National Organic 

Standards Board

San Antonio, Texas

April 29-May 2, 2014
Overview

• NOSB assessment

• NOSB under 

– the Organic Foods Production Act and the 

– Federal Advisory Committee Act

• NOSB procedures

2
Continual Improvement

Public-private partnership

• Public requests for more transparency and 

clarification of NOSB process

Goal’s

• to fully address all NOSB recommendations and to 

receive NOSB advice that we can implement

• to improve efficiency and effectiveness of NOSB

NOP contracted with Meridian to conduct outside 

assessment of the NOSB
NOSB Assessment Report

Meridian Institute

• Nonprofit with expertise in process design, 

facilitation, mediation and conducting 

assessments of organizational dynamics

Methodology

• Conducted 33 interviews between October and 

early December

• Analyzed data from interviews to develop report 
NOSB Assessment Report

Key Findings – What We Heard Works

• Good access to NOP staff when needed

• Strong leadership from NOP staff

• Improvements in organization and implementation of 

processes in recent years 

• Good documentation of public meetings, subcommittee 

calls
NOSB Assessment Report

Key Findings – What We Heard Works

• High level of respect among Board members

• Public meetings are effective at moving through 

established agendas

• Clearer NOSB focus today than in previous years

• Stakeholders generally view NOSB processes as 

transparent, particularly in public meetings
NOSB Assessment Report

Key Findings – Major Themes

• Roles and Responsibilities 

• Communication and Transparency

• NOSB Workload and Scope 

• NOSB Public Meetings
NOSB Assessment Report

Roles and Responsibilities – Key Issues

Range of views on the following issues:

• NOSB authority 

• Development of NOSB work plans 

• Nature of NOSB/NOP partnership in developing 

recommendations and setting policy
NOSB Assessment Report

Roles and Responsibilities – Potential Next Steps

• Need to clarify:

– Extent of the advisory nature of the board

– Responsibility for both NOP and NOSB in developing 

and executing work plans 

– NOP legal responsibilities regarding review of NOSB 

recommendations; protocols to guide collaboration 

with NOSB 

• Provide training to new NOSB members clarifying roles and 

responsibilities
NOSB Assessment Report

Communication and Transparency – Key Findings

• Differing perceptions of how effective communication is 

between NOP staff and NOSB (particularly regarding 

development of subcommittee work plans)

• Desire for more communication pathways to NOP from 

external stakeholders

– Stakeholders seek clearer understanding of progress of 

NOSB recommendations within USDA’s rulemaking process 
NOSB Assessment Report

Communication and Transparency – Next Steps 

• Review roles and responsibilities for the NOSB and 

NOP to guide input on subcommittee work plans.

• Establish a means for external stakeholders to 

provide comment directly to the NOP, rather than 

through NOSB channels.

• Provide more clarity on the process that 

recommendations must go through to be 

implemented by USDA.
NOSB Assessment Report

NOSB’s Scope – Key Issues 

• Extensive NOSB workload; hard for members to 

manage

• Desire for more strategic conversations

• Complex technical nature of petitions reviewed by 

the Board 

• Uneven distribution of work among 

subcommittees
NOSB Assessment Report

NOSB’s Scope – Potential Next Steps

• Focus strictly on National List issues (area of 

authority granted by OFPA)

• Clarify the process of identifying and vetting 

experts to participate in Technical Advisory Panels

• Focus additional efforts on technical support for 

NOSB subcommittees
NOSB Assessment Report

Effective Public Meetings – Key Issues

• Meeting duration seen as limiting robust discussion

• Oral public comment viewed as having disproportionate 

impact on NOSB meetings

• High volume of written public comments; difficult for 

Board to review 

• Need for more collegial meeting environment

• Desire for more robust dialogue among Board members 

during meetings
NOSB Assessment Report

Effective Public Meetings – Potential Next Steps

• Consider length of public meetings, as well as conducting 

some portions of public meetings via teleconference, 

webinar, or other virtual means 

• Establish mechanism to gather and consider written 

comments directed to the NOP rather than the NOSB

• Consider restructuring the public comment process to 

better facilitate direct dialogue and feedback.

– Consider whether focus should be on oral or written 

comments, adjust schedules accordingly
NOSB Assessment Report

Other Key Issues for Discussion

• Subcommittee Process and Functions

• NOSB Policies and Procedures

• Board Member Selection
National Organic 

Standards Board
National Organic Standards Board

• Appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture 

under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) 

• The purpose of a FACA Committee is to 

obtain advice or recommendations on issues 

or policies within the scope of an agency 

official’s responsibilities 

• NOSB reviews substances and recommends 

if they should be allowed/prohibited 
USDA’s Role with the NOSB

• Ensure that public access to NOSB actions is maximized.

• Issue administrative guidelines for NOSB

• Control the undue influence of special interests by 

balancing committee membership

• Monitor and reduce costs

• USDA may not include exemptions for the use of specific 

synthetic substances, without them having been 

proposed (by the NOSB)

• In addition, USDA is also responsible for evaluating OFPA 

criteria associated with National List substances
USDA’s role with National List

• Establish and administer a National List of Approved and 

Prohibited Substances 

• Based on recommendations of the NOSB

• Secretary may not include exemptions for the use of specific 

synthetic substances without a recommendation from the 

NOSB

• The Secretary must publish any proposed amendment to the 

List and seek public comment, and must note any changes the 

Secretary has made to the Board’s recommendation. 

• After evaluation of the comments, the Secretary shall publish 

the final National List along with an analysis of the comments. 

• Sunset provision: Receive the Board’s 5-year review on 

National List substances and determine whether to renew

20
OFPA Sunset Provision

• No exemption or prohibition contained in the 

National List shall be valid unless the NOSB 

has reviewed such exemption or prohibition 

as provided in this section within 5 years of 

such exemption or prohibition being adopted 

or reviewed and the Secretary has renewed 

such exemption or prohibition

21
Sunset needed a revamp!

Drawbacks to the previous process:

• Only required 2/5 Board to remove a 

substance

• Every sunset required three NOP 

rulemaking steps

• Substances used to be discussed in 1 

public meeting

• Annotation changes during sunset were 

problematic

22
Sunset revision benefits

• Thorough and transparent review process 

for all substances - it provides 2 public 

comment opportunities before the NOSB 

completes its review of each substance. 

• Ensures that any change to the National list 

(petitioned or sunset) is supported by a 2/3 

majority of the NOSB.

• Streamlines the administration of the 

National List by simplifying rulemaking. 

23
Legislative History on the Creation and 

Membership of the NOSB

1990 Farm Bill Senate Committee and 

Conference Report on the NOSB:

• Board membership was carefully selected to provide a 

balance of interests

• There was concern about appropriate representation 

given Board’s anticipated influence in setting standards 

• At the time, it was noted that the interests of 

farmers/handlers and the interests of consumers/ 

environmentalists required balance - representation 

included 6 of each of these two interest groups 

(supplemented by a retailer – and then later, a certifier 

and scientist)

• The 2/3 majority vote to carry any motion was set to 

“adequately prevent any one interest from controlling 

the Board “ 

24
7 USC 6518: 

National Organic Standards Board

OFPA, 7 U.S.C. 6518 (a) states that:

The Secretary shall establish a National Organic 

Standards Board: 

• In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2 et seq.)

• To assist in the development of standards for 

substances to be used in organic production; and 

• To advise the Secretary on any other aspects of 

the implementation of this title

25
National Organic Standards Board

Responsibilities 

• Provide recommendations to the Secretary 

regarding implementation of OFPA

• Develop the proposed National List or proposed 

amendments to the National List for submission to 

the Secretary

• Convene technical advisory panels to provide 

scientific evaluation of materials

• Review botanical pesticides

• Advise the Secretary on product residue testing and 

emergency spray programs
National Organic Standards Board

National List

• Requirements while establishing proposed 

amendments: 

• Review available information on potential adverse 

human and environmental effects

• Obtain complete list of ingredients of considered 

substances from manufacturers to determine if it 

includes synthetic inert materials

• Submit to the Secretary results of Board’s 

evaluation and any technical advisory panel
National Organic Standards Board

National List

• Use seven specified evaluation criteria

• Detrimental chemical interactions

• Toxicity and mode of action, breakdown products, persistence in the environment

• Probability of environmental contamination during manufacture, use, 

• Effect of the substance on human health;

• The effects of the substance on biological and chemical interactions in the 

agroecosystem, 

• Alternatives to using the substance;

• Compatibility with a system of sustainable agriculture

• Establish procedures for receiving petitions to 

evaluate substances for inclusion on the List

• Conduct Sunset review of each substance on the List 

within five years of it being adopted or renewed
National Organic Standards Board 

and the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

29
Federal Advisory Committees 

• OFPA: Secretary has responsibility to establish the 

NOSB in accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) 

• FACA Committees are established for the purpose of 

obtaining advice or recommendations on issues or 

policies within the scope of an agency official’s 

responsibilities 

• Like the NOSB, many FACA Boards are statutory: 

In 2012, 141 of the 169 USDA Boards were statutory

• Federal advisory committees exist to advise and 

recommend, NOT to decide. 
FACA Committees Must Have.... 

• A charter with established mission and duties: 

The USDA renews the NOSB Charter every two years.

• Fair and balanced membership: The Secretary 

appoints NOSB members based on OFPA categories.

• A Designated Federal Official (DFO) for advisory 

committee and its subcommittees. FACA assigns a 

number of activities to the DFO. 

• Opportunity for reasonable participation by the 

public in advisory committee activities, subject to 

agency guidelines.

31
FACA Meeting Rules

• Open meetings with opportunity for public comment

• Any member of the public is permitted to file a written 

statement with advisory committee.

• Any member of the public may speak to or address 

advisory committee within appropriate guidelines.
Subcommittees Versus Committees 

• Subcommittee’s meetings must be conducted in 

accordance with FACA’s openness requirements IF

– Recommendations are made directly to the Federal 

agency, or 

– The parent advisory committee will adopt 

subcommittee recommendations without further 

deliberations 

• NOSB subcommittee proposals do not come directly to 

USDA – they come through the NOSB Full Committee. 

• This is why subcommittee calls are not currently open 

to the public. This is also why we call subcommittee 

products proposals rather than recommendations. 

33
Agency (AMS) Responsibilities

• Comply with FACA 

• Issue administrative guidelines and management controls 

that apply to advisory committees

• Designate a Committee Management Officer (CMO) and 

Designate a Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for each 

advisory committee and its subcommittees

• Provide a written determination stating the reasons for 

closing any advisory committee meeting to the public

• Review, at least annually, the need to continue each 

existing advisory committee, consistent with the public 

interest and the purpose of each advisory committee
Agency Responsibilities

• Determine that ...staff, experts and consultants to 

advisory committees are justified and levels of agency 

support are adequate

• Develop procedures to assure that the committee’s 

recommendations will not be inappropriately influenced 

by the appointing authority or by any special interest, but 

will instead be the result of the committee's independent 

judgment

• Assure that the interests and affiliations of advisory 

committee members are reviewed for conformance with 

applicable conflict of interest statutes, regulations issued 

by Office of Government Ethics including any supplemental 

agency requirements, and other Federal ethics rules
NOP Responsibilities

• AMS’s Designated Federal Officer (DFO) to the NOSB 

is the NOP Deputy Administrator:

– Calls, attends, and adjourns committee meetings 

– Develops and approves agendas

– Maintains required records and budgets

– Ensures efficient operations and adherence to 

FACA and other laws 

– Develops committee reports for the Committee 

Management Officer: We must submit an annual 

report on Board activities, meetings, and 

expenses. 
FACA and OFPA together

• OFPA doesn’t direct the NOSB to decide. 

• OFPA asks NOSB to: 

– Assist in development of Standards

– Provide recommendations 

– Evaluate substances

– Develop proposed National List and proposed 

amendments to the List for submission to the 

Secretary

• Secretary (authority delegated to AMS) retains 

decision-making and rulemaking authority 
Nominations Process Overview

The Board nomination process takes about 1 year: 

1. Prepare Federal Register call for nominations 

and outreach plan; complete clearance process 

2. Announce call for nominations – we target 

having announcement open 2 months 

3. Review applications for completeness and basic 

qualifications, i.e., fit in OFPA categories

4. Vet qualified candidates against exclusion 

criteria (examples: registered lobbyist; service 

on other Board)

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 38
Nominations Process Overview

The Board nomination process takes about 1 year:

6. Interview qualified and vetted candidates

7. Prepare slate and information summary about 

qualified and vetted candidates for Secretary 

consideration

8. Secretary selects appointee; appointee 

announced 

9. Term begins in January 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 39
Nomination Process Criteria 

A range of factors are considered in evaluating applicants: 

– OFPA categories of seats to be filled – mandatory 

– NOSB Recommendation on Criteria for Board 

Membership (1999) – More on this next slide! 

– Ability to work collaboratively with other Board 

members and USDA

– Ability to represent all racial and ethnic groups, 

women and men, and persons with disabilities. 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 40
NOSB Recommendations on Nominations 

Evaluation Criteria 

• In 1999, NOSB recommended criteria for Board 

membership – these criteria are on NOP’s nominations 

webpage, are in Federal Register announcements, and are 

used during candidate evaluation. 

• Criteria include: 

– Understanding of organic principles and practical 

experience in the organic community; 

– Experience in public policy; 

– Commitment to organic integrity; 

– Ability to evaluate technical information; 

– Willingness to commit time and energy needed;

– Demonstrated experience and interest in organic 

production and certification

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 41
NOSB CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

• UDSA is accepting nominations for new NOSB 

members! Members are appointed by USDA Secretary. 

• Five year term: January 2015 to January 2020. 

• USDA seeks nominations for the following seats:

 Individual with expertise in areas of environmental 

protection and resource conservation

 Organic Producer who owns or operates an organic 

operation

 Organic Handler who owns or operates an organic 

handling operation

 Retailer with significant trade in organic products

42

USDA Agricultural Marketing 

Service | National Organic 

Program
NOSB CALL FOR NOMINATIONS 

• Written nominations must include: 

cover letter, resume, and a required form 

(available on USDA website)

• Applications must be postmarked on or before 

May 15, 2014. 

• For more information 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOSBNomi

nationProcess 

USDA Agricultural Marketing 

Service | National Organic 

Program

43
Policy and Procedures Manual 

• The PPM is a valuable resource for the Board, NOP, 

and the public. 

• From 2002-2013, the PPM was developed by the 

Board with revisions open to public comment. 

• Moving forward, AMS will take a leadership role 

with the PPM. Content will include: 

– NOP policies and procedures related to the NOSB 

(e.g. conflict of interest)

– Existing PPM parts that are working well (keep)

– Updated PPM parts that need revision 

• NOP will consult with the Board through the NOSB 

Policy Development Subcommittee

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 44
Work plans: Background

1. AMS drives the priorities for what the board considers.

2. The public has a voice in this process: 

– Public may petition additions or deletions from the 

National List.

– Public may also submit comments to the Board and 

write to the NOP. 

3. FACA requires that agencies effectively use resources: 

we shouldn’t ask for advice we can’t act on.

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 45
Work plans: Criteria for Adding Work Plan Item

1. Within Scope: Item must be within the scope of 

OFPA and within agency authority.

2. USDA/NOP Priority: Item must be a priority for the 

USDA/NOP; and something that the NOP is able to 

implement in a reasonable timeframe. 

3. Clear Need: Item must reflect a clear need for the 

NOP and/or organic community, for which 

information or advice is needed. (If it is a need, but 

NOP has enough information, it doesn’t need to be 

on the work plan.) 

4. Clear Scope: NOP must have a clear sense of the 

intent and scope of the work plan item. 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 46
New Work plans items

Recent NOP memos to the NOSB on work plan items

1. Ancillary substances

2. Improved Guidance on Preventing GMO 

presence in Organic Products

3. Assessing soil conservation practices

Importance

• Memos are transparent to the public

• Indicate need for recommendation on topic

• Clarify parameters of the scope and authority of the 

work plan item

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 47
Public Meeting Agenda 

• Public meeting agenda prepared by NOP, driven by 

several factors: 

– Inclusion of work plan items that have yielded 

acceptable discussion documents or proposals 

– Reasonable time for public comments 

– Time for presentations and expert panels 

– Cost

• In the future, we may want to add a public prep 

meeting (webinar or face-to-face) so Board can review 

content of discussion documents and proposals 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 48
Public Meeting Management 

• Only two substantive changes to the public 

meeting are being implemented for Spring 2014: 

– Consistent with other FACA Boards, NOP is cochairing the Spring meeting. 

– Only minor adjustments to discussion 

documents and proposals will be allowed 

before voting. If public comments lead to 

substantive changes, the document is to go 

back to committee before voting. 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 49
Substantive Change

• Is a NOSB recommendation substantially different from the 

Subcommittee proposal on which it is based? Consider: 

• The extent to which a reasonable person affected by the 

recommendation would have understood that the 

published proposal would affect his or her interests;

• The extent to which the subject of the recommendation 

or the issues determined in it are substantially different 

from the subject or issues involved in the proposal; and

• The extent to which the effects of the recommendation 

differ from the effects of the proposal.

• The NOP Deputy Administrator or designee will determine 

whether a proposed amendment to a proposal would be a 

substantive change. Substantive change amendments will be 

referred back to the subcommittee for further consideration. 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 50
National Organic 

Standards Board

San Antonio, Texas

April 29-May 2, 2014