Feldman, Barry Flamm, Jennifer Taylor, Joe Dickson, Jean 

Richardson, Mac Stone and Calvin Walker (Vice Chair)

Absent: none

Staff: Lorraine Coke, Michelle Arsenault and Melissa Bailey

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

Conflict of Interest CW & JD Proposal; completed Spring 2012

Public Comments 

Procedures 

CB Proposal; in progress Spring 2012

NOSB ethics rules JD Proposal; in progress Fall 2012

Handling public 

communications

JT Proposal; in progress Spring 2012

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress

Spring 2012

Material formulations 

and production aids

?

Policy on “tabled 

items”

JT Fall 2012

Agenda

-Agenda Approval [1 min]

-Review/Approval of February 28 PDC call [4 mins] 

-Update re: GMO ad hoc Committee [5 mins] 

-Review/Discuss/Vote re: COI Recommendation (Calvin) [15 mins] 

-Public Comment Recommendation [10 mins] 

-Discuss "Decisive Vote in Determination of Synthetic/Nonsynthetic" Discussion Document (Jay) [15 mins]

-Handling Public Communications Discussion Document (Jennifer) [5 mins] 

-Future (March 21 & 27) PDC call planning [5 mins]

Discussion

Review/Approval of February 28 minutes – approved 

Conflict of Interest proposal

-some edits made to last draft

-previous issues regarding definition of “other interest”

-this document does 3 things – provides definition of COI, definition of immediate family member, and outlines 

procedure for NOSB on dealing with COI (the old draft did not do this)

Committee Vote: motion to accept rec as presented – Barry, seconded – Jean, vote count 8 –yes

Public Comment proposal

-previous comments received when it was discussion document were considered and incorporated into the 

current draft document
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for addition to 

or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. Please see the NOP 

website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic production and handling.

-perception that many members of the public are frustrated by the public comment procedures

-compared to other public meetings, the NOSB meeting appear to offer a positive opportunity for the public to 

participate

-if general statements are made, then they should be supported by additional information (previous public 

comments on this document?)

-if evening comments were suggested, then this should be further

-use of the words “frustrated” and “perception” seem a little out of place in the recommendation

-use of the term “proxy” could be further defined

-the use of “first come, first served” in the public comment process – should this language be 

changed/addressed? 

-the “grouping” of public comments by topic may be used

-the recommendation should be written to be more flexible to prioritize, adjust for formatting changes, 

accommodate different numbers of commenters

-current time restriction – this should be considered when thinking of the public comment process

-suggestion that there is a guideline on time limit, but allow some discretion from the Chair

-reference to particular parties and their input might not be appropriate – may be better to generalize in the 

final recommendation

Decisive Vote in Determination of Synthetic/Nonsynthetic

-vote is decisive with 2/3 or quorum of the NOSB voting

-in voting on whether a particular material is non-synthetic – question was asked and vote was non-decisive

-should this type of vote be considered for sunset too – failure to achieve 2/3 means material is not re-listed

-materials manual – states that vote should be taken again (re-stated and a new vote taken) if a 2/3 is not 

reached

-may seek legal opinion – does a failure to reach a 2/3 vote on non-synthetic mean the material is classified as 

synthetic?

-is this more a procedural matter that should be taken up by the PDC, or should it be addressed at a different 

level?

-currently developed as a discussion document to get public comment

Future Policy Committee Calls: 

March 21, 2012 – review recommendation on handling of public communication

March 27, 2012 – review and vote on final drafts of proposed recommendations

Milestone Deadline

Spring 2012 Agenda Finalized Friday, March 23, 2012

Committee Proposals Due Monday, April 2, 2012

Spring 2012 NOSB Meeting May 21 – 24, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for addition to 

or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. Please see the NOP 

website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic production and handling.

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Committee

Tuesday, March 21, 2012, 2:00-3:00 pm ET 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Jay Feldman (JFe), Jennifer Taylor (JT), Jean Richardson (JR),

Mac Stone (MS), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair) 

Absent: Joe Dickson(JD), Barry Flamm(BF), 

Staff: Lorraine Coke (LC), Michelle Arsenault (MA) and Melissa Bailey (MB)

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

Conflict of Interest CW & JD Proposal; completed Spring 2012

Public Comments 

Procedures 

CB Proposal; in progress Spring 2012

NOSB ethics rules JD Proposal; in progress Fall 2012

Handling public 

communications

JT Proposal; in progress Spring 2012

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress

Spring 2012

Material formulations 

and production aids

?

Policy on “tabled 

items”

JT Fall 2012

Agenda

-Agenda Approval [1 min]

-Review/Approval of March 13 PDC call [4 mins] 

-Update re: GMO ad hoc Committee [5 mins]

-Public Communications (Jennifer) [15 mins]

-Public Comment Recommendation [15 mins] 

-Discuss "Decisive Vote in Determination of Synthetic/Nonsynthetic" Discussion Document (Jay) [15 mins]

-Future (March 27) PDC call planning [5 mins]

Discussion

-Review/Approval of March 13 minutes – approved

-Update re: GMO ad hoc Committee

 

-Public Communications (JT) 

Briefly stated the FACA rules for public comment and communication, and the rules in OFPA. NOP statement 

suggests a need to clarify communications between board members and the public outside of the bi-annual 

meetings. 

Recommendation: Procedure manual is amended to include new subcategory (PPM, Section VI, Miscellaneous 

Policies, page 26). Additional discussion: Add to text...”when the public contacts a board member, they should 

copy NOP”. If board members receive calls or correspondence, who will be responsible for responding to the 

public? Perhaps the committee chairs can respond? Program does not prohibit public from communicating with 
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for addition to 

or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. Please see the NOP 

website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic production and handling.

board, but they are not encouraged to contact them directly due to workload issues. Would like to know how 

other board members feel about setting up a separate email for board business. 

If the members receive external communication, what does board envision as the expectation for making this 

more transparent to the public? 

NOP will discuss the program responsibilities and see how we could handle this. 

Committee agreed to separate this one issue from the discussion so the rest of the discussion could move 

forward

Melissa-re: “may provide advice to secretary directly”... what is context of this statement? Important for 

members to communicate and advise, which is why the recommendations provide an avenue outside of the 

board meeting for a way to communicate to the secretary.

A member asked if the committee could put this forth as a discussion document rather than a recommendation, 

but it was felt that a discussion document wasn’t as effective. 

Motion made by JR to approve recommendations put forth March 20th with minor amendments: Seconded by 

Jennifer (?). All in favor. 6 yeses, 0 opposed, 2 absences, 0 abstain. No abstentions or recusals. 

-Public Comment Recommendation 

Member felt that “Biannual” is a confusing term and recommended changing it to semi-annual. 

With regard to NOSB policy on public comment # 7 (draft # 4 from March 21), a member would like to change 

the word “prioritized” to “scheduled”. 

Motion to accept by JR, seconded by CW. No additional discussion. All in favor. 6 yeses, 0 opposed, 2 absences, 0 

abstain. No abstentions or recusals. 

-Discuss "Decisive Vote in Determination of Synthetic/Nonsynthetic" Discussion Document (Jay)

Precipitated by NOP. Default outcomes- if motion is for relisting and motion is non-decisive and motion fails, the 

material is not re-listed. Non-decisive votes tend to leave some items in limbo and promotes confusion with 

certifiers and community. The program would like to know how to proceed. The program noted that there was a 

response to the National Organic Coalition (NOC) letter following a conference call, and a program position was 

put forth. Is this perhaps a PPM issue? Does NOP view this as a legal issue? 

Does committee want to submit this as a discussion doc for the public? JFe moves to submit as discussion

document. Motion seconded by JR. Use of the word “tabled” needs to be revised (as per NOP Office MB). Vote: 

All in favor. 6 yeses, 0 opposed, 2 absences, 0 abstain. No abstentions or recusals. 

-Future (March 27) PDC call cancelled. 

Adjourned at 3:02 

Future Policy Committee Calls: 

April 10, 2012 

April 24, 2012

Milestone Deadline

Spring 2012 Agenda Finalized Friday, March 23, 2012

Committee Proposals Due Monday, April 2, 2012

Spring 2012 NOSB Meeting May 21 – 24, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for addition to 

or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. Please see the NOP 

website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic production and handling.

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes

Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Jay Feldman (JFe), Jennifer Taylor (JT), Jean Richardson (JR),

Barry Flamm (BF), 

Absent: Joe Dickson (JD), Mac Stone (MS), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair) 

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA) and Melissa Bailey (MB)

Workplan

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

Conflict of Interest CW & JD Proposal; completed Spring 2012

Public Comments 

Procedures 

CB Proposal; completed Spring 2012

Handling public 

communications

JT Proposal; completed Spring 2012

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress

NOSB ethics rules JD Proposal; in progress Fall 2012

Material formulations 

and production aids

MS ?

Policy on “tabled 

items”

JT Fall 2012?

Updates to Policy and 

Procedure manual

Fall 2012?

Agenda

• Approve minutes from last PDC call 03 21 12 

• Review public comments thus far: 

o Calvin/Joe (Conflict of Interest)

o Jean/Colehour (Public Comment)

o Jennifer (Public Communication)

• Discuss the Draft work-plan 

Discussion

• Minutes from last PDC call 03 21 12 not approved. Sent again 04 24 12

The chair asked if the PDC had anything to discuss for coordination with the GMO ad hoc committee as 

nothing had been assigned to them yet. A member suggested that the PDC might review public the 

comments pertaining to GMOs. 

Public Comments: The chair asked that in preparation for the spring meeting, the lead person for each 

topic discuss the comments related to their specific issues, but there were no comments submitted yet. 
As per the NOSB chair, it was requested that the recommendations that will be voted on be written 

down ahead of time, so everyone is clear what is being voted on. The motion might change at the 

meeting, so it’s the responsibility of each of the leads to prepare for that. Other ways to prepare for the 

meeting were discussed such as making amendments to a motion in real time. The NOSB chair will make 

the decision on a case-by-case basis and decide if something needs to be rewritten or if the minor 

changes can be voted on before the changes are made. JFe indicated that some motions were discussed 

during breaks, where language was edited before the motion was passed. The Chair acknowledged the

challenges in the decision making process in real time. 

NOP (MB) asked JFe to provide info about open dockets for public comment. 

• Discussed draft work-plan for Providence and beyond. Chair asked for comments and feedback about 

future plans. Two items that will be on work plan: PPM update and ethics rules. JFe would like to have 

discussion with NOP about process used to eliminate discussion docs after the committee spent months 

working on it. 

• Workplans are explained in detail in the PPM, so BF urged the committee to follow these procedures to 

avoid any future problems, and to let the EC know about proposed workplans. Related issues: 

assignments. e.g moving of aquaculture to LC from HC. Does the NOSB or NOP make that decision?)

• JFe asked for clarification about the decision making process discussed in PPM. NOP stated that some 

things in the decisive/non decisive vote document were not correct and JFe felt that if these 

inaccuracies could have been addressed sooner the document could have moved forward. Would like to 

figure out what went awry and speak further about this issue. BF indicated that the procedures have 

been strengthened in the last few years, but would like to clarify why this glitch occurred this time. NOP 

added that items that were not on workplan at end of fall 2011 meeting appeared on the agendas in 

March, which was not expected. Therefore the items were removed with no deliberation. It was agreed 

that these issues need to be discussed during the EC calls. 

• A member indicated that it is important to take into consideration the flux in the workplan due to the 

addition of 5 new members. 

Future Policy Committee Calls: 

April 10, 2012 cancelled

April 24, 2012, 2pm EDT

May 8, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Milestone Deadline

Public Comment Period April 9 - May 3, 2012

Informal prep meeting May 21, 8pm (in Albuquerque)

Spring 2012 NOSB Meeting

 

May 22 – 25, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling.

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Monday, May 7, 2012, 3pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Jay Feldman (JFe), Jennifer Taylor (JT), Jean 

Richardson (JR), Barry Flamm (BF), Mac Stone (MS), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair) 

Absent: Joe Dickson (JD) 

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Miles McEvoy (MM), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

Conflict of Interest CW & JD Proposal; completed Spring 2012

Public Comments 

Procedures 

CB Proposal; completed Spring 2012

Handling public 

communications

JT Proposal; completed Spring 2012

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress

NOSB ethics rules JD Proposal; in progress Fall 2012

Material formulations 

and production aids

MS ?

Policy on “tabled 

items”

JT Fall 2012?

Updates to Policy and 

Procedure manual

Fall 2012?

Agenda

• Agenda review

• Minutes from April 24, 2012 review/approval

• Public Comment review/discussion

• Work Plan discussion and final draft

• Additional items

Discussion

• Agenda review

• Minutes from April 24th not ready for approval 

• Public Comment review/discussion
o JFe compiled a document with comments. The 3-minute time limit seems to be topic of 

interest in comments. Perhaps 5 minutes is preferable? NOP is seeking input from the 

FACA rep as to how other FACA committees work and will report back to PDC. Will also 

seek input about proxy commenters.

o Public communications comments - only a handful of comments but they appear to be 

supportive of concepts that PDC recommended.

o COI recommendation- 8 comments in support of recommendations #1 and #3. #2 

(COI/Family members) 3 out of 8 people did not support this. Commenters also 

disagreed with definition of COI. 

• Work Plan discussion and final draft - add public communications recommendation to workplan 

for discussion after the Spring Meeting. 

• No additional items

Future Policy Committee Calls: 

May 7, 2012, 3pm EDT 

June 12, 2012 2pm EDT

June 26, 2012 2pm EDT

Milestone Deadline

Public Comment Period April 9 - May 3, 2012

Informal prep meeting May 21, 8pm (in Albuquerque)

Spring 2012 NOSB Meeting

 

May 22 – 25, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes Tuesday, June 12, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Jay Feldman (JFe), Jennifer Taylor (JT), Calvin Walker 

(CW) (Vice Chair) 

Absent: Joe Dickson (JD), Jean Richardson (JR), Barry Flamm (BF), Mac Stone (MS) 

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

Public Comment CB/JR In progress Fall 2012

Conflict of Interest CW In progress Fall 2012

Public Communication JT In progress Fall 2012

Ethics Rules review JD In progress Fall 2012

Threshold (two-stage) 

TR 

JR/JFe Discussion Document Fall 2012

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress

Fall 2012

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress Spring 2013

Material initiation 

policy

JFe/JT Discussion Document Spring 2013

Confidential Business 

Information 

JFe Discussion Document

JOINT w/Materials 

Committee

Spring 2013

TR Policy Review JT JOINT with Materials 

Committee

Convening of Technical 

Advisory Boards

&/or Working Group 

Policy

MS Discussion document Spring 2013
Agenda

• Agenda review 

• Approve minutes from March 21, April 24, and May 7 

• Discuss/review Workplan

• Future PDC call topic order 

• Additional items

Discussion

• Agenda approved 

• Approval of minutes from March 21, April 24, and May 7 deferred until next meeting due to 

lack of quorum

• Discuss/review Workplan

o Workplan seems solidified except for a couple of items. NOP (MM) said to leave the 

“Decisive/Indecisive” Determination on NOSB Votes on workplan, as well as the

Material Initiation Policy (slated for spring 2013). 

o A member asked about the schedule for the Policy and Procedure Manual revisions and 

how the process will work with regard to the NOP proposing items. JTu indicated that 

the process will vary depending on what the item or topic is. For example public 

communications. Subcommittee already wrote up recommendation, so NOP would now 

find options that might fulfill the recommendation, and present them to the group for 

further discussion. The PDS asked that NOP justify the suggestions, in an effort to 

facilitate better communication. 

o Conflict of Interest: It was suggested that consistency in COI requirements across the 

various stakeholders involved (e.g., technical report providers, NOSB members, 

technical experts) might be of benefit for clarity and consistency. Because COI is a 

complicated issue, the chair was not confident that one COI will be able to cover all 

people involved. For example, NOSB members have a special relationship that does not 

necessarily constitute a conflict-of-interest. The group was generally positive about the 

idea of using examples, but warned that examples must be specific enough to be useful 

and be applied across the full Board evenly, without being so specific that people or 

subgroups feel singled out. Timing for COI workplan issues is flexible. Will discuss on 

June 26 call – NOP will send out thoughts in advance.

o Public Communication. JTu and MA will send info to PDS by July 5th in preparation for 

discussion during the July 10th call. It was agreed that the idea be introduced to the full 

Board - likely during the October meeting. 

o JTu would like JFe to look at draft statement of work to see if what he is proposing for 

Threshold TR fits into that.

o Discussed overlapping and cross-subcommittee work between PDS and Materials. 

Research Priorities Framework (CW will send info to CBo about PDS/Materials joint 

work, and CBo will forward to PDS). CBI (JFe is working on this), and TR Policy Review 

because MS has significant interest in this topic and NOP has asked them to address it

(LB and JT will work on this issue). 

o JFe indicated that the internal target date for the decisive/indecisive discussion doc is

this week, and that the reframing of the question is a useful part of this discussion. JFe 

asked that JTu share the doc that CBo sent around (re: synthetic/nonsynthetic). 
 

• Future PDC call topic order- CBo 

o With regard to public communications, CW noted that he was touched by the public 

comments from such groups like the Amish, who took the time to hand write letters and 

mail them. 

• No additional items

• Meeting adjourned

Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

June 26, 2012 2pm EDT

• Conflict of Interest/Ethics Rules review

• Threshold (two-stage) TR

• “Decisive/Indecisive” determination on NOSB votes

• Material initiation policy

July 10, 2012 2pm EDT

• Public Communication 

July 24, 2012 2pm EDT

• Public Comment

August 14, 2012 2pm EDT

August 28, 2012 2pm EDT

September 11, 2012 2pm EDT

September 25, 2012 2pm EDT

October 9, 2012 2pm EDT

Milestone Deadline

NOP - “Finalize” agenda August 13, 2012 

Fall 2012 proposals due to NOP August 20, 2012

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment August 27, 2012

Public comment closes September 24, 2012

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB October 1, 2012

Fall 2012 NOSB Meeting – Providence, RI October 15-18, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Tuesday, June 26, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Jay Feldman (JFe), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair), Jean Richardson (JR), Barry Flamm (BF), 

Joe Dickson (JD), Mac Stone (MS)

Absent: Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Jennifer Taylor (JT)

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

Public Comment CB/JR In progress fall 2012

Conflict of Interest CW In progress fall 2012

Public Communication JT In progress fall 2012

Ethics Rules review JD In progress fall 2012

Threshold (two-stage) 

TR 

JR/JFe Discussion Document fall 2012

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP has asked 

that this item be tabled.

TBD

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress spring 2013

Material initiation 

policy

JFe/JT Discussion Document spring 2013

Confidential Business 

Information 

JFe Discussion Document

JOINT w/Materials 

Committee

spring 2013

TR Policy Review JT JOINT with Materials 

Committee

Convening of Technical 

Advisory Boards

&/or Working Group 

Policy

MS Discussion document spring 2013

Agenda

• Modify/Approve Agenda (2 mins)

• Approve past PDS minutes (5 mins) - PLEASE REVIEW! 

• Threshold (two-stage) TR Discussion Document (Jay/Jean) (10 mins)

• “Decisive/Indecisive” determination on NOSB votes discussion document (Jay) (13 mins)
• Material initiation policy Discussion Document (Jay/JT) (12 mins)

• Conflict of Interest/Ethics Rules Recommendation (Calvin/Joe) (15 mins)

• Planning for next call (3 mins)

Discussion

• Agenda approved

• Minutes Review: All minutes were approved with no changes except March 21: first sentence 

under public communication should read “BI-ANNUAL meeting.” 

• Threshold (two-stage) TR discussion document (JFe) 

o JFe presented background: The cost of TRs is expensive, and as the need for reports 

grows, there are cost disincentives to paying for full technical reports for all substances. 

Cost should not be a factor when trying to collect information, so the discussion paper 

proposes separation into two stages: Initial paper for threshold issues, then full TR. 

Three questions were proposed to form the first stage TR. 

o Group Discussion: The subcommittee discussed this issue, and was supportive of the 

idea of a two-stage process. One person asked for clarification about the impetus for 

this discussion doc – what is the driver for it? Has any report request actually been 

turned down by NOP? Response: No specific event is driving this; it is just an interest in 

efficiency and cost – there is no need for a full TR when it is unnecessary. The goal is to 

streamline TR and make it more efficient, because the Board will be able to focus on the 

most pertinent information. The group agreed that whatever process the PDS chooses, 

it should be included in PPM. This will require a proposal that can be voted on. 

o JTu: NOP and NOSB agree that efficiency and cost effectiveness is a shared goal – and 

NOP has built “Initial Assessment Technical Reports” as an option into the new draft 

Technical Report solicitation. We also agree that having a defined procedure for 

determining whether an initial report is needed is important – that procedure should 

also include a process for defining the questions appropriate for the specific substance 

under evaluation. Given the diversity of substances and petitions, NOP does not support 

the two stage process as a default approach, and does not support a predetermined 

question set for Initial Assessment Reports. NOP feels that the questions themselves 

communicate value, and having a preset list automatically elevates certain OFPA criteria 

above others. 

o The group discussed next steps – should it be a discussion document or a proposal that 

outlines a procedure for initiation of a report? It was agreed that if something is going 

to be added to the PPM, it should be voted on by the full Board as a proposal. 

o JTu will do further research based on the discussion and will send follow-up thoughts. 

• “Decisive/Indecisive” determination on NOSB votes discussion document (JFe) 

o JFe provided an overview of the discussion paper, emphasizing the importance of the 

synthetic/non-synthetic question in the Board’s consideration of any substance. NOSB is 

charged with evaluating substances – clarity in determining synthetic and non-synthetic 

is essential to that task. 

o JTu expressed agreement that the topic is of great importance – there are differences in 

how the statute can be interpreted. NOP requests that the subject be tabled until the 

NOP classification guidance and Memo are released. 

• Material initiation policy discussion document (JFe) 

o JFe provided an overview of the discussion paper. The paper was created to reflect the 

need for new avenues by which the Board could receive requests for National List 
changes. Sometimes, the current petition process is not used (for example, NOP does 

use petition process, and recently, a member of the Board didn’t). Given this, there is a 

need for procedures for different for each of the different types of petitioners: public,

NOP, and NOSB members. 

o JD asked about the motivation for this paper - is this is in response to a specific situation 

or a general need? JFe responded that it was to support general clarity and 

transparency.

o NOP agreed that a more streamlined petition process may be of benefit in some cases, 

such as annotation changes/cleanup. NOP is concerned about public perception 

regarding a special process being available to Board members that is not available to the 

community at large. JFe noted that the current intensive petition process is not realistic 

for Board members to complete, and there should be a way that Board members can 

get List “clean-up” needs dealt with. JTu responded with the opinion that if a 

streamlined process is developed, it should be available to all. NOP is distinct because it 

is able to specifically ask the Board for advice under FACA and sometimes that advice 

will be about National List related topics. NOP typically asks for this advice in the form of 

memos to the Board. 

• Conflict of Interest/Ethics Rules Recommendation (CW/JFe) – deferred until next meeting. 

Continue discussion based on docs that were circulated via email. JTu mentioned that the email 

comments have been very helpful in raising questions, and that the group should continue to 

send them in, so that JTu can send out a revised version before the next meeting. 

• Extra Call. Given the number of topics on the list, the subcommittee would like to schedule an 

additional call before July 10. Day? Time? 

Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

June 26, 2012 2pm EDT

• Conflict of Interest/Ethics Rules review

• Threshold (two-stage) TR

• “Decisive/Indecisive” determination on NOSB votes

• Material initiation policy

July 10, 2012 2pm EDT (JFe away)

• Public Communication 

July 24, 2012 2pm EDT

• Public Comment

August 14, 2012 2pm EDT

August 28, 2012 2pm EDT

September 11, 2012 2pm EDT

September 25, 2012 2pm EDT

October 9, 2012 2pm EDT

Milestone Deadline

NOP - “Finalize” agenda August 13, 2012 
Fall 2012 proposals due to NOP August 20, 2012

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment August 27, 2012

Public comment closes September 24, 2012

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB October 1, 2012

Fall 2012 NOSB Meeting – Providence, RI October 15-18, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Monday, July 02, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Jay Feldman (JFe), Jean Richardson (JR), Barry Flamm 

(BF), Jennifer Taylor (JT), Joe Dickson (JD), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair)

Absent: Mac Stone (MS)

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

Public Comment CB/JR In progress fall 2012

Conflict of Interest CW In progress fall 2012

Public Communication JT In progress fall 2012

Ethics Rules review JD In progress fall 2012

Threshold (two-stage) 

TR 

JR/JFe Discussion Document fall 2012

Material initiation 

policy

JFe/JT Discussion Document

JOINT w/Materials 

Committee

fall 2013

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP has asked 

that this item be tabled.

TBD

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress spring 2013

Confidential Business 

Information 

JFe Discussion Document 

JOINT w/Materials 

Committee

spring 2013

TR Policy Review JT JOINT with Materials 

Committee

Convening of Technical 

Advisory Boards

&/or Working Group 

Policy

MS Discussion document spring 2013

Agenda

• Draft AGENDA

• Review/changes for Agenda 

• Review/Approval of June 26 Minutes
• Threshold TR Discussion Document

• Material Initiation Discussion Document

• Synthetic/Non-synthetic Discussion Document

• COI

• Planning for next call

Discussion

• Draft agenda approved as is

• June 26 Minutes approved with no changes

• Threshold TR Discussion Document: The group briefly reviewed the discussion from the last 

meeting related to this item. Since then, NOP has proposed that given the topic, this could be 

combined with the current Joint workplan item (MS and PDS). NOP suggested that the PDS focus 

on crafting a procedural proposal for how the two-stage report process would work (for the 

PPM), instead of a discussion document asking for input. JFe feels that a discussion doc is 

valuable considering the difference of opinion on “threshold questions” between NOP and the 

PDS. CBo feels that there isn’t enough time to craft a proposal prior to the fall meeting, and 

would support a discussion doc for fall with a proposal for spring 2013. A member asked if the 

subcommittee should advance this to the next stage if the program is not supportive, and that it 

might be better to wait to vote to see where the program stands on this as an agenda item. JFe 

felt strongly that the group should vote according to standard process; the NOP agreed that it 

would be helpful to know where the group stands given the discussion so far. After a motion by 

JFe and a second by CBo, a majority of the subcommittee members chose to move this 

discussion document forward for the fall 2012 meeting in an effort to gather public comments 

at that session. JTu will bring the group feedback from the program shortly.

Vote: Yes: 5 No: 2 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

• Material Initiation Discussion Document - NOP is supportive of this idea and recommends 

rolling this into the larger work item on the “updated petition and TR process” (joint with 

Materials (MS)). MS chair feels that this is reasonable and will work with PDS as well as L Brines

(NOP). NOP noted that the paper should focus on a process that can be used both by Board 

members and the general public; it should not include a statement of the NOP process as the 

NOP will provide that language for the Board. The chair indicated that he was not supportive of

the concept of folding this task into the larger task of Petition/TR updates, as it seems confusing. 

A member agreed this is a discreet item although it has overlap with others and would like to 

move it forward for fall. JTu asked that the subcommittee rename the discussion paper title to 

more accurately reflect the intent of “clean-up,” which is different than the more narrow scope 

of material initiation - perhaps “National List Annotation and List cleanup.” Subcommittee 

deferred vote until next meeting so that members could provide further comments for the 

discussion paper. 

• Synthetic/Non-synthetic Discussion Document: NOP has asked the Board to table this issue 

until it can provide more input, currently being developed. JFe noted that this is an issue that 

has been ongoing for a couple of years, and because it is fundamental to the NOSB process, it 

needs to be resolved. JFe stressed the importance of feedback from the NOP; NOP indicated 
that it has provided its view in previous emails. 

• Conflict of Interest (COI) –CW asked Subcommittee members to send in any feedback and 

reactions to the materials sent previously. NOP has received feedback from both Subcommittee 

members and internally from the Ethics Office and will send comments to group by tomorrow. 

NOP’s input on public communication will be sent to group this week as well. 

• Items not discussed were deferred to the next meeting. 

• Meeting adjourned

Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

July 3, 2012 2pm EDT

July 10, 2012 2pm EDT (JFe away)

• Public Communication (JT)

• Vote: Material Initiation Discussion Document

• Synthetic/Non-synthetic Discussion Document (NOP again requests that this be tabled for 

now)

• COI/ Ethics Rules review

July 24, 2012 2pm EDT

• Public Comment

August 14, 2012 2pm EDT

August 28, 2012 2pm EDT

September 11, 2012 2pm EDT

September 25, 2012 2pm EDT

October 9, 2012 2pm EDT

Milestone Deadline

NOP - “Finalize” tentative agenda August 13, 2012 

Fall 2012 proposals due to NOP August 20, 2012

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment August 27, 2012

Public comment closes September 24, 2012

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB October 1, 2012

Fall 2012 NOSB Meeting – Providence, RI October 15-18, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Tuesday, July 10, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Jean Richardson (JR), Barry Flamm (BF), Jennifer Taylor 

(JT), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair), Mac Stone (MS), Joe Dickson (JD)

Absent: Jay Feldman (JFe)

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

Public Comment Proposal CB/JR In progress fall 2012

Conflict of Interest and 

Ethics Rules Review 

Proposal

CW/JD Subcommittee passed proposal 

7/10 – Take to Board for vote. 

fall 2012

Public Communication

Proposal

JT Draft Proposal under discussion fall 2012

Threshold (two-stage) TR JR/JFe Discussion Document – NOTE: 

NOP has requested that this be 

refocused as a proposal about

implementation of a Two-Stage 

TR concept 

spring 2013 

Material initiation policy

– NOP has proposed that 

this be renamed 

(Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up)

JFe/JT Discussion Document - JOINT

w/Materials? Could this be 

integrated within “Update 

Petition Process” item below? 

TBD

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP has asked that this 

item be tabled.

TBD

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress spring 2013

Confidential Business 

Information 

ZS & CW & JFe Discussion Document JOINT

w/Materials Committee

spring 2013

TR Policy Review JT JOINT with Materials 

Subcommittee

TBD

Update petition process JOINT with Materials 

Subcommittee

TBD

Convening of Technical 

Advisory Boards

&/or Working Group 

Policy

MS Discussion document spring 2013
Agenda

• Agenda review/approval

• Review/approval of past meeting minutes

• 2-step TR Discussion Document (10 mins)

• COI Recommendation (20 mins)

• Public Communication Recommendation (25 mins)

• Extra call scheduling (Friday July 20, 3:00 EST?)

• Next call planning (July 20 or 24)

Discussion

• Agenda approved. Minutes from July 2 meeting approved with no changes

• 2-step Technical Report (TR) Discussion Document - Chair asked if we should postpone this 

conversation until JFe could participate. It was noted that NOP has sent a message to the 

subcommittee asking them to redirect their efforts towards developing a proposal on Two-Stage 

TR implementation, instead of a discussion document. The group agreed not to discuss this 

further on this call given the other items that need work. 

• Conflict of Interest (COI) Proposal - PDS has been working on COI since last fall, and it has been 

through many iterations. In this most recent effort, CW has incorporated input from the 

program and rewrote the language in a form that can be used to modify the PPM. CW provided 

an overview of two options – the group agreed that Option 2 was better, as it is more precise in 

focusing on true COI – will be much easier for members to self-identify conflicts. After 

reviewing, the group agreed that it would vote on Option 2, with two changes: (1) in 

Recommendation #8, remove the standalone definition of immediate family member currently 

included directly under the definition of conflict of interest and potential conflict of interest; (2) 

remove the “three day” requirement for reporting listed under recommendation # 10 Level 1. 

Motion to forward Option 2 as amended as a Proposal: 

Motion made by: JR

Seconded by CW

Additional discussion: JR added that option 2 seems more sensible in light of her participation at 

the May NOSB meeting. 

Yes: 7 No: Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

• Public Communication Proposal: The group opened discussion on the Public Communication 

proposal materials prior to the call. Key points of discussion: 

• The group discussed the line of communication from the public – to the NOSB or to the 

NOP? The NOP supports having a system where both NOP and NOSB can see the 

comments, but that the NOP takes responsibility as primary audience – our goal is only 

to protect the NOSB from public comments that they cannot act on. JR noted that it is 

difficult to juggle many calls and emails, and it’s more realistic that the public 

communications get routed through the NOP first. 
• JD asked if this new approach would limit or prohibit the communication that Board 

members already have with the public – i.e. does it change existing communication that 

they have with stakeholders? JTu indicated NO; those communication channels are very 

important for staying connected to the community – this would only add an additional 

channel for public communication, not limit any existing channels. CW and CB noted 

that this be made explicit in the document. 

• JTu noted that if the Board passes this proposal, NOP would propose an implementation 

approach – eventually, this would change NOP’s current guidance to the community on 

how to communicate most effectively to the NOP and the Board – this would be an 

added option for people to use, and those contacting NOP would be encouraged to use 

this route. 

• The group discussed next steps – CB requested that a document be prepared for a vote 

at the start of the next meeting. JTu noted that if the NOP’s edited version were 

accepted, then perhaps that version could be voted on. 

• Extra call scheduling – The group discussed the possibility of July 20 - Chair will send options via 

email. 

Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

July 20 – Time? 

July 24, 2012 2pm EDT

• Public Comment

• Public Communication vote

August 14, 2012 2pm EDT

August 28, 2012 2pm EDT

September 11, 2012 2pm EDT

September 25, 2012 2pm EDT

October 9, 2012 2pm EDT

Milestone Deadline

NOP - “Finalize” tentative agenda August 13, 2012 

Fall 2012 proposals due to NOP August 20, 2012

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment August 27, 2012

Public comment closes September 24, 2012

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB October 1, 2012

Fall 2012 NOSB Meeting – Providence, RI October 15-18, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Jean Richardson (JR), Barry Flamm (BF), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair), Mac Stone (MS), Jay 

Feldman (JFe)

Absent: Joe Dickson (JD), Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Jennifer Taylor (JT)

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point Person Status Target Meeting 

Public Comment Proposal CB/JR In progress Fall 2012

Conflict of Interest and 

Ethics Rules Review 

Proposal

CW/JD Subcommittee passed proposal 

7/10 – Take to Board for vote. 

Fall 2012

Public Communication

Proposal

JT Draft Proposal under discussion Fall 2012

Threshold (two-stage) TR JR/JFe Discussion Document – NOTE: 

NOP has requested that this be 

refocused as a proposal about

implementation of a Two-Stage 

TR concept 

Spring 2013 

Material initiation policy

– NOP has proposed that 

this be renamed 

(Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up)

JFe/JT Discussion Document - JOINT

w/Materials? Could this be 

integrated within “Update 

Petition Process” item below? 

TBD

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP has asked that this 

item be tabled.

TBD

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress Spring 2013

Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 

transparency

ZS & CW & JFe Discussion Document JOINT

w/Materials Committee

Spring 2013

Update petition process MS JOINT w/ Materials 

Subcommittee

TBD

Convening of Technical 

Advisory Boards

&/or Working Group 

Policy

MS Discussion document Spring 2013
Agenda

• Finalize/Approve Agenda (2 mins)

• Approval of meeting minutes from July 10 (3 mins)

• Public Communications Recommendation (30 mins)

• Public Comment (20 mins)

• Wrap up & next call [July 30] planning (5 mins)

Discussion

• Agenda Review: Meeting minutes from July 10 were approved with minor changes to clarify the 

changes that the Subcommittee made on Option 2 of COI during the call prior to voting. 

 

• Public Comment Recommendation: The group spent the majority of the call discussing the 

public comment proposal. 

o It was noted that the Subcommittee Chair (not on the call) is interested in a compromise 

between 3 and 5 minutes allowed for public comment from each individual, and that 

there is agreement about all other suggestions in document. 

o The group discussed the option of capping the total time for each individual, thereby 

setting a limit on the questions and answers time given for each individual. JTu 

advocated on behalf of NOP for having a ceiling not only on public comment time, but 

on the follow-up Q&A. This is a question of perception of fairness – it is important that 

people don’t feel that some people got a lot of extra time that others did not. JFe and 

others noted that limiting public speaking is at the chair’s discretion, and has the 

authority to make this decision in real time – there are too many variables to put a black 

and white limit on the total time per person. Perhaps this could be a topic of discussion 

for the public. 

o The subject of meeting length was addressed, as one year there were so many public 

commenters that the meeting ran late into the night. NOP noted that this should not be 

considered to be an option – people get too tired, both on the Board and in the 

audience. The group discussed various issues, such as the ability to question people for 

longer, should they have valuable technical information. BF added some historical 

perspective of public comment at past meetings. 

o The group discussed the option of having pre-meeting preparation meetings in a virtual 

environment to discuss Board process, instead of meeting as only subcommittees the 

day before the meeting. This would allow the Board to feel better prepared and have a 

better sense of the proposals being evaluated. 

o The Board Chair noted that each of the Board members should read all the proposals, 

not just the ones for the Subcommittees on which they sit, ahead of the time and come 

prepared. 

• Wrap up & next call [July 30] planning
Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

July 24, 2012 2pm EDT

• Public Comment

• Public Communication vote

July 30, 2012 Additional Call

August 14, 2012 2pm EDT

August 28, 2012 2pm EDT

September 11, 2012 2pm EDT

September 25, 2012 2pm EDT

October 9, 2012 2pm EDT

Milestone Deadline

NOP - “Finalize” tentative agenda August 10, 2012 

Fall 2012 proposals due to NOP August 20, 2012

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment August 27, 2012

Public comment closes September 24, 2012

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB October 1, 2012

Fall 2012 NOSB Meeting – Providence, RI October 15-18, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Tuesday, July 30, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair), Jean Richardson (JR),

Barry Flamm (BF), Mac Stone (MS), Jay Feldman (JFe), Joe Dickson (JD)

Absent: Jennifer Taylor (JT)

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point 

Person

Status Vote Target Meeting 

Public Comment 

Proposal

CB/JR In progress 08 01 12 Fall 2012

Conflict of Interest and 

Ethics Rules Review 

Proposal

CW/JD Subcommittee passed proposal 

7/10 – Take to Board for vote. 

07 10 12 Fall 2012

Public Communication 

Proposal

JT Draft Proposal under discussion Fall 2012

Threshold (two-stage) 

TR 

JR/JFe Discussion Document – NOTE: 

NOP has requested that this be 

refocused as a proposal about 

implementation of a Two-Stage 

TR concept 

Spring 2013 

Material initiation 

policy – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed (Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up)

JFe/JT Discussion Document - JOINT

w/Materials? Could this be 

integrated within “Update 

Petition Process” item below? 

TBD

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP has asked that 

this item be tabled.

TBD

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress Spring 2013

Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 

transparency

ZS & CW & 

JFe

Discussion Document JOINT

w/Materials Committee

Spring 2013

Update petition process MS JOINT w/ Materials 

Subcommittee

TBD

Convening of Technical 

Advisory Boards

&/or Working Group 

Policy

MS Discussion document Spring 2013
Agenda

• Adjust/Approve Agenda content

• Adjust/Approve Meeting Minutes

• Final Discussion and Vote on Public Communication Recommendation

• Final Discussion and Vote on Public Comment Recommendation

Discussion

• Administrative Items: Final Discussion and Vote on Public Communication Recommendation 

was deferred to August 14th meeting due to absence of lead (JT). The minutes from July 24 have 

not been sent to PDS for approval yet. 

• COI/Ethics: Given some questions that had circulated by email in advance of the meeting, the 

group briefly discussed the Conflict of Interest proposal, which had been passed by the 

subcommittee on a previous call. After a brief discussion about the source of the proposed 

definition, the majority of the group agreed to leave the vote as is (vote taken July 10, 2012).

• Final Discussion and Vote on Public Comment Recommendation: The Chair indicated that the 

document is not significantly different than the previous version except for one item...the item 

having to do with the minimum and maximum time allowed for public comment. NOP suggested 

altering the language from “during the meeting” to “in advance of the meeting” when discussing 

the establishment of a time limit. Language about allowing walk-in commenters will be 

strengthened. Also, NOP suggested the PDS add language establishing a ceiling for the amount 

of time allowed for questions and answers for each person. The group decided it does not want 

to prescribe this language, and instead thinks that it should be at the discretion of the NOSB 

chair. CBo changed language about commenter time from “3 minutes” to “3 at a minimum and 5 

at a maximum at the discretion of chair/NOP prior to meeting.” The group also discussed taking 

the two bullets under “other suggestions” and simply having them as bulleted points in the 

recommendations themselves. A member indicated that he would prefer to vote on a more 

finalized version of the document instead of this verbally marked up version. The Chair indicated 

he would make the necessary edits and circulate the document, then accept votes via email so 

people have a chance to read the edited version first. 

 

• Vote on Public Comment Recommendation: Deferred and will be conducted via email. Vote 

was finalized via email Wednesday August 1, 2012. 

Motion to vote on Public Comment Recommendation:

Motion made by: CBo

Seconded by: CW

No additional discussion

Yes: 7 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

• Discussion on Public Communication Recommendation: Recommendation as it exists will most 

likely be finalized via email. CBo and JT will make any edits (most likely minor). The group also 

discussed the “direct communication with the Secretary” clause – NOP would prefer that this 
communication come through the DFO for internal management purposes. NOP would also 

prefer that the public communication be with both the NOP and NOSB – not just the NOSB. The 

group discussed the long-term implications of some of the items being discussed – what is voted 

on must be sustainable in the long term, not just with the group present now. The group had a 

subsequent brief discussion about statutory interpretation – for example, the meaning of the 

phrase the “NOSB hires the DFO,” and how the Board’s relationship with the Secretary should 

be interpreted given the reality of delegated authorities. It was noted that a revised proposal 

would likely be sent around before the next call so that it can be voted on. 

Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

July 24, 2012 2pm EDT

• Public Comment

• Public Communication vote

July 30, 2012 2pm EDT

• Discussion on Public Communication Recommendation

• Final Discussion/Vote on Public Comment Recommendation- Vote conducted via email -done 

August 14, 2012 2pm EDT

• Final Discussion and Vote on Public Communication Recommendation

August 28, 2012 2pm EDT

September 11, 2012 2pm EDT

September 25, 2012 2pm EDT

October 9, 2012 2pm EDT

Milestone Deadline

NOP - “Finalize” tentative agenda August 10, 2012 

Fall 2012 proposals due to NOP August 20, 2012

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment August 27, 2012

Public comment closes September 24, 2012

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB October 1, 2012

Fall 2012 NOSB Meeting – Providence, RI October 15-18, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Tuesday, August 14, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair), Jean Richardson (JR),

Barry Flamm (BF), Mac Stone (MS), Jay Feldman (JFe), Joe Dickson (JD), Jennifer Taylor (JT)

Absent: 

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point 

Person

Status Vote Target Meeting 

Public Comment 

Proposal

CB/JR Subcommittee passed proposal 

– Take to Board for vote.

08 01 12 Fall 2012

Conflict of Interest and 

Ethics Rules Review 

Proposal

CW/JD Subcommittee passed proposal 

7/10 – Take to Board for vote. 

07 10 12 Fall 2012

Public Communication 

Proposal

JT Draft Proposal near ready to be 

voted on by Subcommittee

08 14 12 Fall 2012

Threshold (two-stage) 

TR 

JR/JFe Discussion Document – NOTE: 

NOP has requested that this be 

refocused as a proposal about 

implementation of a Two-Stage 

TR concept 

Spring 2013 

Material initiation 

policy – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed (Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up)

JFe/JT Discussion Document - JOINT

w/Materials? Could this be 

integrated within “Update 

Petition Process” item below? 

TBD

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP has asked that 

this item be tabled.

TBD

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress Spring 2013

Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 

transparency

ZS & CW & 

JFe

Discussion Document JOINT

w/Materials Committee

Spring 2013

Update petition process MS JOINT w/ Materials 

Subcommittee

TBD

Convening of Technical 

Advisory Boards

&/or Working Group 

Policy

MS Discussion document Spring 2013
Agenda

• Adjust/Approve agenda 

• Adjust/Approve meeting minutes from July 24 and July 30

• Final Discussion and vote on Public Communication Recommendation

Discussion

• Agenda was approved as is.

• Minutes from July 24 and July 30 approved with no changes. 

• The group discussed the updated Public Communications Document. 

o JT led the discussion by reviewing the current proposal for the group, noting that the 

public comment collected during the spring meeting was very positive and supportive of 

this proposal. 

o There was a brief discussion about the pros and cons of having all communication to the 

Board be public. CBo indicated that it would be preferable to have an established 

communication conduit so that the Board can get the information in advance of public 

comment periods in an open, transparent and timely manner. 

o A few minor proposed changes were made to the proposal; primarily adjustments to the 

language to reflect that the public comments will be made available to inform both the 

Board’s and the Program’s deliberations and work. 

o There were questions throughout the discussion about the mechanisms of the public 

communication capability; it was noted that many of the implementation logistics would 

be determined once the Board votes (if it does) that this capability is desired. 

o BF asked how members should handle communications when they receive them 

directly. It was noted that the members can offer to post the comments on the 

submitter’s behalf and do so IF they are given permission to do so, or that the member 

can encourage the person to post the comment publically on their own. There was some 

disagreement as to whether people would be willing to do that on their own.

o Two additional issues were briefly discussed: (1) the role of the Executive Director and 

the degree to which the NOSB directs that person’s tasking. It was noted that NOP has 

the ability to reallocate Executive Director duties to other staff members as workloads 

demand. (2) JTu noted that publication of Board members’ email/contact info on its 

website will not be possible. 

o Based on the discussion, JTu will send the edited version of the proposal to the lead 

person and the group will vote via email.

 

• Vote on Public Communication Proposal: Deferred and conducted via email. Vote was finalized 

via email August 17, 2012. 

Motion to vote on Public Comment Proposal: 

Motion made by: JT

Seconded by: CBo

No additional discussion

Yes: 8 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0
Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

July 24, 2012 2pm EDT

• Public Comment

• Public Communication vote

July 30, 2012 2pm EDT

• Discussion on Public Communication Recommendation

• Final Discussion/Vote on Public Comment Recommendation- Vote conducted via email -done 

August 14, 2012 2pm EDT

• Final Discussion and Vote on Public Communication Recommendation

August 28, 2012 2pm EDT

September 11, 2012 2pm EDT

September 25, 2012 2pm EDT

October 9, 2012 2pm EDT

Milestone Deadline

NOP - “Finalize” tentative agenda August 10, 2012 

Fall 2012 proposals due to NOP August 20, 2012

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment August 27, 2012

Public comment closes September 24, 2012

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB October 1, 2012

Fall 2012 NOSB Meeting – Providence, RI October 15-18, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair), Jean Richardson (JR),

Barry Flamm (BF), Mac Stone (MS), Jay Feldman (JFe), Jennifer Taylor (JT) 

Absent: Joe Dickson (JD)

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point 

Person

Status Vote Target Meeting 

Public Comment 

Proposal

CB/JR Subcommittee passed proposal 

– Take to Board for vote.

08 01 12 Fall 2012

Conflict of Interest and 

Ethics Rules Review 

Proposal

CW/JD Subcommittee passed proposal 

7/10 – Take to Board for vote. 

07 10 12 Fall 2012

Public Communication 

Proposal

JT Subcommittee passed proposal 

– Take to Board for vote.

08 14 12 Fall 2012

Threshold (two-stage) 

TR 

JR/JFe Discussion Document – NOTE: 

NOP has requested that this be 

refocused as a proposal about 

implementation of a Two-Stage 

TR concept 

Spring 2013 

Material initiation 

policy – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed (Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up)

JFe/JT Discussion Document - JOINT

w/Materials 

TBD

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed to be closer to 

the precise issue of 

concern. 

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP has asked that 

this item be tabled. 

TBD

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress Spring 2013

Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 

transparency

ZS & CW & 

JFe

Discussion document JOINT

w/Materials Committee

Spring 2013

Update petition process MS JOINT w/ Materials 

Subcommittee

Spring 2013
Convening of Technical 

Advisory Boards

&/or Working Group 

Policy

MS Discussion document Spring 2013

Agenda

• Review/Modify/Approve Agenda (2 mins)

• Approve notes August 14, 2012 (3 mins)

• Work Plan Discussion (55 mins)

Discussion

• Agenda was approved with no changes. 

• August 14, 2012 notes were approved with some minor changes - JFe asked that the minutes 

reflect the items that were discussed by the subcommittee that don’t end up on the NOSB 

meeting agenda, and that changes to the table above are mentioned in the notes. MA will add 

this to the notes from this point forward. JFe would like the current notes to reflect that NOP 

has requested the Two-Stage TR concept be refocused as a proposal about implementation. The 

group discussed the terms minutes/notes/summaries, and resulting updates to the PPM. 

• Work Plan Discussion – 

o JTu would like to add PPM update to the workplan. The group discussed the source of 

proposed updates to the PPM – while the Board will primarily drive this process, there 

are also times when the NOP will have new content or requirements based on feedback 

or requirements from USDA. 

o Two-Stage TR threshold: The group revisited the NOP’s concerns about this document. 

From NOP’s perspective, the issue is not whether it is a discussion document or 

proposal, but rather the content itself as it currently stands. Concerns lie with making 

two stages the default, and the questions as currently stated – the questions should be 

driven by the material under consideration, and not be a pre-set list. Questions need to 

be driven by OFPA not public comment, and need to take into account contractual 

constraints – the more questions on the list, the more each report will cost. If the 

content is revisited based on previous call discussions, the NOP would support either a 

discussion document or proposal. 

o Material initiation policy – NOP has proposed that this be renamed, perhaps “Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up” to more accurately communicate intent. NOP is comfortable with 

it not being integrated within update to petition process, but would like group to 

consider the name change. Note: the language “Could this be integrated within Update 

Petition Process?” was removed from table above. 

o “Decisive/Indecisive” determination on NOSB votes - NOP has a draft memo to the 

NOSB, and will get feedback to members after the fall meeting. The Group wanted to 

ensure that it stayed on the workplan in case they need to develop a discussion 

document. JFe indicated that the synthetic/nonsynthetic argument could be combined 

with the decisive/indecisive document. NOP indicated that renaming this would be 

helpful in communicating the intent and applicability. 

o Spring 2013 New Member Guide Updates. JR will be the lead on this. CBo offered to 

mention this on the next Executive Subcommittee call.

o Confidential Business Information (CBI) - transparency and Update petition process are 

two items the Materials Subcommittee is working on jointly with the PDS. MS noted 
that he would like to work on the TR/TAP review. The group briefly discussed the types 

of implementation issues that would arise after the adoption of a policy in this area. 

Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

August 28, 2012 2pm EDT

September 11, 2012 2pm EDT

September 25, 2012 2pm EDT

October 9, 2012 2pm EDT

Milestone Deadline

NOP - “Finalize” tentative agenda August 10, 2012 

Fall 2012 proposals due to NOP August 20, 2012

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment August 27, 2012

Public comment closes September 24, 2012

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB October 1, 2012

Fall 2012 NOSB Meeting – Providence, RI October 15-18, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CB) (Chairperson), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair), Jean Richardson (JR),

Jay Feldman (JFe), Jennifer Taylor (JT), Mac Stone (MS)

Absent: Joe Dickson (JD), Barry Flamm (BF), 

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point 

Person

Status Vote Target Meeting 

Public Comment 

Proposal

CB/JR Subcommittee passed proposal 

– Take to Board for vote.

08 01 12 Fall 2012

Conflict of Interest and 

Ethics Rules Review 

Proposal

CW/JD Subcommittee passed proposal 

7/10 – Take to Board for vote. 

07 10 12 Fall 2012

Public Communication 

Proposal

JT Subcommittee passed proposal 

– Take to Board for vote.

08 14 12 Fall 2012

Threshold (two-stage) 

TR 

JR/JFe Discussion Document – NOTE: 

NOP has requested that this be 

refocused as a proposal about 

implementation of a Two-Stage 

TR concept 

Spring 2013 

Material initiation 

policy – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed (Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up)

JFe/JT Discussion Document - JOINT

w/Materials 

Spring 2013

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed to be closer to 

the precise issue of 

concern. 

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP has asked that 

this item be tabled. 

TBD

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress Spring 2013

Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 

transparency

ZS & CW & 

JFe

Discussion document JOINT

w/Materials Committee

Spring 2013

Update petition process MS JOINT w/ Materials 

Subcommittee

Spring 2013
Convening of Technical 

Advisory Boards

&/or Working Group 

Policy

MS Discussion document Spring 2013

Agenda

• Review/Modify/Approve Agenda 

• Approve notes August 28, 2012 (sent 08 23 12) 

• Discuss Public comment on the three fall 2012 proposals

Discussion

• Agenda was approved. 

• August 28, 2012 notes were approved as is. 

• Public Comment on Public comment proposal- In general, the comments were broad and 

overarching and commenters were supportive of the 4-minute timeframe for comments. 

• Comments on Public Communication Proposal seem supportive and offered no counter ideas or 

opinions. The group would like to get input from other NOSB members in advance of the fall 

meeting to see what the general feeling is.

• Comments for the COI proposal were summarized and discussed and the group discussed how 

best to address the comments. A member suggested crafting a document to do so. The 

subcommittee will consider changes to the proposal and distribute them prior to the fall 

meeting so everyone is prepared to discuss them. 

Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

August 28, 2012 2pm EDT

September 11, 2012 2pm EDT

September 25, 2012 2pm EDT

October 9, 2012 2pm EDT

Milestone Deadline

NOP - “Finalize” tentative agenda August 10, 2012 

Fall 2012 proposals due to NOP August 20, 2012

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment August 27, 2012

Public comment closes September 24, 2012

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB October 1, 2012

Fall 2012 NOSB Meeting – Providence, RI October 15-18, 2012
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Tuesday, October 9, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CBo) (Chairperson), Calvin Walker (CW) (Vice Chair), Jay Feldman (JFe), 

Jennifer Taylor (JT), Mac Stone (MS), Joe Dickson (JD), Barry Flamm (BF)

Absent: Jean Richardson (JR)

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point 

Person

Status Vote Target Meeting 

Public Comment 

Proposal

CBo/JR Subcommittee passed proposal 

– Take to Board for vote.

08 01 12 Fall 2012

Conflict of Interest and 

Ethics Rules Review 

Proposal

CW/JD Subcommittee passed proposal 

7/10 – Take to Board for vote. 

07 10 12 Fall 2012

Public Communication 

Proposal

JT Subcommittee passed proposal 

– Take to Board for vote.

08 14 12 Fall 2012

Threshold (two-stage) 

TR 

JR/JFe Discussion Document – NOTE: 

NOP has requested that this be 

refocused as a proposal about 

implementation of a Two-Stage 

TR concept 

Spring 2013 

Material initiation 

policy – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed (Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up)

JFe/JT Discussion Document - JOINT

w/Materials 

Spring 2013

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed to be closer to 

the precise issue of 

concern. 

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP has asked that 

this item be tabled. 

TBD

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress Spring 2013

Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 

transparency

ZS & CW & 

JFe

Discussion document JOINT

w/Materials Committee

Spring 2013

Update petition process MS JOINT w/ Materials 

Subcommittee

Spring 2013
Convening of Technical 

Advisory Boards

&/or Working Group 

Policy

MS Discussion document Spring 2013

Agenda

• Approve minutes from September 25 call

• Discuss the three PDS Recommendations

• Work Plan 

Discussion

• Minutes from September 25 approved with no changes

• Discussed the three PDS Recommendations

o Public Comment – For the upcoming meeting each presenter was given a 4 minute 

window. At this point there isn’t a lot of public feedback about this topic but the 

feedback about question and answers of commenters at meeting is that it needs to not 

be constrained. Group discussed various aspects and options for presentations and

questions/answers. 

o Conflict of Interest (COI) document has been revised in draft format to reflect public 

comments. For example, definition for potential COI was removed. A member asked 

about the possibility of vetting COIs in Subcommittee before it gets to the full Board to 

alleviate any confusion or problems, and to allow for the NOSB to make the decision 

about whether or not there is a COI. A member asked about the recusal process and the 

disclosure about the reason for that recusal. The group briefly discussed various COI

elements of the proposal that had been posted as well as the most recent modification. 

• The Work Plan was not discussed on this call. 

Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

October 23, 2012 2pm EDT

November 13, 2012 2pm EST 

November 27, 2012 2pm EST

December 11, 2012 2pm EST

Milestone Deadline

NOP - “Finalize” tentative agenda August 10, 2012 

Fall 2012 proposals due to NOP August 20, 2012

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment August 27, 2012

Public comment closes September 24, 2012

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB October 1, 2012

Fall 2012 NOSB Meeting – Providence, RI October 15-18, 2012

Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Tuesday, November 13, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CBo) (Chair), Jay Feldman (JFe), John Foster (JFo) (2013 member), Mac 

Stone (MS) (2012 member), Calvin Walker (CW) (2013-Vice Chair)

Absent: Barry Flamm (BF), Nick Maravell (NM) (2013 member), Jennifer Taylor (JT), Jean Richardson (JR), 

Joe Dickson (JD) (2012 member) 

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point 

Person

Status Vote Target Meeting 

Conflict of Interest and 

Ethics Rules Review 

Proposal

CW/JD Subcommittee passed proposal 

7/10/12. Withdrawn before fall 

2012 NOSB vote 

N/A – memo 

will come from 

NOP

Public Communication 

Proposal

JT

 

Subcommittee passed proposal 

8/14/12. Failed fall 2012 NOSB 

vote. Rewrite and bring to ES 

meeting?

TBD

Policy and Procedures 

Manual (PPM) Review 

and Updates

JFo/CBo Proposal Spr 2013

Threshold (two-stage) 

Technical Reports

JR/JFe Discussion Document Spr 2013 

Material initiation 

policy or (Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up)

JFe/JT Discussion Document - JOINT

w/Materials. PDS will Lead; 

Materials will support

Spr 2013

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress Spr 2013

Examine and update 

petition and technical 

review process

MS/JFe 

(from 

Materials)

Materials Subcommittee

Leading; PDS will support. JFe

(Materials)/MS (PDS)

Spr 2013

Convening of Technical 

Advisory Boards

&/or Working Group 

Policy

MS Discussion document. Perhaps 

this should be folded into the 

above item (from earlier MS 

call)

Spr 2013

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed 

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP will provide a 

memo to the Board on this 

topic.

TBD
Agenda

• Welcome and upcoming changes with PDS

• Approve notes from October 9 call

• Review of "process". Thoughts for next Executive Subcommittee discussions

• Topics and lead assignments

• Set schedule for the coming year +

Discussion 

• Notes from October 9 approved with no changes.

• Review of meeting process from Providence Meeting. Thoughts for next Executive 

Subcommittee discussions

o Conflict of Interest (COI) - JTu is working on a memo which will be sent to the 

Subcommittee before they proceed. A member asked about the declaration of interest

form; NOP responded that at this point, it would only be distributed if the Ethics Office 

requests it. If members have a perceived COI, they should use the process established 

at last meeting by sending NOP an email, until the NOP memo is released. 

o A member felt that there lacked a mechanism by which members could state an 

objection to a proposal prior to or during the NOSB meetings. The group discussed 

options, such as the pre-NOSB prep meeting, but did not resolve this issue. 

• Topics and lead assignments

o Convening of Technical Advisory Boards and/or Working Group Policy - MS will continue 

to work on this item even though he will not be on PDS any longer. Members discussed 

combining this item with the MS workplan item “Examine and update petition and 

technical review process” and making Materials the lead. 

o Policy and Procedures Manual Review and Updates. JFo will take the lead on this item, 

and will be working with CBo and the NOP. JTu and CBo have spoken offline about what 

needs to be updated. Key to the updates is determining what is administrative vs. what 

is substantive. NOP will make the administrative changes and will forward to JFo and 

CBo for review. JR will update New Member Guide for next meeting. 

o Material initiation policy or (Substance Annotation/Clean-up) – JFe shared the 

information discussed during the Materials Subcommittee call: Some members 

indicated an interest in this workplan item, while others felt it is not needed. JFe noted 

that of primary concern is ensuring that the community has sufficient notification if a 

material is going to be added to the Board’s agenda without first being publicized it

through the advance notice of a petition posting process. 

o The group discussed the overlap between Materials and PDS, and discussed the 

possibility of joint calls to eliminate duplication of work, which many agreed was a good 

option. The PDS Chair will speak with the Materials Chair about this. 

o “Decisive/Indecisive” determination on NOSB votes – The action item is currently on the 

workplan for the NOP and they hope to have a memo back to the Subcommittee by 

December. The issue seems to be more about how motions are framed, and not really

about decisive/indecisive determination, which is laid out in the Organic Foods 

Production Act. 

o Public Communication Proposal - JTu asked if this will be brought back to the Executive 

Subcommittee to be officially added back to the workplan. CBo will speak with JT about 

this. 
Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

November 27, 2012 2:00 pm EST

Threshold (two-stage) TR

December 11, 2012 2:00 pm EST

Material initiation policy or (Substance Annotation/Clean-up) 

December 19, 2012 2:00 pm EST 

January 8, 2013 2:00 pm EST

New Member Guide Updates

January 22, 2013 2:00 pm EST

February 12, 2013 2:00 pm EST - proposals due

February 26, 2013 2:00 pm EST

March 12, 2013 2:00 pm EST

March 26, 2013 2:00 pm EST

MILESTONE

 

Target date

NOP – Complete tentative agenda February 8, 2013

Spring 2013 proposals due to NOP February 12, 2013

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment February 19, 2013

Public comment closes March 19, 2013

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB March 25, 2013

Spring 2013 NOSB Meeting – Portland, OR April 8-11, 2013
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Tuesday, November 27, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CBo) (Chair), Jay Feldman (JFe), John Foster (JFo) (2013 member), Mac 

Stone (MS) (2012 member), Calvin Walker (CW) (2013-Vice Chair), Nick Maravell (NM) (2013 member), 

Jennifer Taylor (JT)

Absent: Jean Richardson (JR), Joe Dickson (JD) (2012 member), Barry Flamm (BF)

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu)

Workplan

Project Point 

Person

Status Vote Target Meeting 

Conflict of Interest and 

Ethics Rules Review 

Proposal

CW Subcommittee passed proposal 

7/10/12. Withdrawn before fall 

2012 NOSB vote. NOP will take 

next steps – no NOSB action 

needed at time. 

N/A – memo 

will come from 

NOP

Public Communication 

Proposal

JT

 

Subcommittee passed proposal 

8/14/12. Failed fall 2012 NOSB 

vote. Rewrite and bring to ES 

meeting for addition back on to 

the workplan?

TBD

Policy and Procedures 

Manual (PPM) Review 

and Updates

JFo/CBo Proposal Spr 2013

Material initiation policy

or (Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up)

JFe/JT Discussion Document - JOINT

w/Materials. PDS will Lead; 

Materials will support

Spr 2013

New Member Guide 

Updates

JR In progress Spr 2013

Examine and update 

petition and TR review 

process. Includes 

Threshold (two-stage) 

TRs, and Convening of 

technical advisory boards

&/or working group 

policy

MS/JFe 

(from 

Materials)

Materials Subcommittee

Leading; PDS will support. JFe

(Materials)/MS (PDS). MS will 

write doc and pass it to PDS.

Spr 2013

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed 

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP will provide a 

memo to the Board on this 

topic.

TBD
Agenda

• Approve Agenda (2 mins)

• Approve November 13 meeting notes (3)

• PDS roles/duties – workplan review (10)

• Threshold (two stage) TR Policy (40)

• Next meeting plan(s) (5)

• Material initiation policy or (Substance Annotation/Clean-up) 

Discussion

• Agenda approved with no changes.

• November 13 meeting notes were accepted with minor changes regarding PPM updates and the 

Subcommittee members responsible for substantive edits. MA adjusted the workplan table 

above based on the November 27 discussion, incorporating two workplan items; “Convening of 

technical advisory boards &/or working group policy” and “threshold (two-stage) technical 

reports”, into the workplan item entitled “examine and update petition and technical review 

process” 

• The changes contained within the Public Comment proposal that the Board passed at the fall 

2012 were added to the Policy & Procedures Manual (PPM). MA is currently making 

administrative changes to the PPM, and will forward the marked-up version to the PDS. 

Members will have the opportunity to ask about the foundation for any changes made by NOP. 

• PDS roles/duties - workplan review. 

o JD rotated off of the PDS so CW will lead the workplan item “Conflict of Interest and 

Ethics Rules Review Proposal.” It was noted that this item is now in the NOP’s hands, so 

no work by the subcommittee is needed. 

o Public communication proposal. The group discussed how to proceed with this since it 

did not pass at the fall 2012 NOSB meeting. The original proposal contained two 

components: 1) A year-round docket to accept public communications between NOSB 

meetings, and 2) Language about direct communication with the Secretary of 

Agriculture. Since the Board supported the public communication portion, JTu 

suggested submitting the item to the Executive Subcommittee to request adding it back 

on the PDS workplan and, if accepted, rewriting this and resubmitting a new proposal 

for the spring 2013 meeting. The group discussed the value and ultimate goal of doing 

so. Support for moving forward was mixed. A member added that the year-round 

docket might alleviate the problem of receiving information at the last minute, which 

would help with the decision-making process. 

• Material Initiation Process - The impetus for this workplan item was to introduce a more 

streamlined way to submit proposed changes to the National List, while ensuring that the public 

was notified far enough in advance that an item is coming up for a vote, and to streamline the 

process for review. The group discussed the fact that it didn’t seem much different than the 

current process and if it introduced a parallel petition process, it might unnecessarily complicate 

matters. JFe circulated a document with several questions, and a member noted that there 

seemed to be two separate issues that were being conflated, which also complicated matters. 

The majority of the members felt that the regular petition process was adequate and there 

didn’t seem to be a need for this discussion document. The Chair asked that the lead member 

seek input from the NOP to see if this would in fact streamline things.
Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

November 27, 2012 2:00 pm EST

Threshold (two-stage) TR

December 11, 2012 2:00 pm EST

Material initiation policy or (Substance Annotation/Clean-up) 

December 19, 2012 2:00 pm EST 

January 8, 2013 2:00 pm EST

New Member Guide Updates

January 22, 2013 2:00 pm EST

February 12, 2013 2:00 pm EST - proposals due

February 26, 2013 2:00 pm EST

March 12, 2013 2:00 pm EST

March 26, 2013 2:00 pm EST

MILESTONE

 

Target date

NOP – Complete tentative agenda February 8, 2013

Spring 2013 proposals due to NOP February 12, 2013

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment February 19, 2013

Public comment closes March 19, 2013

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB March 25, 2013

Spring 2013 NOSB Meeting – Portland, OR April 8-11, 2013
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official NOP policy or regulations. 

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of substances used in organic 

production and handling. 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Policy Development Subcommittee Meeting Notes 

Tuesday, December 11, 2012, 2pm EDT 

Attendees: Colehour Bondera (CBo) (Chair), Jay Feldman (JFe), John Foster (JFo), Mac Stone (MS), Calvin 

Walker (CW) (Vice Chair), Barry Flamm (BF), Nick Maravell (NM), Jennifer Taylor (JT)

Absent: Joe Dickson (JD), 

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Jennifer Tucker (JTu), Mark Lipson (ML) - sitting in

Workplan

Project Point 

Person

Status Vote Target Meeting 

Conflict of Interest and 

Ethics Rules Review 

Proposal

CW Subcommittee passed proposal 

7/10/12. Withdrawn before fall 

2012 NOSB vote. NOP will take 

next steps – no NOSB action 

needed at time. 

N/A – memo 

will come from 

NOP

Public Communication 

Proposal

JT

 

Subcommittee passed proposal 

8/14/12. Failed fall 2012 NOSB 

vote. Rewrite and bring to ES 

meeting for addition back on to 

the workplan?

TBD

Policy and Procedures 

Manual (PPM) Review 

and Updates

JFo/CBo Proposal Spr 2013

Material initiation policy 

or (Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up)

JFe/JT Discussion Document - JOINT

w/Materials. PDS will Lead; 

Materials will support

Spr 2013

New Member Guide 

Updates

CW In progress Spr 2013

Examine and update 

petition and TR review 

process. Includes 

Threshold (two-stage) 

TRs, and Convening of 

technical advisory boards

&/or working group 

policy

MS/JFe 

(from 

Materials)

Materials Subcommittee 

Leading; PDS will support. JFe 

(Materials)/MS (PDS). MS will 

write doc and pass it to PDS.

Spr 2013

“Decisive/Indecisive” 

determination on NOSB 

votes – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed 

JFe Discussion document; in 

progress. NOP will provide a 

memo to the Board on this 

topic.

TBD
Agenda

• Approve Agenda

• Approve November 27 meeting notes

• PDS workplan scheduling

• Public Communications Docket

• Material initiation policy or (Substance Annotation/Clean-up)

• Next meeting plan(s)

Discussion

• Agenda approved with addition of the Research Priorities Submission (a Materials 

Subcommittee recommendation). 

• November 27 meeting notes: MA updated the status of the workplan item “Examine and update 

petition and TR review process” to reflect that the Materials Subcommittee will write the 

document and forward it to the PDS. 

• PDS workplan scheduling: CW is now leading the updates to the New Member guide in place of 

Jean Richardson. The updates should be minor.

• Public Communications Docket – The NOP indicated that the Executive Subcommittee (ES) 

needs to approve this before it gets placed back on the PDS workplan. The group discussed one 

of the components of the original proposal that dealt with NOSB communication with the 

Secretary of Agriculture. JFe noted that the original statute gave the NOSB direct 

communication with the Secretary, and it was not originally set up as a FACA Board. A member 

asked for clarification about this. MS and JTu noted the process by which communications are 

sent to the Secretary and that the NOP is required to follow this internal correspondence chain.

The NOP also assured the group that NOSB documents accepted by the NOP would be 

forwarded unaltered. JFe asked that the PPM reinforce the statute, which says that the NOSB 

can directly advise the Secretary. CB asked if the group wanted to pursue this as an agenda item 

for the fall meeting. The group discussed the logistics of a public communications vehicle and 

JTu asked that the board consider the implications and impact of implementing such a policy, 

also noting that the NOP is supportive of this. A member questioned the use of the word

“fiduciary” in the document. JFe noted that the use of the word fiduciary is in the first sentence 

of the PPM and that it is used primarily to highlight the Boards’ responsibility to be 

representatives of the public trust. The majority of the Subcommittee was supportive of taking 

the item to the Executive Subcommittee to request that it be added back to the PDS workplan. 

One member indicated that he did not see a need for this, as he feels that he receives lots of 

outside communication already. The group discussed the pros and cons of this proposal and 

noted that transparency is the ultimate goal.

• Research Priorities recommendations – The group discussed the relationship between research 

priorities and communication with the Secretary, and the majority of the members felt these 

issues should not be coupled. 

• Next meeting plan(s) - JTu will send a response to PDS about the material initiation policy before 

the next call. (Completed)

Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

November 27, 2012 2:00 pm EST
Threshold (two-stage) TR

December 11, 2012 2:00 pm EST

Material initiation policy or (Substance Annotation/Clean-up) 

December 19, 2012 2:00 pm EST 

 Public Communications Docket (JT)

Material initiation policy or (Substance Annotation/Clean-up) (JFe/JT)

January 8, 2013 2:00 pm EST

New Member Guide Updates (CW)

 PPM: Group discussion with revisions from NOP

January 22, 2013 2:00 pm EST

February 12, 2013 2:00 pm EST - proposals due

February 26, 2013 2:00 pm EST

March 12, 2013 2:00 pm EST

March 26, 2013 2:00 pm EST

MILESTONE

 

Target date

NOP – Complete tentative agenda February 8, 2013

Spring 2013 proposals due to NOP February 12, 2013

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment February 19, 2013

Public comment closes March 19, 2013

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB March 25, 2013

Spring 2013 NOSB Meeting – Portland, OR April 8-11, 2013
Note: Subcommittee notes may include preliminary discussions regarding substances considered for 

addition to or removal from the National List. They do not represent official National Organic Program 

(NOP) policy or regulations. Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, and status of 

substances used in organic production and handling.

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

Materials Subcommittee (MS) Meeting Notes

Tuesday, December 19, 2012, 1:00 pm EST

Attending: Zea Sonnabend (Chair) (ZS), Jay Feldman (JFe), Tracy Favre (TF), Jennifer Taylor (Vice Chair) 

(JT), Joe Dickson (JD), Wendy Fulwider (WF), Joe Dickson (JD), Calvin Walker (CW), Mac Stone (MS) -

sitting in

Absent: Wendy Fulwider (WF)

Staff: Michelle Arsenault (MA), Lisa Brines (LB)

Work Plan 

Project Reviewer Status Vote Target Meeting 

Examine and update 

petition and technical 

review process

JFe (for 

Materials), 

MS (for 

PDS) 

Proposal. Jointly w/PDS 

(Materials will lead and pass 

along the document to PDS). 

Spr 2013

Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 

Transparency

ZS, JFe, 

and CW 

Discussion doc, jointly w/PDS 

(JFe) in Spring? Prop in fall?

Spr 2013/Fall 

2013?

Definition of 

production aids

JFe Spr 2013

Research Priorities 

Proposals

May 2012 Framework 

Proposal

ZS & CW & 

JFe

Fall 2013

Petition and TR 

tracking

ZS/LB Ongoing N/A N/A

Material initiation 

policy – NOP has 

proposed that this be 

renamed (Substance 

Annotation/Clean-up)

JFe/JT Joint w/PDS (PDS will lead) TBD

How to address 

scientific uncertainty

JFe Will begin this after “Update 

Petition Process and CBI 

projects” are complete

TBD

Agenda:

• Approve notes from December 11

• Discuss “Definition of production aids”

• Discuss “Examine and update petition and technical review process” workplan item
Discussion:

• Notes from the December 11 call were approved with no changes. 

• Production aids: Production Aids is a generalized category in the statute but is not defined in the 

regulations, and it comes up frequently in discussions and petitions. The group discussed the 

construction of the discussion document and questions that could be posed to solicit input from 

the public. Production aids seems to have two definitions, one a strict interpretation (for 

example, mulch or row cover) and the second, a less strict one, as an aid or additive used to 

produce a product. The second interpretation has never been used, although the issue does get 

raised occasionally. The group discussed several examples, including lignin sulfonate and 

hydrogen peroxide. Members also discussed specific points in the document that was circulated 

noting that question #2 would work better as the first question, #4 should be moved to position 

# 2, and perhaps question #3 is redundant. The group pondered the need for a discussion 

document at all, and deferred the conversation until the next call. The group also considered the 

implementation of defining production aids, and how that would be incorporated into the 

various existing guidance documents and the Policy and Procedures Manual PPM). 

• The Subcommittee members will review the letter addressing research priorities on the next 

subcommittee call (January 8)

• The Chair will have new draft of the CBI document for the next call

Future Scheduled Subcommittee Calls:

November 27, 2012 1:00 pm EST

• Discussion of CBI Policy

December 11, 2012 1:00 pm EST

• Examine and update petition and technical review process

December 19, 2012 1:00 pm EST

• Continue discussion of “Examine and update petition and technical review process” (JFe/MS)

• Discuss “Definition of production aids”

January 8, 2013 1:00 pm EST

• Examine and update petition and technical review process (JFe/MS)

• Continued discussion of CBI policy (ZS, JFe, and CW)

• Continue discussion of “Definition of production aids”

• Review letter addressing research priorities

January 22, 2013 1:00 pm EST

February 12, 2013 1:00 pm EST - proposals due

February 26, 2013 1:00 pm EST

March 12, 2013 1:00 pm EST

March 26, 2013 1:00 pm EST
Spring 2013 Milestones Target date

NOP – Complete tentative agenda February 8, 2013

Spring 2013 proposals due to NOP February 12, 2013

NOP - Post proposals, Publish FRN, Open public comment February 19, 2013

Subcommittees submit tentative workplans to NOP March 1, 2013

Discuss workplans on ES call March 8, 2013

NOP provides written comments on workplans to NOSB March 11, 2013

Public comment closes March 19, 2013

NOP - Send compiled public comments to NOSB March 25, 2013

Workplans finalized on ES call March 29, 2013

Spring 2013 NOSB Meeting – Portland, OR April 8-11, 2013