Scientific Area Committees

Organization of

F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 5 - F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6

f o r F O R E N S I C S C I E N C E
OSAC Annual Report i

February 2015 – February 2016

Letter from the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Two years ago NIST and OSAC began an effort to develop standards that would strengthen 

the practice of forensic science in the United States and around the world. OSAC members 

represent a remarkably broad array of stakeholders from the forensic science, legal, law 

enforcement, and research communities. Assembling leaders from these diverse disciplines 

and achieving consensus toward shared goals requires great perseverance. This effort is 

critical to the future of the criminal justice system and of the nation. Participating in this 

process is an honor I am proud to share with this community of more than 500 committee 

members. 

The first year of OSAC’s existence was spent on the preliminary work of identifying members, organizing 

committees, and developing rules. The second year—the year covered in this report—was when the real work of 

improving standards began. 

Given the number and diversity of people involved, and the need to achieve consensus, it is not surprising that 

OSAC experienced some growing pains during this year. I believe that the lessons learned and the procedural 

changes implemented have made OSAC a stronger organization and have paved a smoother path for the 

standards now moving toward approval.

I thank all of you who have volunteered your time, energy, talents, and insights to this effort. I also thank the 

many federal, state, and local government agencies, academic institutions, and criminal justice organizations that 

support the OSAC mission by authorizing their staff to participate. These contributions demonstrate that, within 

the forensic and criminal justice communities, science-based standards have deep and broad support. 

As we continue our work, it is easy to get caught up in the day-to-day details of organizational guidelines and 

processes. So it’s worth taking a moment, before you turn to the next page of this report, to reflect on the bigger 

picture. 

Today OSAC’s mission is more important than ever, as debates about fairness and equality in the criminal justice 

system reach new levels of intensity. These debates, unfortunately, are proving divisive. But science, by virtue of 

its objective ideals, can be a unifying force. Transparent, science-based standards can help ensure that all victims 

have access to justice and all accused are treated fairly. Such standards are important steps on the road to a 

more just society, one that is class- and color blind.

As members of OSAC, you are providing essential leadership that our citizens need. I ask you to stay the course, 

to continue this difficult but valuable work, and to remember how important your success is to the future of our 

nation. 

Thank you.

Dr. Willie E. May

Dr. Willie E. May
ii OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Message from the Director of OSAC Affairs 

Dear Colleagues, 

We are living in transformative times in the world of forensic science. The Organization of Scientific Area 

Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC) is playing a pivotal role in that transformation by helping to create 

high-quality, consensus-based forensic science standards that are fit-for-purpose and scientifically sound. The 

potential benefits to the criminal justice system are monumental. 

The 2009 National Research Council (NRC) Report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States—A Path 

Forward, led the current administration to form, that same year, the Subcommittee on Forensic Science (SoFS) 

under the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). This subcommittee convened nearly 

200 forensic science practitioners, crime laboratory managers, researchers and attorneys from federal, state, 

and local agencies to address the 13 recommendations in the NRC Report. As a consequence of subcommittee 

deliberations, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Department of Justice 

(DOJ) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in March 2013 that focused on providing national 

leadership to improve the quality of forensic science. 

The NIST–DOJ MOU led to the establishment of the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) to study 

forensic science policy issues and the OSAC to facilitate the creation of high-quality standards in order to 

strengthen the practice of forensic science. 

 

In its first full year of operation, OSAC has succeeded in forming the first-of-its-kind professional forensic 

science organization dedicated to facilitating the creation or strengthening of standards and guidelines across 

the entire spectrum of forensic science disciplines. OSAC consists of more than 540 members and hundreds of 

affiliates who have volunteered tens of thousands of hours to deliberate over more than 150 current standards 

and guidelines. OSAC enjoys unparalleled diversity in this new endeavor, which incorporates a full universe of 

stakeholders, including practitioners and laboratory managers, academic researchers, metrologists, statisticians, 

human factors experts, accreditation and standards development experts, judges, and attorneys. By tapping into 

a well-balanced proportion of representatives from federal, state, and local agencies and from the academic and 

private sector communities, OSAC has assembled members from 49 states and guests from more than a dozen 

countries to bring together the thought leaders recognized nationally and internationally for their experience 

and expertise. 

Without the actual adoption of standards into practice, there can be no measurable benefits or positive impacts 

on the criminal justice system. Therefore, the mission of OSAC also includes facilitating the implementation of 

the standards and guidelines that will be posted on the OSAC Registries. Fortunately, there are a number of 

actors and institutions that would encourage forensic science service providers to adopt and put into practice 

OSAC standards and guidelines. These include, among others: 
OSAC Annual Report iii

February 2015 – February 2016

• Crime laboratories and other forensic science service providers, which can decide on their own to 

incorporate OSAC standards into standard operating procedures. 

• Professional associations, which can issue policy statements encouraging adoption 

• The courts, where attorneys may begin demanding that forensic testing be done in accordance with 

standards on the OSAC Registry

• Accrediting bodies, which can issue standards such as International Organization for Standardization 

(ISO) 17025/20 supplemental standards or checklists 

• Funding bodies, which can both offer incentives to implement standards (the carrot) and can require 

OSAC standards implementation to access funding (the stick). 

I would like to express my gratitude to all of the OSAC members and affiliates who have contributed so much 

time and passion to this new undertaking. In the coming year, we hope to smooth the bumps in the road we 

experienced during our inaugural year of operations, to begin populating the OSAC Registries with high-quality 

standards, and to facilitate the implementation of those standards into the practice of forensic science. 

Sincerely, 

Mark D. Stolorow 

Director for OSAC Affairs at NIST 
iv OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Message from the Forensic Science Standards Board

In the opinion of the Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB), OSAC efforts to date have been a success. 

OSAC currently has hundreds of projects in the queue, including standards and guidelines intended for their 

respective registries, standards and guidelines on their way to a Standards Developing Organization (SDO), and 

numerous research needs that have been identified by OSAC subcommittees. In the last year, OSAC has also 

drawn the attention of international standards coordinating bodies, numerous U.S.-based forensic organizations, 

and federal grant funding agencies. 

The positive progress during the first full year of OSAC was not without operational challenges. While 

OSAC processes were developed to be transparent and thorough, we realized over the past year that further 

efficiencies and improvements could be gained. Additionally, ways to better facilitate collaboration between the 

various OSAC committees is a critical focus moving forward. 

With this focus in mind, OSAC recently held an OSAC Leadership Strategy Session on June 22, 2016. 

Three representatives from each OSAC committee attended, providing both written and verbal feedback on a 

series of strategic questions. This exercise ultimately resulted in 25 programmatic recommendations that are 

now under further consideration and analysis for potential implementation later this year.

The Forensic Science Standards Board. FSSB Members from top left: 

Anil Jain, PhD; Austin Hicklin, MS; Mark Keisler; Gregory Davis, MD; Barry Logan, PhD; Laurel Farrell; 

Steven Johnson; Richard Vorder Bruegge, PhD; Scott Oulton; from bottom left: Karen Kafadar, PhD; 

Sarah Kerrigan, PhD; Jeremy Triplett, MS; Mark Stolorow, MS, MBA; George Herrin Jr., PhD; 

Douglas Ubelaker, PhD; Andrew Baker, MD; Jose Almirall, PhD. 
OSAC Annual Report v

February 2015 – February 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Message from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Director.......................................... i 

Message from the Director of OSAC Affairs................................................................................................ ii 

Message from the Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB) .................................................................... iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 

2.0 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................................................................ 2

3.0 ABOUT OSAC...................................................................................................................................................... 3 

3.1 OSAC Structure and Membership........................................................................................................ 4 

3.1.1 Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB) .................................................................................... 5 

3.1.2 Scientific Area Committees (SACs)............................................................................................... 5 

3.1.3 Subcommittees............................................................................................................................ 5 

3.1.4 Resource Committees.................................................................................................................. 5 

3.2 About The OSAC Registries................................................................................................................. 13 

3.2.1 OSAC Standards vs. OSAC Guidelines ........................................................................................ 13 

3.3 OSAC: The Big Picture ........................................................................................................................ 13 

3.3.1 OSAC Leverages Existing Content When Possible...................................................................... 14 

3.3.2 OSAC Members Enhance Content ............................................................................................. 14 

3.3.3 First Goal: OSAC Partners with an SDO for Further Development............................................. 15 

3.3.4 Next Goal: OSAC Registry........................................................................................................... 15 

3.3.5 Final Goal: Implementation ....................................................................................................... 15 

3.4 OSAC History...................................................................................................................................... 16 

4.0 OSAC OUTPUTS: FEBRUARY 2015-FEBRUARY 2016......................................................................................... 17 

4.1: Overarching OSAC Activities.............................................................................................................. 17 

4.1.1 Increasing Interdisciplinary Forensic Science Discussions and Projects .................................... 17 

4.1.2 Clarifying Forensic Science Terminology.................................................................................... 18 

4.1.3 Identifying Research and Development Needs.......................................................................... 18 

4.1.4 The Forensic Science Community Further Embraces Standards Development......................... 19 

4.1.5 OSAC Launches a Monthly Newsletter ...................................................................................... 19 

4.1.6 OSAC Publishes Program Processes to Include Technical Merit Form....................................... 20 

4.2 OSAC Overall “By the Numbers” ........................................................................................................ 21 

4.3 OSAC By the Numbers – By Scientific Area Committees (SACs)......................................................... 22 

4.3.1 By the Numbers—Biology/DNA SAC.......................................................................................... 23 

4.3.2 By the Numbers—Crime Scene/Death Investigation SAC.......................................................... 23 

4.3.3 By the Numbers—Chemistry/Instrumental Analysis SAC .......................................................... 24 

4.3.4 By the Numbers—Physics/Pattern Interpretation SAC .............................................................. 25 

4.3.5 By the Numbers—Digital/Multimedia SAC................................................................................ 25 

5.0 OSAC INPUTS: INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLISHED OR REVISED PROCESSES, TRAINING, 

 AND MEETINGS FEBRUARY 2015-FEBRUARY 2016.......................................................................................... 26 

5.1 OSAC Infrastructure Updates.............................................................................................................. 27 

5.2 OSAC Published or Revised Processes ................................................................................................ 27 

5.3 OSAC Meetings................................................................................................................................... 27

5.4 OSAC Training...................................................................................................................................... 29 

6.0 EXTERNAL RELATIONS...................................................................................................................................... 30 

6.1 Public Meetings .................................................................................................................................. 30 

6.2 Public Outreach .................................................................................................................................. 31 

6.3 Collaborations with External Organizations........................................................................................ 32 

6.4 Strategic OSAC Member Positions...................................................................................................... 33 

7.0 OSAC Focus in 2017 ......................................................................................................................................... 33

8.0 OSAC Committee Highlights ............................................................................................................................ 34
OSAC Annual Report 1

February 2015 – February 2016

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC) is an initiative of the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The purpose of OSAC is 

to strengthen the nation’s use of forensic science by: 

• Providing technical leadership that facilitates the development and promulgation of consensus-based 

documentary standards and guidelines for forensic science; 

• Promoting standards and guidelines that are fit-for-purpose and based on sound scientific principles; 

• Promoting the use of OSAC standards and guidelines by accreditation and certification bodies; 

• Establishing and maintaining working relationships with similar organizations. 

This annual report documents OSAC’s program activities and accomplishments for the twelve-month period 

ending February, 2016. In this timeframe, OSAC has: 

• Increased interdisciplinary forensic science discussions; 

• Published Version 1 of major OSAC processes and shared process documents with the public; 

• Worked on 155 different draft standards and guidelines projects related to forensic science; 

• Posted one standard to the OSAC Registry of Approved Standards. 

This report begins with messages from the Director of NIST, the Director of OSAC Affairs at NIST, and the Forensic 

Science Standards Board (FSSB). Sections 1 through 5 of this report describe this report’s purpose, provide more 

information on OSAC, and describe the OSAC program’s inputs and outputs. The report describes the OSAC 

structure and history, and provides a description of the activities undertaken to maintain OSAC operations. 

Section 6 highlights OSAC’s efforts to engage, coordinate with, and solicit feedback from the broader forensic 

science community. Section 7 provides an overview of OSAC’s focus in 2017, which will include addressing some 

challenges we encountered within the last year. The report concludes with Section 8, which provides an overview 

of each of the OSAC committees, and lists the names (or in some cases draft names) of the 155 separate 

standards and guidelines projects each committee is working on. 

We hope you find this annual report useful. If you have questions about this report or about OSAC, please 

contact us at forensics@nist.gov. 

The OSAC Annual Report was produced by the office of OSAC Affairs at NIST, with input from the FSSB and the 

OSAC committee chairs. Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this report to 

foster understanding. Such identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best 

available for the purpose. Contact forensics@nist.gov with comments or general inquiries. 
2 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

2.0 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

The OSAC program has a broad and varied list of stakeholders who have an interest in OSAC activities and 

outcomes. These stakeholders include: 

• More than 540 OSAC members as of 

February 2016 

• OSAC affiliates 

• Forensic science service providers 

• Private sector manufacturers and service 

vendors supplying forensic science providers 

• Accrediting bodies 

• Certifying bodies 

• Representatives of the criminal justice system 

• Representatives of the legal system 

(judges, prosecution, and defense) 

• Professional forensic science organizations 

• Other professional scientific organizations 

• Existing and historical Scientific Working 

Groups (SWGs) 

• International and national standards developing organizations

• Federal, state, and local government agencies 

(including thousands of state and local law enforcement agencies) 

• Academia 

• Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 

• NIST 

• DOJ

• The public. 

The primary purpose of this report is to summarize OSAC program status, metrics, activities, and 

accomplishments from February 2015 to February 2016, and to share this information with all OSAC 

stakeholders. This report also provides a snapshot of the bigger OSAC picture, including an overview of OSAC, 

a timeline with details on program development and early operations, and a discussion of what to expect from 

OSAC in the years to come. 

Figure 1. OSAC Meeting January 2016. Quality Infrastructure 

Committee (QIC) representative Barbara Andree provides training 

on OSAC Processes to OSAC membership in January 2016.
OSAC Annual Report 3

February 2015 – February 2016

3.0 ABOUT OSAC 

OSAC is an initiative of NIST and DOJ to strengthen forensic science in the United States. OSAC’s purpose is to 

strengthen the practice of forensic science by: 

• Providing technical leadership that 

facilitates the development and 

promulgation of consensus-based 

documentary standards and guidelines 

for forensic science 

• Promoting standards and guidelines 

that are fit-for-purpose and based on 

sound scientific principles 

• Promoting the use of OSAC standards 

and guidelines by accreditation and certification bodies 

• Establishing and maintaining working relationships with other similar organizations. 

The aims of OSAC are to: 

• Populate the OSAC Registry of Approved Standards and the OSAC Registry of Approved Guidelines

• Develop and maintain the Principles of Professional Practice (formerly called the Forensic Science 

Code of Practice) 

• Compile and update the OSAC Catalog of External Standards and Guidelines 

• Maintain Priority Action Plan documents on OSAC strategic objectives and associated goals and 

intended actions 

• Promote and improve the communication, dissemination, and use of forensic science standards, 

accreditation, and personnel competencies 

• Encourage forensic science service providers in the United States to implement guidelines and 

standards (e.g., International Organization for Standardization [ISO]/IEC 17025, etc.) for quality 

and competency 

• Provide insight on the research and measurement standard needs of each forensic science discipline

• Enlist stakeholder involvement from a broad community to provide public comment on OSAC outputs. 

OSAC outputs, or “deliverables,” include: 

• Draft standards and guidelines submitted to standards developing organizations (SDOs) for consideration 

• Further inputs to SDOs on further draft development

• Final standards and guidelines subsequently published by the SDOs (in part due to OSAC inputs) 

• Standards and guidelines posted to the OSAC Registry of Approved Standards or the OSAC Registry 

 of Approved Guidelines

• Published research and development needs that emerge during these standards discussions. 

In adherence with the OSAC charter, OSAC efforts are reported annually, most recently at the February 22-23, 

2016 American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting. Video recordings and slide decks of Subcommittee Priority Action Reports are available online at: http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/nist-scientific-area-committee-meetings-february-2016.cfm. 

OSAC Core Principles:

All standards and guidelines approved for inclusion on 

the OSAC Registries must be developed by a process 

that follows these four core OSAC principles: 

• Openness 

• Balance 

• Consensus 

• Harmonization 
4 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

3.1 OSAC Structure and Membership

OSAC is a multi-level organization consisting of five Scientific Area Committees (SACs) that report to a Forensic 

Science Standards Board (FSSB). Each of the five SACs oversees several discipline-specific subcommittees. Three 

Resource Committees provide input to OSAC. OSAC structure and membership include (as of February 2016): 

• 543 members 

• 243 affiliates 

• 49 states represented 

• 210 task groups 

• 2172 applications to participate. 

OSAC contains members and affiliates. Members have voting rights and affiliates can participate in task groups 

and provide subject matter expertise, but do not have voting rights.

Figure 2. OSAC Organizational Chart. OSAC is a multi-level organization consisting of five SACs that report to 

the FSSB. Each of the five SACs oversees several discipline-specific subcommittees. Three Resource 

Committees provide input to OSAC.
OSAC Annual Report 5

February 2015 – February 2016

3.1.1 Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

The FSSB includes fi ve members who represent the research community, fi ve members who chair the SACs, six 

members who represent nati onal professional forensic science organizati ons, and one ex offi cio member. The 

FSSB oversees OSAC’s 3 resource committ ees, 5 SACs and 25 subcommitt ees. 

3.1.2 Scienti fi c Area Committ ees (SACs)

The OSAC SACs direct and coordinate the work performed by the OSAC discipline-specifi c subcommitt ees. They 

channel the work and acti viti es of the subcommitt ees to the FSSB, and interface with resource committ ees on 

human factors, and legal and quality issues. 

3.1.3 Subcommitt ees 

The subcommitt ees perform much of the technical work, 

focusing on specifi c forensic science disciplines. These 

subcommitt ees propose consensus documentary standards for 

adopti on by the SACs and ulti mately the FSSB.

3.1.4 Resource Committ ees 

The OSAC includes three resource committ ees. The Human 

Factors Committ ee (HFC) is composed of nine psychology and 

usability experts who provide guidance throughout OSAC on 

the infl uence of systems design on human performance and 

ways to miti gate errors in complex tasks. The Legal Resource 

Committ ee (LRC) is composed of 11 judges, lawyers, and legal 

experts who provide guidance throughout OSAC about the legal 

ramifi cati ons of forensic standards under development and 

input on presentati on of forensic science 

results to the legal system. The Quality Infrastructure 

Committ ee (QIC) is composed of 15 standards experts, quality 

systems managers, laboratory managers, and accreditati on and 

certi fi cati on specialists who are responsible for providing input 

throughout OSAC on quality issues related to standards and 

informati on on how specifi c standards will impact laboratory operati ons. 

The OSAC infrastructure was created to have balance and input from various perspecti ves. Figure 4 describes the 

OSAC membership in terms of employer classifi cati on and job classifi cati on. 

13

3.1.2 Scientific Area Committees (SACs)

The OSAC SACs provide direction and coordination for the w

discipline-specific subcommittees. They channel the work an

to the FSSB, and interface with resource committees on hum

3.1.3 Subcommittees

The subco

technical w

science dis

propose co

for adoptio

FSSB.

3.1.4 Reso

The Huma

composed 

experts wh

OSAC on th

human pe

errors in co

Committee 

judges, law

guidance t

ramifications 

development 

forensic science results to the legal system. The Quality Infra

composed of 15 standards experts, quality systems manage

accreditation and certification specialists who are responsib

OSAC on quality issues related to standards and information 

impact laboratory operations.

The OSAC infrastructure was created to have balance and in

Figure 4 describes the OSAC membership in terms of emplo

classification. 

Figure 3. OSAC Responsibilities. The OSAC units have 

varying responsibilities.

Figure 3. OSAC Responsibilities. The OSAC units 

(depicted in Figure 2) have varying responsibilities.
6 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Figure 4. OSAC Members, Employer and Job Classifi cation. The OSAC infrastructure was created 

to have balance and input from various perspectives.

543 OSAC Members Total

FEDERAL GO

27%

VERNMENT 

STATE GOVERN

18%

MENT

20% LOCAL GOVERNMENT

 17%

PRIVATE SECTOR

 17%

ACADEMIC

1% FFRDC 

543 OSAC Members Total Federally-Funded 

Research and 

Development Center

2015 to 2016 Change: Locals up 1%; FFRDC down 1%

543 OSAC Membe Total

EDUCATOR/TRAINER 9%

OTHER 9%

RESEARCHER 19%

R&D TECH PARTNER 2%

Q&A MANAGER 2%

ATTORNEY2%

57% PRACTITIONER JUDGE0.5%
OSAC Annual Report 7

February 2015 – February 2016

OSAC membership primarily is held by individuals, not the organizations with which they are associated. 

However, OSAC members do reflect a diversity of perspectives as reflected in the approximately 330 

organizations with which they are affiliated. These organizations, current as of February 2016, are listed in Table 1. 

OSAC also strategically recruits members from associations such as the American Society of Crime Laboratory 

Directors (ASCLD), the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), Society of Forensic Toxicologists, Inc. 

(SOFT), the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners (AFTE), the National Association of Medical 

Examiners (NAME), and the International Association for Identification (IAI). Information related to these 

external relations can be found in Section 6.4. 

2visualize, Inc. Aware Inc.

Agilent Technologies Baltimore County Police Department Forensic Services 

Section

Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences BEK TEK LLC

Alaska Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Albuquerque Police Department Crime Laboratory Bentley University

American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) Bevel, Gardner & Associates (BGA)

American Dental Association (ADA) Bexar County Texas Criminal Investigation Laboratory

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Bioaeronautical Research Laboratory, Federal Aviation 

Administration

American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD)/LAB Black & White Forensics, LLC

AMK9 Academy Bode Technology

ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board Boston University

Arapahoe County Coroner's Office Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University

Arcadia University Broward Sheriff's Office Crime Laboratory

Arizona Department of Public Safety Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

Arizona State University Bureau of Criminal Apprehension FS Laboratory

Arizona Supreme Court Cadre Research Labs

Arkansas Children's Hospital California Department of Justice

Arkansas State Crime Laboratory California State University

Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL) Carman & Associates Fire Investigation, Inc.

Armstrong Forensic Laboratory, Inc. Carnegie Mellon University

Auburn University Cedar Crest College

OSAC Member Organizations

Table 1. OSAC Member Organizations
8 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National 

Center for Health Statistics Glendale Police Department

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Goodson Engineering

Chaminade University of Honolulu Grayson Singley Associates, LLC

D.C. Department of Forensic Sciences Green Forensics Inc.

Dallas County Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Hamilton County Coroner's Office

Defense Cyber Crime Center, Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences

Denver Colorado District Attorney's Office Hawaii K-9 Koncepts

Department of Forensic Sciences, District of Columbia Hennepin County

Department of Health and Human Services - National 

Disaster Medical System Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office

District 12 Medical Examiner Office Higgins & Associates, International

DNA Solutions Hinman Consulting Engineers

DuPage County Sheriff's Office Honolulu Police Department

East Tennessee State University Houston Forensic Science Center, Inc.

Eastern Kentucky University Hughes Associates Fire Science and Engineering

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Human Identification Laboratory of Colorado

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Idaho State Police Forensic Services

Florida Department of Law Enforcement Ideal Innovations Inc.

Florida International University Illinois State Police

Foray Technologies Immunalysis Corporation

Forensic Document Examination Services, LLC Independent Consultant

Forensic Research, LLC Independent Forensic Pathologist for Illinois Coroners and 

Consultant

Forensic Science Consultants Inc. Indiana State Police Laboratory

Franklin, Jefferson and Saint Charles Counties Medical 

Examiner Offices Indiana University, Bloomington

GE Healthcare Intel Corporation

George Mason University International Commission on Missing Persons

George Washington University International Forensic Experts LLC

George Washington University Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation Criminalistics 

Laboratory

Georgia Bureau of Investigation Iowa State University

Gerry I. Loewe, DDS & Franklin D. Wright, DMD, Inc. Iron Mountain

GexCon US ITC Services

OSAC Member Organizations
OSAC Annual Report 9

February 2015 – February 2016

Jackson County Kansas City Medical Examiner’s Office McCrone Associates, Inc.

Jackson County Kansas City Missouri Prosecutor's Office Mercyhurst University

Jefferson County Alabama Coroner Methodist University

JEOL USA, Inc. Miami Valley Regional Crime Laboratory

John Jay College of Criminal Justice Miami-Dade Police Department

Johns Hopkins University Michigan State Police

Johnson County Sheriff's Office Criminalistics Laboratory Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division

Kansas Bureau of Investigation Michigan State University

Kansas City Missouri Police Department Microtrace LLC

Kentucky State Police Middle Tennessee State University

Kentucky State Police Forensic Laboratory Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension

Kentucky State University Mississippi Crime Laboratory

Lake County Crime Laboratory Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Laboratory

Las Vegas Nevada Metropolitan Police Department MIT Lincoln Laboratory

Leviton Mfg. Co. Inc. MITRE

Los Angeles County California Department of Medical 

Examiner-Coroner Montana Forensic Science Division

Los Angeles County California Public Defender Montgomery County Maryland Police Department

Los Angeles County California Sheriff Department MorphoTrak, LLC

Los Angeles California Police Department Nassau County office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Latent 

Print Section

Louisiana State Police Nassau County Office of the Medical Examiner

Louisiana State University – LSUHSC – School of Dentistry National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Office of Inspector General Computer Crimes Division

Maine State Police Crime Laboratory National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)

Mandiant National Forensic Support Laboratory

Marquette University School of Dentistry National Institute of Health (NIH) National Institute on Drug 

Abuse (NIDA)

Marshall University National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Martin Forensics, LLC 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/

National Marine Fisheries Service/Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center Forensics Laboratory

Maryland State Police-Forensic Sciences Division, Biology 

Section National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

Massachusetts State Police Forensic Services Group Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)

OSAC Member Organizations
10 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

NetBio, Inc. Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation

Neufeld, Scheck, & Brustin, LLC Onondaga County Center for Forensic Sciences

New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator Orange County California Crime Laboratory/Orange County 

Sheriff 

New York City (NYC) Office of Chief Medical Examiner, 

Department of Forensic Biology Oregon State Police

New York State Police Osborn & Son

New York University (NYU) Langone Medical Center Palm Beach County Florida Sheriff's Office

NMS Labs Palm Beach County Florida Sheriff's Office Crime Laboratory

NMS Labs/Fredric Reiders Family Renaissance Foundation Paul Erwin Kish Forensic Consultant & Associates

Noblis Pennsylvania State Police 

North Carolina Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (NCOCME) Pennsylvania State University

North Carolina State Crime Laboratory Pennsylvania State University

North Carolina State University Pierce County Sheriff's Department

North East Forensics, LLC Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory

Northcentral University Purdue University

Northeastern Illinois Regional Crime Laboratory Raytheon BBN Technologies

Northeastern University – Barnett Institute of Chemical 

and Biological Analysis, Dept. of Chemistry and Chemical 

Biology

Redwood Toxicology Laboratory

Northern Colorado Regional Forensic Laboratory Resolution Video Inc.

Northern Kentucky University Richland County

Northwestern University Riley Welch LaPorte & Associates Forensic Laboratories

Nuance Communications RSI

NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner RTI International

NYC Police Department – Police Laboratory Sacramento County California District Attorney’s Office – 

Laboratory of Forensic Services

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Sam Houston State University

Oakland Police Department Criminalistics Laboratory San Bernardino County California Sheriff’s Department – 

Scientific Investigations Division

Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Norfolk, Virginia San Diego California Police Department

Office of the Chief Medical Examiner Maryland San Diego California Police Department – Crime Laboratory

Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation San Francisco California Police Department Crime Lab

Ohio Division of State Fire Marshal Forensic Lab San Jose State University

OSAC Member Organizations
OSAC Annual Report 11

February 2015 – February 2016

Sandia National Laboratories SUNY at Buffalo

Santa Clara University Target Corporation

Sarasota County Florida Sheriff's Office Tarrant County Texas Medical Examiner's Office

Schwarz Forensic Enterprises, Inc., Tennessee Task Force One – FEMA

Scientific Fire Analysis, LLC Texas Department of Public Safety 

Scottsdale Arizona Police Department Crime Laboratory Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory

S-E-A, Ltd. Texas Forensic Science Commission

Seattle Washington Police Department Texas State Fire Marshal's Office

Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center TransPerfect Legal Solutions

Seminole County Sheriff's Office Travelers

Smithsonian Institution Travis County Medical Examiner's Office

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division Tucson Police Department Crime Laboratory

South Dakota State University U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI)

Southern Illinois University U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory

Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences at Dallas U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters

Spokane County, Washington U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory (USACIL), 

Defense Forensic Science Center

SRI International U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP)

St. Joseph County Sheriff's Department U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Laboratories and 

Scientific Services Directorate

State of California U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Joint POW/MIA 

Accounting Command, Central Identification Laboratory

State of Connecticut U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Ames Laboratory

State of Florida/Dept. of Financial Services/Division of State 

Fire Marshal

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of 

Research Integrity; Division of Investigative Oversight

State of Michigan Department of State Police Forensic 

Science Division U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

State of Minnesota, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, 

Forensic Science Laboratory U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Dental 

Medicine

U.S. DHS – Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)/

Homeland Security Investigations Forensic Lab

State's Attorney for Harford County Maryland U.S. DHS Science & Technology (S&T)

Stevenson University U.S. DOJ, US Attorney's Office District of Connecticut

Stoney Forensic, Inc. U.S. DOJ, US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 

California

OSAC Member Organizations
12 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) University of Southern California: Gould School of Law, and 

Department of Psychology

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / National Fish and Wildlife 

Forensics Laboratory University of Texas at Dallas

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – Forensic 

Chemistry Center

University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio 

and Bexar County Medical Examiner's Office

U.S. Navy University of Virginia 

U.S. Postal Inspection Service University of Washington

U.S. Secret Service US. Dept. of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of 

Law Enforcement

University of Alabama at Birmingham Utah Bureau of Forensic Services

University of California Davis Veterinary Genetics 

Laboratory Forensic Unit Vermont Forensic Laboratory 

University of California, Irvine Virginia Commonwealth University

University of Central Florida Virginia Department of Forensic Science

University of Denver Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

University of Florida Washington State Patrol

University of Georgia Washington State Patrol Crime Lab

University of Illinois at Chicago Wayne County Medical Examiner

University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Department 

of Pathology Weld County Sheriff's Office

University of Kentucky West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory

University of Maine West Virginia University

University of Massachusetts Medical School, Drugs of 

Abuse Laboratory Western Michigan University School of Medicine

University of Michigan Law School Westport Dental Associates/Columbia University

University of New Haven Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory – Wausau

University of North Texas (UNT) Health Science Center, UNT 

Center for Human Identification Wyoming Game and Fish Department

University of Notre Dame Wyoming State Crime Laboratory

University of Pennsylvania Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory - Wausau

University of Rhode Island Wyoming Game and Fish Department

University of South Carolina, Department of Chemistry and 

Biochemistry Wyoming State Crime Laboratory

OSAC Member Organizations
OSAC Annual Report 13

February 2015 – February 2016

3.2 About the OSAC Registries 

The OSAC Registry of Approved Standards and the OSAC Registry of Approved Guidelines were developed to 

support OSAC’s primary goal: to identify and promote technically sound, consensus-based, fit-for-purpose 

documentary standards that are based on rigorous scientific principles. A standard or guideline may be posted 

to these OSAC Registries after an assessment by forensic practitioners, academic researchers, measurement 

scientists, and statisticians finds that the methods contained in the standard are valid. These standards and 

guidelines are developed through a consensus development process that allows participation and comment 

from a cross-section of stakeholders.

Before being approved for posting on the OSAC Registries, standards and guidelines are analyzed using the 

criteria specified in a formal process called The OSAC Registry Approval Process of Published Standards and 

Guidelines. This process includes an analysis of technical merit and the potential impact on the forensic science 

community, and also ensures the openness of the development process, a balance of interest/representation, 

consensus, and harmonization. Multiple levels of OSAC evaluate recommended standards and guidelines against 

these criteria. If the criteria are met, OSAC proceeds with an open comment period to solicit feedback from all 

stakeholders in the public. OSAC reviews and adjudicates all public comments received and then considers the 

feedback when voting whether or not to approve the standard or guideline for inclusion on OSAC Registries. For 

more information, visit: https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-science/registry-approval-process-templates. 

Many standards and guidelines exist that are not recommended and/or approved for the OSAC Registries. This 

does not necessarily mean that OSAC is invalidating their use. The absence of a standard or guideline on the 

OSAC Registries simply means that it either has not yet been recommended or it meets only some of the OSAC 

criteria.

3.2.1 OSAC Standards vs. OSAC Guidelines

As generally defined by OSAC, a standard “specifies uniform methods, actions, practices, processes, or protocols. 

Compliance [is] mandatory and modified only under unusual circumstances,” and a guideline “strongly 

recommend[s]... methods, actions, practices, or processes to consider in absence of applicable standards [or] 

best practices that [are] not required.”1

 One distinction between an “OSAC Standard” vs. an “OSAC Guideline” 

is that approved OSAC standards contain mandatory actions, whereas approved OSAC guidelines contain 

recommended actions. OSAC itself does not have the authority to require or enforce compliance with OSAC 

documents on the OSAC Registries. Any enforcement will come in the future when OSAC Registry documents 

are incorporated into a laboratory or forensic science provider’s quality manuals and/or procedures, or when 

laboratories specifically ask to be accredited to relevant OSAC Registry documents in their scope of accreditation. 

3.3 OSAC: The Big Picture2

From a big picture view, there are five steps in preparing, producing, and using information on the OSAC Registry 

of Approved Standards and/or the OSAC Registry of Approved Guidelines. Figure 5 and the accompanying 

description provide a big-picture view of OSAC efforts.

1 For the most recent standards/guidelines definitions, visit http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/osac-registries.cfm. 2 A variation of this section, written by John M. Butler, Ph.D. (NIST Fellow & Special Assistant to the Director for Forensic Science), 

was originally published in the February 2016 OSAC newsletter.
14 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

3.3.1 OSAC Leverages Existi ng Content When Possible 

OSAC leverages existi ng content for the foundati on of most OSAC projects, if such content exists. The OSAC 

Catalog of External Standards and Guidelines (located at this site: htt p://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/standards-guidelines-catalog.cfm) was compiled by NIST staff in 2015 in an eff ort to bring together existi ng standards, guidelines, and best practi ces. The catalog includes the numerous documents produced over the years by 

Scienti fi c Working Groups (SWGs). Of the 719 documents listed in the initi al 2015 OSAC catalog, 344 are from 

20 diff erent SWGs. In additi on, there are over 300 documents from SDOs, of which there are approximately 140 

ASTM Internati onal documents. OSAC reviewed this existi ng content in January 2015 to select items as the starting point for OSAC standards and worked with the original authors of the documents on copyright/permissions. 

These SDO documents have been through a reasonable standards developing process, but may not have been 

previously vett ed to the quality level desired for being included on the OSAC Registry. For example, the SWG documents may have been technically competent but not vett ed to the widest audience possible to ensure balance.

3.3.2 OSAC Members Enhance Content 

The OSAC subcommitt ee membership includes academic researchers, stati sti cians, and measurement scienti sts to help infuse a deeper scienti fi c viewpoint on discussions and documents. Feedback from three resource 

committ ees within OSAC provides further input to strengthen documents in areas involving quality, laboratory 

impact, legal ramifi cati ons, and human factor aspects of guidance materials being developed. Some OSAC Subcommitt ees elect to submit content that is sti ll in the idea phase to the SDO technical working group and allow 

the SDO to build the document. Others elect to submit more mature draft s to the SDOs. These variati ons are due 

to the availability of existi ng content, as well as the availability of the SDO’s resources. 

Figure 5. A Big Picture View of OSAC Efforts. The OSAC is one entity within a community working towards improved 

forensic science standards and guidelines.

SWG Documents 

ASTM Standards 

Other Published Standards

A BIG PICTURE VIEW OF OSAC EFFORTS

Provides Initi al 

Starti ng Material

Creates High-Quality 

Guidance Materials

Turns OSAC Materials 

Into Standards

OSAC CATALOG

(719 Documents Initi ally Compiled)

NCFS 

(Nati onal Commission on Forensic Science)

Universal Accreditati on 

Recommendati on to DOJ

DOJ Requires Accreditati on

Standards Developing Organizati on 

SDO

Accrediti ng Bodies Audit 

Forensic Laboratories 

(providing “teeth” to standards)

OSAC REGISTRY

of Approved Standards

OVERALL GOAL of OSAC REGISTRY: 

Provide trusted discipline-specifi c standards 

(and guidelines) that accrediti ng bodies can 

use to audit accredited laboratories 
OSAC Annual Report 15

February 2015 – February 2016

3.3.3 First Goal: OSAC Partners with an SDO for Further Development 

OSAC is not a legal entity and does not have the authority to create voluntary consensus standards by itself, 

nor is OSAC an SDO in the true sense of the term. NIST, which currently administers OSAC, follows the federal 

government standards policy known as the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) 

and the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular A-119, last updated in 1998. Therefore, in order 

to turn OSAC documents into formal, recognized standards, OSAC needs to partner with SDOs. SDOs use 

consensus bodies of interested stakeholders to evaluate or create standards. It is important to point out that 

OSAC members may (and should) be part of an SDO’s consensus body to help shepherd a document through the 

process.

The SDO’s processes should be characterized by openness, a lack of dominance, and a balance of interests. 

Furthermore, these processes should coordinate and harmonize existing documentary standards; should require 

notification of standards development (i.e., a public comment period) to enable participation by anyone who 

may be affected by the standard; and should include careful consideration of views and objections raised by all 

participants, a consensus vote, and an appeals process.

3.3.4 Next Goal: OSAC Registry 

The OSAC Registry of Approved Standards and OSAC Registry of Approved Guidelines are intended to serve as 

a trusted repository of high-quality standards to address discipline-specific requirements. Standards under 

consideration for inclusion on the Registries must meet the requirements for both process and technical merit. 

3.3.5 Final Goal: Implementation 

Holding forensic laboratories and other forensic service providers to the details present in documentary 

standards is the final step in our OSAC big picture view. This is the step in which accrediting bodies assess 

the capabilities of forensic science laboratories and, if accredited, audit them. This step gives “teeth” to the 

standards. Current accrediting bodies in the forensic science world include the American Society of Crime 

Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB), the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board 

(ANAB), and the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). A representative from each of these 

organizations sits on the Quality Infrastructure Resource Committee of OSAC.

When OSAC was being designed, the NIST team met with representatives of these accrediting bodies and several 

others interested in forensic accreditation. The attending representatives agreed that if OSAC were to build 

a system to create and promote quality standards, then they (the accrediting bodies) would identify how to 

best incorporate these standards in their future conformity assessment of forensic science laboratories. While 

accredited laboratories and providers are audited today to ISO/IEC 17025 and other standards, there are very 

few discipline-specific documentary standards against which the laboratories can be audited. Currently, the use 

of forensic science standards is not required by law. The only exception are forensic DNA laboratories that are 

held to the FBI Quality Assurance Standards due to the Congressional mandate of the DNA Identification Act of 

1994.
16 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

The OSAC implementation plan identifies other approaches to encourage the adoption of the standards/guidelines placed on OSAC Registries by the forensic science industry. OSAC is also working directly with federal 

stakeholders to influence the adoption of OSAC standards in federal laboratories. Furthermore, OSAC encourages 

individual laboratories to consider self-adoption of standards and guidelines found on the OSAC Registries into 

their laboratory operations. 

3.4 OSAC History

OSAC organizers spent most of 2014 developing the OSAC infrastructure—defining roles and responsibilities, 

collecting and vetting applicants, appointing members, and planning meetings. OSAC then shifted into operating 

mode in 2015. The timeline of OSAC invention, development, and early operations is described in Table 2. 

Table 2. OSAC Timeline of Events Prior to February 2015

Aug 2010 White House National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Forensic Science (SoFS) 

proposes that a Scientific Working Group (SWG) Program Management Office be established 

and run by NIST in order to coordinate the activities of individual SWGs.

Feb 2013 DOJ and NIST announce plans to form the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) 

as a federal advisory group to DOJ, and to establish scientific guidance groups that will be 

administered by NIST.

June 2013 NIST meets with the chairs of current SWGs to discuss potential structures for an organization to 

house the guidance groups.

Sept to Nov 

2013

NIST gathers information from a public Notice of Inquiry posted in the Federal Register 

regarding guidance groups; receives 82 responses.

Figure 6. The Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB) deliberates on OSAC business at a meeting held at the Kentucky State Police 

Central Forensic Laboratory in Frankfort in April 2016.
OSAC Annual Report 17

February 2015 – February 2016

Feb 2014 At the first NCFS meeting, NIST announces a proposed structure for the scientific guidance 

groups called the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC).

Feb 2014 NIST provides a detailed description of the planned OSAC infrastructure at the American 

Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) meeting in Seattle (and via webcast). 

Mar 2014 to 

Nov 2014

Outreach presentations sharing planned OSAC structure are given at numerous scientific & 

professional meetings.

April & May 

2014

Initial 30-day application period results in over 1300 applicants to positions within OSAC.

June 2014 Members of the Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB) are appointed.

July 2014 Members of the Legal Resource Committee (LRC), Quality Infrastructure Committee (QIC), 

and Human Factors Committee (HFC) are appointed.

Aug 2014 FSSB holds first in-person meeting.

Sept 2014 Members of the five Scientific Area Committees (SACs) are appointed.

Oct 2014 Members of the 23 OSAC subcommittees are appointed.

Dec 2014 Members of the digital evidence subcommittee are appointed.

Jan 2015 Subcommittees hold first in-person meetings and first review of existing forensic science 

standards and guidelines. 

Feb 2015 OSAC meets with accrediting bodies and major forensic science organizations.

4.0 OSAC OUTPUTS: FEBRUARY 2015-FEBRUARY 2016

OSAC’s primary role is to promote and coordinate consensus standards and guidelines within the forensic science 

community that have a technically valid and reliable basis. OSAC has been engaging in overarching and strategic 

activities related to this role, as well as focusing on 155 separate standards and guidelines projects for potential 

publishing through an SDO and/or eventual inclusion on an OSAC Registry. This section describes the discussions 

and efforts from February 2015-February 2016 that the OSAC has helped to facilitate. See Section 8 for the details and names of the specific 155 standards/guidelines under development and/or consideration. 

4.1: Overarching OSAC Activities

4.1.1 Increasing Interdisciplinary Forensic Science Discussions and Projects 

One benefit of OSAC has been the interdisciplinary interaction offered through the OSAC infrastructure, which 

includes a broad spectrum of forensic science disciplines. OSAC meetings offer a forum for forensic practitioners, 

the legal community, government agencies, statisticians, metrologists, academicians, and standards organizations to work together. Chairs and practitioners have reported that collaboration, both within and between the 

various committees, offers benefits, insights, and new perspectives.

Additionally, the OSAC infrastructure has provided members and affiliates with a greater understanding of 

how practices vary across disciplines, and members have already identified opportunities where disciplines 

can leverage each other’s scientific successes. For example, the Physics/Pattern SAC is working on a standard 
18 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

framework for expressing source conclusions for potential 

use by multiple disciplines. The goal is to develop and refine a 

working draft document into a standard framework that can 

achieve consensus and be implemented in the field.

 

Lastly, the OSAC implementation plan identifies multiple 

approaches to encourage the adoption of the standards/

guidelines placed on OSAC registries by the forensic science 

industry. The strength of OSAC is that, as a single organization 

encompassing multiple forensic science disciplines, it can lead a unified effort to develop and promote enforceable 

standards and can broaden the impact these standards have in the practice of forensic science. 

4.1.2 Clarifying Forensic Science Terminology

OSAC is compiling for internal use a document of all terminology identified by SACs, resource committees, and 

relevant task groups that will clarify the meaning of various terms and achieve uniformity where possible. This 

initial effort will help to identify discrepancies or dual meanings for particular terms that could use clarification 

both within and between disciplines. 

4.1.3 Identifying Research and Development Needs 

OSAC also recognizes that due to its unique makeup of academic scholars, legal professionals, laboratory managers, and forensic science practitioners, it is well-positioned to inform the community of research and development needs that are identified during the course of standards and guidelines development and promotion. In 

order to share these identified research needs with the public, OSAC regularly publishes a list of recommended 

research and development needs that include inputs from the all of the 25 subcommittees and 5 SACs.

These recommendations may be considered 

by other agencies and organizations as they 

develop their own priorities and solicit funding 

for forensic science research. In addition, funding agencies may find these recommendations 

useful as they develop new solicitations. 

The process to coordinate these identified 

research needs was implemented in October, 

2015. The current list of research needs is 

located on the OSAC website here: http://www.

nist.gov/forensics/osac/osac-research-development-needs.cfm.

The Physics/Pattern SAC is working on a 

standard framework for expressing source 

conclusions for potential use by multiple 

disciplines. The goal is to develop and refine 

a working draft document into a standard 

framework that can achieve consensus and 

be implemented in the field.
OSAC Annual Report 19

February 2015 – February 2016

4.1.4 The Forensic Science Community Further 

Embraces Standards Development

Since OSAC was launched, the forensic science 

community has further embraced the need for a 

more formal standards development process that 

facilitates sustained improvements in the field. For 

example, OSAC subcommittees met with representatives of various SDOs in January, 2016 to learn about 

the SDOs’ processes and coordinate potential future 

action on OSAC outputs. The SDOs described their 

technical experience, structure, membership, 

standards development process and procedures, 

opportunities for OSAC to engage, and methods of 

distribution of completed standards and guidelines. 

For a list of SDOs that participated in these meetings, 

see Figure 23.

OSAC subcommittee representatives are also working on various SDO committees such as ASTM International 

and the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) to introduce new topics and to revise existing topics. One of the 

newer ANSI-accredited SDOs working with OSAC is the American Standards Board (ASB) within the AAFS. For 

more information on SDOs that the OSAC has coordinated with, see Figure 23. 

Facilitating the movement of these standards within SDOs helps the forensic science community because it offers 

broad participation in the development of standards and guidelines and helps ensure their continuity. The OSAC 

and the broader forensic science community may elect to provide updates to later versions of standards that are 

facilitated and published through the SDO. 

4.1.5 OSAC Launches a Monthly Newsletter

In August 2015, OSAC launched a monthly newsletter to share program activities and accomplishments with internal and external stakeholders and contributors. Each month OSAC publishes a feature article, announcements 

on vacancies, upcoming public comment periods for standards/guidelines under consideration for the OSAC 

registries, articles about implementation, and highlights of particular committees and subcommittees. 

Figure 10 shows a sampling of recently published OSAC newsletters. Approximately 10,000 unique stakeholders 

receive the newsletter each month. The OSAC newsletters are located here: http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/

osac-newsletter.cfm. 

Figure 9. The Physics/Pattern SAC collaborative plenary session was 

attended by the Bloodstain Pattern Interpretation Analysis, Firearms and 

Toolmarks, Footwear and Tire, Forensic Document Examination, and 

Friction Ridge subcommittees in January 2016.
20 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

4.1.6 OSAC Publishes Program Processes to Include Technical Merit Form 

In November 2015, OSAC made the OSAC Registry Approval Process of Published Standards and Guidelines 

available to the public. The process maps and forms are available here: http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/registry-approval-process-templates.cfm. 

Of particular note is the Technical Merit Form, which OSAC uses as a tool to assess such items as a standard or 

guideline’s use of bibliographic references, terminology, and limitations; its fitness-for-purpose; and other qualities. This form is also used to analyze whether the standard/guideline is appropriate for inclusion on the OSAC 

registries. 

OSAC also published other major program processes, including the OSAC Working with an SDO Process. More 

description on other program “inputs” are described in section 5.

Figure 10. The OSAC launched a monthly newsletter to share program activities and accomplishments with internal and external stakeholders and contributors.
OSAC Annual Report 21

February 2015 – February 2016

4.2 OSAC Overall “By the Numbers”

OSAC members spent considerable time within the last year prioritizing activities and narrowing their focus 

to identify specific, high-priority projects from the original 360-plus projects identified in February 2015. 

OSAC is now focusing on 155 standards and guidelines projects. These are currently moving through the two 

OSAC processes: the OSAC Working with an SDO Process and the OSAC Registry Approval Process of Published 

Standards and Guidelines. The first of these two 

processes entails OSAC committees or task groups 

submitting an idea, a partially drafted document, 

or a fully drafted document to an SDO for further 

routing, modifications, and publishing. The second 

process focuses on elevating selected standards or 

guidelines to the OSAC Registries.

Now that OSAC has narrowed its focus, committees 

are poised to be more strategic with their time. 

The figures in this section depict where OSAC 

projects are in the OSAC processes. Figure 12 

depicts OSAC’s recent efforts from the “big picture” 

vantage point, and highlights OSAC’s overall metrics 

between February 2015 and February 2016. Note 

that the OSAC subcommittees have been working 

to bring 141 draft standards or guidelines to a level 

of maturity suitable for submission to an SDO. By 

February 2016, OSAC officially submitted seven of 

these draft standards directly to SDOs for further 

development.

OSAC subcommittees also formally analyzed 

the technical merit of 28 existing standards and 

guidelines and began routing them through the OSAC 

and public review stages that assess their suitability for OSAC Registries. Of the 23 standards or guidelines that 

were approved and subsequently reviewed by SACs, 8 moved to the public review and comment phase. One 
22 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

standard progressed through the process, was reviewed by all relevant units including the FSSB, and was posted 

on the OSAC Registry of Approved Standards—ASTM: E2329-14 Standard Practice for Identification of Seized 

Drugs. The other standards or guidelines were sent back to the SDOs for additional revisions before potential 

posting. 

4.3 OSAC By the Numbers—By Scientific Area Committees (SACs)

Figure 13 depicts the number of standards and guidelines projects that reached particular stages in OSAC processes. See Section 8 for a more specific list of list of draft documents that will be submitted to SDOs as work 

items or documents being considered by each committee, organized by discipline or under consideration by each 

committee, organized by discipline. 

Figure 12. OSAC Overall “By the Numbers”. This figure includes metrics on items that have reached certain phases on OSAC processes 

(indicated by “SDO” or “RA”). 
OSAC Annual Report 23

February 2015 – February 2016

Biology/DNA (3

subcommittees)

Crime Scene/Death

Investigation (6

subcommittees)

Chemistry/Instrumental

Analysis (6

subcommittees)

Physics/Pattern

Interpretations (5

subcommittees)

Digital/Multimedia (4

subcommittees)

0 0

11

1 2

10

46

33 36

16

Total Submissions by SAC

Total SDO Total RA

4.3.1 By the Numbers—Biology/DNA SAC

The Biology/DNA SAC manages the activities of three subcommittees which include Biological Data Interpretation and Reporting, Biological Methods, and Wildlife Forensics. (This SAC and its subcommittees are primarily 

focusing on submitting new content to SDOs for potential publishing.) 

4.3.2 By the Numbers—Crime Scene/Death Investigation SAC

The Crime Scene/Death Investigation SAC manages the activities of six subcommittees which include Anthropology, Disaster Victim Identification, Dogs and Sensors, Fire and Explosion Investigation, Medicolegal Death Investigation, and Odontology. The Crime Scene subcommittee was not appointed until March 2016; therefore they are 

not represented in this section but will be included in next year’s annual report. (This SAC and its subcommittees 

are primarily focusing on submitting new content to SDOs for potential publishing.)

Figure 13. OSAC “By the Numbers” by SAC. The OSAC is working on 155 different standards/guidelines projects. 

Figure 14. Biology/DNA SAC “By the Numbers”

Biological Data

Interpretation and

Reporting

Biological Methods Wildlife Forensics

0 0 0

4 4

2

Biology/DNA SAC

SDO RA

Standards and Guidelines Submitted for Review by the Biology/DNA SAC

n SUBMITTED TO SDO PROCESS n SUBMITTED TO OSAC REGISTRY APPROVAL PROCESS

Total Number of Standards and Guidelines Submitted by SAC 

n SUBMITTED TO SDO PROCESS n SUBMITTED TO OSAC REGISTRY APPROVAL PROCESS
24 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Fire Debris and

Explosives

Geological

Materials

Gunshot Residue Materials/Trace Seized Drugs Toxicology

1 0 0

7

2 1

9

2 2

18

0

2

Chemistry/Instrumental Analysis SAC

SDO RA

Anthropology Disaster Victim

Identification

Dogs and

Sensors

Fire and

Explosion

Investigation

Medicolegal

Death

Investigation

Odontology

0 0 0 0 0 0

14

4

5

10 10

3

Crime Scene/Death Investigation SAC

SDO RA

4.3.3 By the Numbers—Chemistry/Instrumental Analysis SAC

The Chemistry/Instrumental Analysis SAC manages the activities of six subcommittees which include Fire Debris 

and Explosives, Geological Materials, Gunshot Residue, Materials (Trace), Seized Drugs, and Toxicology. Not captured in the metrics depicted in Figure 16 is the fact that the Chemistry/Instrumental SAC forwarded several items 

to the Registry Approval Process very soon after that process was released. Many lessons were learned about 

the process during these early efforts, and the process was improved based on that experience. The Seized Drugs 

Subcommittee achieved the first standard to be posted to the OSAC Registries. ASTM: E2329-14 Standard Practice 

for Identification of Seized Drugs was posted to the OSAC Registry of Approved Standards in January, 2016.

Figure 15. Crime Scene/Death Investigation SAC “By the Numbers”

Figure 16. Chemistry/Instrumental Analysis SAC “By the Numbers”

Standards and Guidelines Submitted for Review by the Crime Scene/Death Investigation SAC

n SUBMITTED TO SDO PROCESS n SUBMITTED TO OSAC REGISTRY APPROVAL PROCESS

Standards and Guidelines Submitted for Review by the Chemistry/Instrumental Analysis SAC

n SUBMITTED TO SDO PROCESS n SUBMITTED TO OSAC REGISTRY APPROVAL PROCESS
OSAC Annual Report 25

February 2015 – February 2016

4.3.4 By the Numbers—Physics/Pattern Interpretation SAC

The Physics/Pattern Interpretation SAC manages the activities of five subcommittees which include Bloodstain 

Pattern Analysis, Firearms and Toolmarks, Footwear and Tire, Forensic Document Examination, and Friction 

Ridge. (This SAC and its subcommittees are primarily focusing on submitting new content to SDOs for potential 

publishing.) 

4.3.5 By the Numbers—Digital/Multimedia SAC

The Digital/Multimedia SAC manages the activities of four subcommittees which include Digital Evidence, 

Facial Identification, Speaker Recognition, and Video/Imaging Technology and Analysis. (This SAC and its 

subcommittees are primarily focusing on submitting new content to SDOs for potential publishing.)

Figure 17. Physics/Pattern SAC “By the Numbers”

Figure 18. Digital/Multimedia SAC “By the Numbers”

Bloodstain Pattern

Analysis

Firearms and

Toolmarks

Footwear and Tire Forensic Document

Examination

Friction Ridge

0 0 0

1

0

10

9

5

7

5

Physics/Pattern SAC

SDO RA

Digital Evidence Facial Identification Speaker Recognition Video/Imaging

Technology and

Analysis

1

0 0

1

9

5

0

2

Digital/Multimedia SAC

SDO RA

Standards and Guidelines Submitted for Review by the Physics/Pattern SAC

n SUBMITTED TO SDO PROCESS n SUBMITTED TO OSAC REGISTRY APPROVAL PROCESS

Standards and Guidelines Submitted for Review by the Digital/Multimedia SAC

n SUBMITTED TO SDO PROCESS n SUBMITTED TO OSAC REGISTRY APPROVAL PROCESS
26 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

OSAC INPUTS TIMELINE

February 2015 - February 2016

February 2015

First public OSAC 

Presentations/Feedback 

Sessions at AAFS.

 

March 2015

Charter and Terms 

of Reference

Finalized and Published.

June 2015

FSSB Issues the 

OSAC Standards/Guidelines 

Registry Approval Process. 

January 2016

OSAC Research Needs 

Instruction Published.

OSAC Guides on Types of Standards 

and Guidelines Published. 

Interdisciplinary Document 

Development Guidelines Published. 

 

October 2015

FSSB Issues the 

OSAC Working 

with an SDO Process.

July 2015 

5 SAC and 3 Resource 

Committee meetings.

January 2016 

Virtual SDO Webinars. 

Virtual Working with 

an SDO Process Training. 

Virtual New Member Orientation. 

 

January 2016 

Full OSAC Meeting 

in Leesburg, VA.

February 2016 

Public OSAC 

Presentations/Feedback 

Sessions at AAFS. 

5.0 OSAC INPUTS: INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLISHED OR REVISED PROCESSES, 

TRAINING, AND MEETINGS FEBRUARY 2015-FEBRUARY 2016

While OSAC was in full operati on during the period of February 2015-February 2016, throughout this ti me the 

FSSB, the Resource Committ ees, OSAC Aff airs at NIST, and other committ ees conti nued to refi ne the OSAC infrastructure, publish or revise existi ng OSAC processes, train OSAC members, conduct OSAC internal business, and 

report OSAC acti viti es to the public. Figure 19 shows a ti meline of some of these acti viti es. 

Figure 19. Timeline of OSAC “Inputs” February 2015 – February 2016.
OSAC Annual Report 27

February 2015 – February 2016

5.1 OSAC Infrastructure Updates

In addition to the infrastructure updates detailed in the timeline, NIST also established online portals where the 

public could access and review any SDO standards moving through the Registry Approval Process. Within these 

12 months, eight ASTM standards were made available through this portal. 

5.2 OSAC Published or Revised Processes

Figure 19 describes some of the OSAC processes that were published. These include the OSAC Standards/Guidelines Registry Approval Process Versions 1 and 2, the OSAC Working with an SDO Process, the OSAC Member 

Comments Guide, the Interdisciplinary Document Development Guidelines, and the OSAC Research Needs Instruction. 

5.3 OSAC Meetings

The bulk of the OSAC’s work occurs at the hundreds of virtual and in-person meetings held each year. The primary purpose of the large “All Hands” OSAC meetings that occur every 9 months is for subcommittees, SACs, and 

RCs to coordinate and produce program deliverables. Additionally, interdisciplinary and other focused meetings 

are held in the evenings in order to maximize the opportunity for face-to-face conversation. These meetings 

include topics such as getting to know SDOs, working on specific SDO products, interdisciplinary standards meetings, other inter-unit collaboration meetings, and OSAC trainings. Figure 20 depicts snapshots from a series of 

OSAC meetings held between February 2015 and February 2016.

Figure 20. OSAC Holds Hundreds of Virtual and In-Person Meetings Annually. From top left: January 2015 meeting in Norman, Oklahoma; 

Marc Lebeau and Scott Oulton provide public status briefings at AAFS; Joint Resource Committee meeting at NIST in July 2015, FSSB 

Meeting in April 2016, Physics/Pattern SAC meeting in August 2016; Hal Stern and David Stoney at the Digital/Multimedia SAC meeting in 

August 2016; Digital/Multimedia SAC meeting in August 2016; Kris Cano and Linton Mohammed provide briefings at the Physics/Pattern 

SAC meeting in August 2016.
28 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

In addition to internal meetings, OSAC reports its activities publicly at various conferences. OSAC has twice 

reported at the AAFS annual meeting. At this forum, subcommittee chairs explain the units’ priorities along with 

the rationale behind them. Each chair then takes questions and comments from audience members. More information on public meetings/reporting is provided in Section 6.1. 

Figure 21. OSAC Meetings. The Quality Infrastructure Committee, Legal Resource Committee, and Human Factors Committee 

collaborate at the January 2016 OSAC Meeting.

Figure 22. OSAC Training. QIC representative Barbara Andree and Chemistry SAC representatives Scott Oulton 

and Will Guthrie provide plenary briefings to the OSAC in January 2016.
OSAC Annual Report 29

February 2015 – February 2016

5.4 OSAC Training

In addition to the training depicted in Figure 19, OSAC performed the following training sessions for members 

and other relevant audiences:

• February 2015 training on use of Kavi Workspace, the internal document management tool used 

by OSAC. Subsequent webinar video on how to comment on OSAC documents using Kavi 

Workspace was provided

• May 2015 Kavi Workspace training

• January 2016 SDO Informational webinars provided an overview of interested SDO’s technical 

experience, structure, membership, standards development process and procedures, opportunities for 

OSAC to engage, and methods of distribution of completed standards and guidelines. Figure 23 depicts 

logos of the SDOs that attended these Webinars

• January 27, 2016

o OSAC Working with an SDO Process Training 

o Working with an SDO: Benefits and Challenges Presentation

o Technical Merit Form Training.

Figure 23. NIST OSAC SDO Informational Webinars. Multiple SDOs attended Webinars to meet with OSAC members.
30 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

6.0 EXTERNAL RELATIONS

6.1 Public Meetings 

OSAC reports its activities to the public annually. The primary reporting session occurs at AAFS meetings. The 

OSAC Public Status Reports & Open Discussions were held at AAFS in Las Vegas, Nevada on February 22-23, 

2016. At the public meeting, five SAC chairs and 24 Subcommittee chairs presented their committee’s progress to 

the public and solicited open discussion on the topics they 

presented. More information is available here: http://www.

nist.gov/forensics/osac/nist-scientific-area-committee-meetings-february-2016.cfm.

Speakers presented on their committee’s progress on reviewing specific standards and guidance for inclusion on the 

OSAC Registries and on the identification of research and 

development needs, and also offered insight to their OSAC 

unit’s experiences and discussions. Among other things, many participants discussed the initial frustration that 

subcommittees experienced when the majority of the documents they submitted for consideration to the OSAC 

Registry were rejected by a higher OSAC unit (the SAC). These documents were rejected due to insufficient technical merit, lack of balance in the standards development process, or other issues. These committees are now 

recalibrating to focus on adding technical merit and making other needed adjustments. Other common themes 

expressed by speakers include the need to consider the influence of bias on stated opinions and conclusions, the 

emotional toll that examiners face across disciplines, and the importance of standardized reporting processes.

In addition to annual public reporting sessions at the AAFS, the SACs provide public updates at other conferences 

relevant to their discipline. For example, OSAC also held public meetings at the International Symposium on Human Identification (ISHI) and IAI conferences.

Common themes expressed by OSAC chairs 

at the 2016 public meetings include the need 

to consider the influence of bias on stated 

opinions and conclusions, the consideration of 

the emotional toll that examiners face across 

disciplines, as well as the importance 

of standardized reporting processes.

Figure 24. OSAC Public Meeting at 2016 AAFS. Fire Debris and Explosives Subcommittee Chair Vincent Desiderio and Crime Scene 

Investigation Subcommittee Chair Marilyn Miller provide updates at the AAFS Meeting.
OSAC Annual Report 31

February 2015 – February 2016

6.2 Public Outreach

In addition to public reporting, OSAC representatives have spoken or presented at many forensic science or other 

relevant conferences, including (but not limited to):

• International Forensic Strategic Alliance, April 2015

• Forensic Expert Witness Association, April 2015

• National Academy of Sciences Committee on 

Strengthening Forensic Science at the National 

Institute of Justice, April 2015

• California Association of Criminalists, May 2015

• California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors 

Conference, May 2015

• Forensic Science Research Evaluation Workshop, May 2015 

• American Bar Association Prescriptions for Criminal 

Justice Forensics Program at Fordham University 

School of Law, June 2015

• International Symposium on Forensic Science Error 

Management, July 2015

• The IAI’s 100th International Education Conference, 

August 2015, including a Q&A session

• National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ’s) Impression Pattern and Trace Evidence Symposium, August 2015 

• Global Identity Summit, September 2015

• Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Meeting, September 2015

• 7th European Academy of Forensic Sciences Conference, September 2015

• The International Association of Chiefs of Police Forensic Science Committee meeting, October 2015

• ISHI, October 2015

• The ASCLD Meeting, April 2016

• Multiple meetings of the NCFS. 

OSAC members and stakeholders have also published web and journal articles related to the program in order to 

create awareness and share progress. Articles were published in journals such as Forensic Science International

and the Academic Forensic Pathology (AFP) Journal. 

Figure 25. OSAC Public Meeting at ISHI. Biological Data Interpretation and Reporting Subcommittee Chair Robyn Ragsdale and Biology/DNA 

SAC Chair George Herrin provide briefings at ISHI.

“The OSAC provides forensic scientists 

the means to validate their own scientific 

practices. Moreover, we forensic scientists 

have been given access to statisticians 

and other experts essential to the practice 

of sound science, a luxury that we could 

not have afforded on our own. We forensic scientists must seize this spectacular 

opportunity with extreme care and create 

a valid Registry of Approved Standards 

through deliberation at once cautious 

and bold.” - Gregory G. Davis MD MSPH, 

Andrew M. Baker MD, originally published 

in AFP Journal Volume 4, Issue 4, 

reprinted with permission.
32 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

6.3 Collaborations with External Organizations 

OSAC coordinates with other external organizations to inform, engage, coordinate with, and solicit feedback 

from the broader forensic science community. 

NIST and the DOJ entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in March 2013 that focused on 

providing national leadership to improve the quality 

of forensic science. The NIST–DOJ MOU led to the 

establishment of the NCFS to study forensic science policy 

issues and of OSAC to facilitate the creation of high-quality 

standards in order to strengthen the practice of forensic 

science. This unique partnership draws upon each agency's 

core strengths to promote scientific validity, reduce 

fragmentation, and improve federal coordination of forensic 

science. While NCFS focuses on policy, OSAC focuses on 

standards and guidelines in practice. NCFS and OSAC share 

data routinely through liaisons, and OSAC reports progress 

to the Commission regularly. 

OSAC staff also liaise regularly with the NIJ, which is a 

potential consumer of OSAC-identified research needs 

(described more thoroughly in section 4). OSAC is working 

directly with NIJ to share the OSAC-identified research 

needs in order to maximize their impact. 

OSAC staff have also met with several international 

organizations to discuss potential for future collaborations. 

For example, in 2015, OSAC met with the European 

Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI), and the 

National Institute of Forensic Science – Australia New 

Zealand Policing Advisory Agency (NIFS-ANZPAA). 

OSAC has also had a series of meetings with accrediting 

bodies. When OSAC was being designed, the NIST team 

met with representatives of accrediting bodies and several others interested in forensic accreditation. The 

attending representatives agreed that if OSAC were to build a system to create and promote quality standards, 

then the accrediting bodies would identify how to best incorporate these standards in their future conformity 

assessments of forensic laboratories. 

In February 2016, NIST held a second meeting with accrediting bodies that provide services related to forensic 

science. This meeting included the American Association of Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), the ANSIASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB), the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors / Laboratory 

Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB)3

, the American Board of Forensic Toxicologists (ABFT), the College of American 

Pathologists (CAP), the International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners (IACME), and the National

Association of Medical Examiners (NAME). The meeting topics included an update on OSAC progress, discussion 

3 In April 2016, ANAB and ASCLD/LAB announced that they were merging ASCLD/LAB into ANAB.
OSAC Annual Report 33

February 2015 – February 2016

of new accreditation activities in the forensic science disciplines, and a discussion on how the OSAC Registry 

of Approved Standards might be used during the accreditation process. In follow-up discussions, several of the 

accrediting bodies expressed interest in participating in an SDO committee/group to develop a standard that 

addresses the specific application of accreditation for forensic science service providers including approaches to 

leveraging the use of standards on the OSAC Registry. 

6.4 Strategic OSAC Member Positions

In order to facilitate strategic coordination, six representatives from major professional forensic science 

organizations sit on the FSSB. These organizations include the AAFS, ASCLD, Association of Firearm and Toolmark 

Examiners (AFTE), IAI, National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME), and Society of Forensic Toxicologists, 

Inc. (SOFT). 

7.0 OSAC Focus in 2017

OSAC will continue to work on the 155 standards and guidelines projects already underway, and continue to 

consider whether an even more sharply defined focus is needed. In addition, OSAC recently held a leadership 

strategy session on June 22, 2016. Three representatives from each OSAC committee attended, providing both 

written and verbal feedback on a series of strategic questions. This exercise will help OSAC to focus on additional 

efforts in 2017, such as: 

• Refining OSAC infrastructure and processes to be more efficient without sacrificing quality. This will help 

ensure that OSAC members’ time is used wisely and will maximize their strategic input to scientifically 

sound standards and guidelines. 

• Potentially refining the infrastructure to foster additional inter-committee efforts, so that collaboration 

between human factors, quality, legal, and statistician stakeholders can occur with forensic science 

practitioners as early and as often as practical. 

• Developing a strategy to best achieve timeliness, relevance, consensus, and quality in OSAC standards.

Figure 27. OSAC Leadership Strategy Session. John Paul Jones, Associate Director of OSAC Affairs at NIST, facilitated the 

OSAC Leadership Strategy Session. Attendees discussed a path forward for OSAC that will maximize collaboration between 

the various stakeholders.
34 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

8.0 OSAC Committee Highlights 

Section 8 provides an overview of each of the OSAC committees, and, where relevant, lists the specific standards 

and guidelines projects being addressed. These standards/guidelines projects are still in the draft phase. This sections also describes the various task groups that exist within each committee. 
OSAC Annual Report 35

February 2015 – February 2016

Forensic Science Standards Board

SCOPE CHAIR

The Forensic Science Standards Board 

(FSSB)serves as the OSAC governing board 

and supports the organization by overseeing operations of all committees; approving 

standards for listing on the OSAC Registry of 

Approved Standards; and facilitating communication within OSAC and between OSAC 

and the forensic science community. FSSB 

members include research representatives, 

professional association representatives, 

SAC chairs and one Ex Officio member. 

Jeremy Triplett, chair, is the drug chemistry supervisor 

at the Kentucky State Police Central Forensic Laboratory 

in Frankfort, Kentucky, where he is also the technical 

leader for all six of the Kentucky State Police laboratory 

branches. He has more than eleven years of experience in 

forensic drug chemistry analysis and has testified in local, 

state and federal courts.

BY THE NUMBERS 

Members: 17

Task Groups: 

• Code of Practice 

• Bylaws and Operations 

• Ethics

• Executive 

• Finance

• In Brief

• Long Range Planning 

• Membership and Awards 

• Nominating 

• OSAC Internal Communications 

• Outreach and Communication

• Statisticians

Activities

The FSSB:

•	 Determined a path forward and developed a set of instructions for the identification and posting of 

research and development needs

•	 Facilitated uniform updates of subcommittee descriptions on Web pages and approved updated subcommittee names

•	 Continued to work on the Principles of Professional Practice (formerly called the Code of Practice)

•	 Developed and published the OSAC Process for Adding New Disciplines

•	 Approved the membership of all new OSAC members
36 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Human Factors Committee

SCOPE CHAIR

 

The Human Factors Committee (HFC) was 

established as part of the OSAC infrastructure to provide advice and guidance on 

human factors issues. It consists of nine 

cognitive scientists and psychologists with 

expertise in factors affecting human performance and expert human judgment. Members’ expertise spans such areas as medical 

decision making, airline safety, military performance, technology interface, personnel 

selections, readiness for duty, morale and 

motivation, and reduction of bias and error.

William Thompson, chair, is a professor at the University 

of California, Irvine. His primary appointment is in the 

Department of Criminology, Law & Society. He also holds 

joint appointments in the Department of Psychology and 

in the School of Law.

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 107 Members: 9

Task Groups:

• Affiliate Management - The HFC has 9 active affiliates that contribute to a variety of HFC activities

Activities

The HFC has:

•	 Reviewed and provided comments on eight documents from the various OSAC units

•	 Initiated review of 13 additional documents

•	 Developed five draft documents for OSAC internal use (and potentially ultimately for external use):

-The Role of the Forensic Examiner

-Draft Primer on Cognitive Bias

-Forensic Science Culture Task Force Document

-Draft of Internal Guidance Document on Task Relevance

-Ways to Minimize Contextual Bias

•	 Contributed articles to the OSAC Newsletter

•	 Reviewed documents from the National Commission on Forensic Science
OSAC Annual Report 37

February 2015 – February 2016

Legal Resource Committee

SCOPE CHAIR

 

The Legal Resource Committee (LRC) was 

established to provide guidance throughout OSAC about the legal ramifications of 

forensic standards under development and 

provides input on the presentation of forensic science results to the legal system.

The Honorable Christopher Plourd, chair, is a Superior 

Court Judge, State of California. He has over 30 years 

of experience specializing in cases with forensic science 

evidence as a certified criminal law specialist. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 110 Members: 11

Task Groups: 

• Effective Use of Forensic Science in the Courtroom

• Model Code of Professional Responsibility for 

Forensic Science Practitioners 

• Science and the Law Practice 

Activities

The LRC provides legal advice and commentary to the OSAC subcommittees regarding the usability and legal 

ramifications of forensic standards and guidelines under development including issues surrounding admissibility 

and the impact of the standard on the presentation of the evidence in court. The LRC consults with SACs and has 

reviewed standards and guidelines submitted for consideration to the OSAC Registry. The LRC may also provide 

input to the FSSB when the board is considering whether a standard should be approved for the Registry.

 The LRC has:

•	 Provided input to multiple standards and guidelines routing through the OSAC Registry Approval 

Process of Published Standards and Guidelines

•	 Contributed articles to the OSAC Newsletter

•	 Developed draft articles for potential submission to journals
38 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Quality Infrastructure Committee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Quality Infrastructure Committee (QIC) 

provides guidance on quality issues and 

provides impact statements that inform 

agency management about how specific 

standards may affect laboratory operations. 

It also works with outside standards developing organizations and accrediting bodies 

as needed.

Karen Reczek, chair, works for NIST and has 17 years of 

experience working in standards and conformity assessment. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 163 Members: 15

Task Groups : 

• Impact Assessment for Registry Items

• Catalog Maintenance

• Standard Processes and Procedures

• Internal QIC Procedures

• Comment Adjudication Process

• Quality Terminology

• Registry Approval Comment Adjudication QIC 

Check

• Registry Management

• Appeal Process

• Standard Development Process Review

Activities

The QIC has:

•	 Developed, organized, and posted V1 of the OSAC Catalog of External Standards and Guidelines

•	 Is developing a quality-related terminology document in order to establish consistency within the re- source committees where possible. Terminology will point to a recognized source

•	 With support from OSAC Affairs and the FSSB, developed, routed for review, and published the two ma- jor OSAC processes, including over 11 different supplemental forms, tools, and templates

•	 Performed a series of virtual and in-person training sessions to introduce the processes, answer ques- tions, and assist subcommittees to begin to route projects through the processes

•	 Held a series of consecutive webinars to introduce the OSAC to various SDOs that are interested in ac- cepting new work products from the OSAC

•	 Performed a comment adjudication process check for eight standards packets that have routed through 

the OSAC Registry Approval Process of Published Standards and Guidelines

•	 Performed standards development process review for six standards packets being considered for Regis- try approval

•	 Developed and issued an appeals procedure

•	 Completed Registry approval packet submissions on two standards, and forwarded to subcommittee for 

routing for Registry approval

•	 Began development of an Impact Assessment Survey

•	 Appointed QIC liaisons to each SAC. Attended SAC and Subcommittee meetings as appropriate

•	 Organized and held two Joint Resource Committee meetings
OSAC Annual Report 39

February 2015 – February 2016

Biology/DNA SAC

SCOPE CHAIR

The Biology/DNA SAC manages the activities of three subcommittees. Within the 

SAC and 3 subcommittees which include 

Biological Methods, Biological Data and Reporting, and Wildlife. There are 15 affiliates 

supporting member work. The SAC also 

works collaboratively with Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM) on efforts.

George Herrin Jr., is a Deputy Director for the Georgia 

Bureau of Investigation over the Division of Forensic Sciences. He has been actively involved in forensics for more 

than 28 years.

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 150 Members: 12

Task Groups:

• Terminology

Activities

The Biology/DNA SAC has performed initial reviews of four to six subcommittee documents (of approximately 

13 documents overall), in each case requesting additional work from the subcommittee to subdivide large/long 

documents into smaller, more specific and specialized standards. 

The SAC is working on developing a SAC-wide terminology document in order to establish consistency within 

the SAC where possible. This SAC terminology task group is working with a document that contains over 1200 

terms that are relevant to forensic biology and DNA. This first-draft glossary contains many important and frequently used terms in the area of biology and human DNA testing for forensic applications, with many definitions 

credited to pre-existing documents. The list is intended not only for forensic biologists, but also others who may 

not have specialized knowledge of forensic biology (e.g., law enforcement, attorneys, public). A second list of 

terms will be integrated with this list in the future, as many relevant terms have yet to be included. Many wildlife 

biology/DNA terms, which may not be in common usage in the human DNA community, will be included in this 

second list of terms. 

The Biology/DNA SAC is also interested in gaining the broadest input possible in the early stages of standards/

guidelines development. In order to do that they plan to establish a larger “affiliate pool” of technical leaders 

from a number of laboratories for support with document reviews.

Other activities include presentation of OSAC updates by SAC or subcommittee members at several regional or 

national forensic science meetings, especially those focused on the field of forensic biology.
40 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Biological Methods Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Biological Methods Subcommittee, one 

of the subcommittees within the Biology/

DNA SAC, focuses on standards and guidelines that support molecular and biochemical methods used to analyze evidence and 

reference items.

This encompasses everything from serology through loading samples on a Genetic 

Analyzer. This subcommittee does not cover 

anything related to interpretation (serology 

interpretation or DNA interpretation).

Kim Murga, the chair, works for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department as the Director of Laboratory 

Services.

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 202 Members: 19

Task Groups:

•	 Terminology 

•	 Validation and Method Development

•	 Education/Training/Competency/Certification 

•	 Serological Examination of Biological Evidence

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 4

Standards/Guidelines Projects

With input from members as well as affiliates representing national and international agencies, the subcommittee is working on the following projects: 

•	 Standards for the Validation of Serological Methods

•	 Best Practices for Assessing Education Requirements

•	 Standards for Serological Analytical Procedures

•	 Standards for Training in Serological Methods

The subcommittee is also working on terminology and incorporating the extensive feedback received on the 

draft documents defined above. 
OSAC Annual Report 41

February 2015 – February 2016

Biological Data and Reporting Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Biology Data Interpretation and Reporting Subcommittee, one of the subcommittees within the Biology/DNA SAC, 

focuses on standards and guidelines related 

to scientifically valid methods of interpretation, statistical analysis, and reporting of 

biological results.

Robyn Ragsdale works for the Florida Department of 

Law Enforcement as a technical leader and senior crime 

laboratory analyst. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 198 Members: 19

Task Groups:

•	 Probabilistic Genotyping 

•	 Mixture Interpretation Verification

•	 Biology/DNA Software Validation

•	 Statistical Interpretation

•	 Terminology 

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 4

Standards/Guidelines Projects

With input from members as well as affiliates representing national and international agencies, the subcommittee is working on the following projects: 

•	 Validation Standards for Probabilistic Genotyping: These standards are to be used by laboratories for the 

validation of probabilistic genotyping systems related to interpreting autosomal STR results.

•	 Standards for Validation Studies of DNA Mixtures and the Development and Verification of a Laboratory’s Mixture Interpretation Protocol: These standards are for the design and evaluation of validation 

studies for mixed DNA samples and the development of appropriate interpretation protocols for mixtures based on the validation studies performed. 

•	 Biology/DNA Software Validation: This document includes guidelines for the validation of software used 

in a forensic DNA laboratory that impacts the integrity of the evidence, the analytical process, interpretations and/or statistical conclusions. Additional guidelines and standards may be applicable to specialized software packages. 

•	 Statistical Interpretation: Description of existing methods and delineating appropriate areas of application 
42 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Wildlife Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Wildlife Subcommittee, one of the subcommittees within the Biology/DNA SAC, 

focuses on standards and guidelines related 

to taxonomic identification, individualization, and geographic origin of non-human 

biological evidence based on morphological 

and genetic analyses.

Kathy Moore, M.S., works for NOAA Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center Forensic Laboratory, and has worked doing 

wildlife forensic methods development and/or casework 

for more than 20 years.

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 41 Members: 13

Task Groups:

•	 Education and Training 

•	 Report Writing 

•	 Standards and Guidelines 

•	 DNA Standards 

•	 Terminology 

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 2

Standards/Guidelines Projects

With input from members as well as affiliates representing state, national, and international agencies, the 

subcommittee is working on the following projects: 

•	 General Standards for Wildlife Forensic Practice. This document provides minimum standards and recommendations for practicing wildlife forensic analysts. This document covers good laboratory practices, 

evidence handling, and training as well as considerations of phylogeny, taxonomy, and reference collections that are specific to wildlife forensic science.

These minimum standards and recommendations are not intended to replace standards in ISO 17025 

or other forensic laboratory standards, but are designed to provide guidance for small laboratories and 

part-time practitioners who are outside of traditional forensic laboratories.

•	 Wildlife Forensic Report Writing Standard. This document describes the information to be provided in 

reports of wildlife forensic examinations. Requirements for both genetic and morphological examination reports are covered. Forensic reports serve a variety of audiences, and must provide a clear and 

concise summary of methods, results, and conclusions for the use of the investigator, the court, and the 

litigants.

•	 DNA Standards

•	 Education and Training Standards. Wildlife task group members are working with Biological Methods 

Education task group members to determine if a training standard can be produced that will serve as 

the basis for all DNA analysts, whether they work on wildlife or humans.

The subcommittee is also working on the terminology document, as well as incorporating the extensive feedback received to the draft documents to date. 
OSAC Annual Report 43

February 2015 – February 2016

Chemistry/Instrumental Analysis SAC

SCOPE CHAIR

The Chemistry/Instrumental Analysis SAC, 

manages the activities of the six subcommittees which include Fire Debris and 

Explosives, Geological Materials, Gunshot 

Residue, Materials (Trace), Seized Drugs, 

and Toxicology.

Scott Oulton, Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator at 

the DEA, is the chair. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 226 Members: 15

Task Groups:

•	 Terminology 

•	 Education/Training 

•	 Proficiency 

•	 Quality Assurance 

Standards/Guidelines Metrics:

•	 Standards Reviewed as part of Registry Approval 

Process: 8

•	 Standards Returned to Subcommittee for Additional Work: 3

•	 Standards on Registry: 1

•	 Standards Still in Registry Process: 4 

•	 Standards Reviewed as part of SDO Process: 2

Activities

Between February 2015 and February 2016, the Chemistry SAC submitted the first eight standards or guidelines to the OSAC Registry Approval Process of Published Standards and Guidelines for consideration. Three standards were sent back to the subcommittee for further analysis, and four are still under review at various stages of 

the process. As of February 2016, one standard has been placed on the registry (ASTM E-2329), initiated by the 

Seized Drugs Subcommittee. 

These early submissions helped to shed light on where the OSAC processes could be fine-tuned to produce a 

better overall product. 

SAC representatives also developed a “Statistics Primer.” The purpose of the primer is to promote a shared understanding of the statistical needs and requirements related to OSAC Standards and Guidelines. The primer was 

shared with the SAC in January 2016, and may be shared with the wider OSAC audience next year. 

Other activities include working on developing a SAC-wide terminology document in order to establish consistency within the SAC where possible. 
44 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Fire Debris and Explosives Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

 

The Fire Debris and Explosives Subcommittee focuses on standards, guidelines, and 

resources related to the scientific examination and analysis of materials associated 

with fire and explosion investigations.

Vincent Desiderio, a Forensic Scientist Supervisor, in the 

Materials Analysis Unit, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, is 

the chair.

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 87 Members: 19

Task Groups:

•	 Ad Hoc E-1618 Evaluation 

•	 Document Development and Evaluation 

•	 Reports, Terminology, and Testimony 

•	 Interpretation and Classification of Ignitable 

Liquids 

•	 QA/QC 

•	 Research and Training 

# Items reached RA-100: 1

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 9

Standards/Guidelines Projects

•	 ASTM E1618-14 Standard Test Method for Ignitable Liquid Residues in Extracts from Fire Debris Samples 

by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry 

•	 ASTM E2881-13e-Standard Test Method for Extraction and Derivatization of Vegetable Oils and Fats 

from Fire Debris and Liquid Samples with Analysis by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry

•	 ASTM E2451-13 Standard Practice for Preserving Ignitable Liquids and Ignitable Liquid Residue Extracts 

from Fire Debris Samples

•	 ASTM E1386-15 Standard Practice for Separation of Ignitable Liquid Residues from Fire Debris Samples 

by Solvent Extraction

•	 ASTM E1388-12 Standard Practice for Sampling of Headspace Vapors from Fire Debris Samples

•	 ASTM E1412-12 Standard Practice for Separation of Ignitable Liquid Residues from Fire Debris Samples 

by Passive Headspace Concentration with Activated Charcoal

•	 ASTM E1413-13 Standard Practice for Separation of Ignitable Liquid Residues from Fire Debris Samples 

by Dynamic Headspace Concentration

•	 General Fire Debris Analysis Guide (new document)

•	 General Intact Explosives Analysis Guide (new document)

•	 Fire Debris Terminology (new document)

•	 Explosives Terminology (new document)

•	 Fire Debris QA/QC (new document)

•	 Semi-Dynamic Headspace Sampling for Fire Debris (new document)

•	 Fire Debris Report Writing Guide (new document)

•	 Explosives Report Writing Guide (new document)

•	 Case File Review (new document)

Other activities of the subcommittee include the development of Daubert resources for Fire Debris and Explo- sives analysis and developing other training resources.
OSAC Annual Report 45

February 2015 – February 2016

Geological Materials Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Geological Materials Subcommittee 

focuses on standards and guidelines for the 

collection and analysis of soils and other 

geological materials; creates a framework 

for the interpretation and reporting of 

analytical results; establishes educational 

and training requirements for forensic practitioners; and fosters the publication and 

presentation of research within the forensic 

geosciences community. 

Andrew Bowen, the chair, is currently a senior forensic 

chemist for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, where he 

examines trace evidence and unknown chemical substances. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 22 Members: 11

Task Groups:

•	 Terminology 

•	 Education Outreach

•	 Field Collection Document Validation 

•	 Glossary of Terms 

•	 Research Initiatives

•	 Resources and References 

•	 Sample Requirements 

•	 User Manual for Soil Collection

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 2

Standards/Guidelines Projects

•	 Standard Guide for the Collection of Soils and Other Geological Evidence for Forensic Applications. This 

guide is designed as a resource for forensic scientists, law enforcement personnel, and other professionals whose job responsibilities include the collection and preservation of soil evidence at crime scenes. 

•	 Standard Terminology for Forensic Analysis of Soils and Other Geological Materials. This guide is intended to standardize the terminology used by the forensic science community. 

•	 Standard Guide for Forensic Analysis of Soil. This guide is designed as a resource for forensic scientists, 

researchers, and other professionals whose job responsibilities include the analysis of soil evidence in 

laboratories. 

In addition to these standards/guidelines projects, this subcommittee is working on a bibliography, education 

and outreach, expanding the areas of interest (to include palynology), and participating in the various relevant 

SAC task groups. 
46 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Gunshot Residue Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

 

The Gunshot Residue (GSR) Subcommittee 

focuses on standards and guidelines related 

to analyses of evidence that results from the 

deposition of or physical transfer of small or 

minute quantities of gunshot residue.

Michael Martinez, a Forensic Scientist Supervisor 

at the Bexar Co. Criminal Investigation Laboratory, 

is the chair. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 52 Members: 19

Task Groups:

•	 Proficiency

•	 Competency and Training

•	 Reporting, Qualifiers, Disclaimers and 

Interpretation

•	 Validation and Instrument

•	 ASTM E620 Requirements 

•	 Methodology, Research and Literature

•	 Testimony and Ethics

•	 ASTM E1588 

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 2

Standards/Guidelines Projects

•	 ASTM E1588-10 Standard Guide for Gunshot Residue Analysis by Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy 

Dispersive X-Ray Spectrometry. Covers the analysis of gunshot residue by scanning electron microscopy/

energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry.

•	 GSR Training Guide (new document). This standard provides a summary of the knowledge and skills that 

should be demonstrated in order to establish competency as an independent GSR analyst. 

•	 GSR Testimony (new document). This document will attempt to address commonly encountered questions 

presented in testimony, appropriate answers, and examples of testimony limitations pertaining to GSR.

•	 Report Writing, Qualifying Statements and Interpretation (new document). The goal of this standard/

guide will be to compile, evaluate and suggest a unified reporting method when issuing GSR reports to 

our customers. 

•	 Methodology, Research, and Literature Review (new document). To discuss and collate a list of GSR 

research projects, database bibliographic reference material and draft ideas for additional methodology. 

Standards will be developed for new methodologies. 

•	 Validation and Instrument Requirements (new document). There is a need in the GSR community for 

guidance to create standards dealing with specific criteria for instruments used for the detection of GSR 

by SEM/EDS.

•	 ASTM E620-11 Standard Practice for Reporting Opinions of Scientific or Technical Experts. This practice 

covers the scope of information to be contained in formal written technical reports which express the 

opinions of the scientific or technical expert with respect to the study of items that are or may reasonably be expected to be the subject of criminal or civil litigation.

•	 Task Irrelevant Information When Considering Cognitive and Contextual Bias in GSR Analysis (new document).

Other activities of the GSR subcommittee include recruiting affiliates to assist with project work, and liaising with the ENFSI.
OSAC Annual Report 47

February 2015 – February 2016

Materials (Trace) Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

 

The Materials (Trace) Subcommittee is actively 

working on standards and guidelines related to 

the examination and interpretation of physical 

evidence that may result from the transfer of 

small or minute quantities of materials (e.g., 

hairs, fibers, paint, tape, glass). 

Susan Gross, Forensic Science Supervisor at the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, is the chair. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 107 Members: 19

Task Groups: 

•	 Fibers

•	 Glass

•	 Hair

•	 Interpretation

•	 Outreach

•	 Paint

•	 Research

•	 Tape 

# Items reached RA-100: 7

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 18

Activities

•	 ASTM E2926 Standard Test Method for Forensic Comparison of Glass Using Micro X-ray Fluorescence 

Spectrometry

•	 ASTM E2927 Standard Test Method for Determination of Trace Elements in Soda-Lime Glass Samples 

Using Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for Forensic Comparisons

•	 ASTM E2330 Standard Test Method for Determination of Concentrations of Elements in Glass Samples 

Using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) for Forensic Comparisons

•	 ASTM E1967 Standard Test Method for the Automated Determination of Refractive Index of Glass Sam- ples Using the Oil Immersion Method and a Phase Contrast Microscope

•	 ASTM E1610 Standard Guide for Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison

•	 ASTM E2937 Standard Guide for Using Infrared Spectroscopy in Forensic Paint Examinations

•	 ASTM E2809 Standard Guide for Using Scanning Electron Microscopy/X-ray Spectrometry in Forensic 

Paint Examinations 

•	 ASTM E2808 Standard Guide for Microspectrophotometry and Color Measurement in Forensic Paint 

Analysis

•	 Standard Practice for Interpretation and Report Writing in Forensic Comparisons of Trace Materials 

•	 ASTM E2224 Standard Guide for Forensic Analysis of Fibers by IR

•	 Standard Guide for Analysis of Fabrics/Cordage

•	 Standard Guide for Microscopical Exam of Textile Fibers Fiber 

•	 Standard Practice for Training in the Forensic Examination of Human Hair

•	 Standard Guide for Human Hair Examination 

•	 Standard Guide for using Infrared Spectroscopy for Forensic Tape Analysis

•	 Standard Guide for using PGC for Forensic Polymer Analysis 

•	 Standard Practice for Tape Training

•	 Standard Practice for Paint Training
48 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Seized Drugs Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Seized Drugs Subcommittee focuses on 

standards and guidelines related to the examination of evidence to identify drugs and related 

substances.

Sandra E. Rodriguez-Cruz, Ph.D., Senior Forensic 

Chemist at the DEA, is the chair.

Standards/Gu ide l ines Pro jects 

•	 E2548-11 Standard Guide for Sampling Seized Drugs for Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis. 

•	 E2327-15 Standard Practice for Quality Assurance of Laboratories Performing Seized-Drug Analysis. Covers quality assurance issues in forensic laboratories performing drug analysis.

•	 E2882-12 Standard Guide for Analysis of Clandestine Drug Laboratory Evidence. Provides guidance on 

the chemical analysis of items and samples related to suspected clandestine laboratories.

•	 E2764-11 Standard Practice for Uncertainty Assessment in the Context of Seized-Drug Analysis

•	 E1968-11 Standard Guide for Microcrystal Testing in Forensic Analysis of Cocaine

Standards/Gu ide l ines on OSAC Reg istry : 

In addition to the above projects, this subcommittee also submitted and routed the first standard to be 

placed on the OSAC Registry: 

ASTM: E2329-14 Standard Practice for Identification of Seized Drugs [Under Revision]

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 138 Members: 19

Task Groups:

•	 Analog

•	 Catalog Review

•	 Method Development

•	 Spectral Library

•	 Terminology

•	 Training/Competency

# Items reached RA-100: 2

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 0
OSAC Annual Report 49

February 2015 – February 2016

Toxicology Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Toxicology Subcommittee will focus 

on standards and guidelines related to the 

analysis of biological samples for alcohol, 

drugs, or poisons, and the interpretation of 

these results.

Marc A. LeBeau, Ph.D., from the FBI, is the chair. He is an 

active member of numerous professional societies and a 

commissioner on the National Commission on Forensic 

Sciences.

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 130 Members: 19

Task Groups:

•	 Breath Alcohol

•	 Document Control

•	 Kavi Workspace 

•	 Method Validation

•	 Quality Control

•	 Reporting/Testimony

•	 Research

•	 Terminology

•	 Traceability

# Items reached RA-100: 1

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 2

Standards/Guidelines Projects

•	 Standard Practices for Method Validation in Forensic Toxicology. Minimum standards of practice for 

validating analytical methods in forensic toxicology.

•	 Standard Practices for Measurement Traceability in Forensic Toxicology. Minimum standards of practice 

for establishing measurement traceability in forensic toxicology testing and calibration methods.

•	 Standard Practices for Method Validation in Forensic Toxicology – Breath Alcohol Measuring Instrument 

Calibration. Minimum standards for validating calibration methods in forensic toxicology laboratories 

performing evidentiary Breath Alcohol Measuring Instrument calibration. 

•	 Standard Practices for Quality Control in Forensic Toxicology. Minimum standards of practice for quality 

control in forensic toxicology laboratories

•	 Guidelines for Opinions and Testimony in Forensic Toxicology. Delineates guidelines for practices in forensic toxicology opinion reports and testimony.

The subcommittee also is establishing a glossary of terms. 
50 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Crime Scene/Death Investigation SAC

SCOPE CHAIR

The Crime Scene/Death Investigation SAC 

manages the activities of seven subcommittees which include Anthropology, Disaster 

Victim Identification, Dogs and Sensors, Fire 

and Explosion Investigation, Medicolegal 

Death Investigation, Crime Scene Investigation, and Odontology.

Gregory George Davis, M.D., is the chair. He also serves as 

the chief coroner/Medical Examiner for Jefferson County 

Alabama, as well as Professor and Director of the Division 

of Forensic Pathology in the Department of Pathology at 

the University of Alabama at Birmingham Medical Center.

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 191 Members: 17

Activities

The Crime Scene/Death Investigation SAC has: 

•	 Worked on developing a SAC-wide terminology document in order to establish consistency within the 

SAC where possible. 

•	 Coordinated the development of a new subcommittee (CSI Subcommittee) to include supporting, 

recruiting and administrative activities related to the new committee

•	 Voted on six standards from Fire and Explosion Subcommittee 

•	 18 other standards/guidelines are in the pipeline from various subcommittees

•	 Performed outreach at multiple discipline-specific conferences 

•	 Published OSAC articles in relevant journals and other media
OSAC Annual Report 51

February 2015 – February 2016

Anthropology Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Anthropology Subcommittee will focus on standards and guidelines related to 

application of anthropological methods and 

theory—particularly those relating to the 

recovery and analysis of human remains—to 

resolve legal matters.

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 14

Thomas Holland, a Scientific Director at the Department 

of Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, is the chair. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 39 Members: 20

Task Groups: 

•	 Age Estimation

•	 Ancestry Assessment

•	 Code of Ethics and Conduct

•	 Determination of Medicolegal Significance, 

Documentation, Reporting and Testimony

•	 Facial, Identifying and Describing Pathological 

Conditions, Lesions, and Anomalies

•	 Intent to Create Standards and Guidelines

•	 Method Development and Validation

•	 Personal Identification

•	 Proficiency Testing

•	 Resolving Commingled Human Remains 

•	 Scene Detection and Processing

•	 SDO Process Investigation

•	 Sex Assessment

•	 Skeletal Sampling and Preparation

•	 Statistical Methods

•	 Stature Estimation

•	 Taphonomic Observations in the Postmortem 

Interval

•	 Terminology

•	 Training/Competency

•	 Trauma Analysis 

Standards/Guidelines Projects

•	 Standard Guide for Stature Estimation from Human Remains. The objective of this document is for skeletal remains to be analyzed in a reliable and systematic manner for estimating stature using appropriate techniques. 

•	 Glossary for Forensic Anthropology. The objective of this document is to ensure consistent use of terminology within forensic anthropology. 

•	 Standard Guide for Training and Competency in Forensic Anthropology. Prescribes minimum qualifications to practice forensic anthropology.

•	 Facial Approximation in Forensic Anthropology. Recommendation for the production and assessment of 

facial approximations. 

•	 Sex Assessment in Forensic Anthropology. To establish guidelines for the valid assessment of gender 

from the skeleton. 
52 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

SCOPE CHAIR

The Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) 

Subcommittee advances the scientific basis 

for disaster victim identification by assembling multi-disciplinary professionals from 

the DVI community in a collaborative effort 

to develop consensus standards, guidelines 

and best practices supporting mass fatality/

casualty management for use by domestic 

and international medicolegal and emergency management practitioners. The groups’ 

primary audience is medical and legal examiners, although emergency management 

practitioners inherit this responsibility when 

the office in question is very small.

Jason Wiersema, a Forensic Anthropologist and Director 

of Forensic Emergency Management at the Harris County 

Institute of Forensic Sciences, is the chair. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 49 Members: 16

Task Groups: 

•	 DVI DNA

•	 DVI Forensic Pathology

•	 DVI Data Management

•	 DVI Fingerprint

•	 DVI Anthropology

•	 DVI Scene Processing

•	 DVI Ethics and Law

•	 DVI Management

•	 DVI Terminology

•	 Forensic Odontology

•	 Friction Ridge

•	 Molecular Biology

•	 Reconciliation

•	 Victim Identification Center/Family Assistance 

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 4

Standards/Guidelines Projects

•	 Standard Practices for DNA Analysis for Human Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents.

•	 Standard Practices for the Forensic Pathologist in the Disaster Victim Identification Context. The intended scope of this document is to provide standard practice guidelines regarding postmortem data collection by forensic pathologists during a mass fatality incident response.

•	 Mass Fatality Incident Data Management: Standard Practices for the Medicolegal Authority. The intended scope of this document is to provide standard practice guidelines for the management of DVI data 

(antemortem and postmortem). 

•	 Postmortem Impression Submission Strategy for Comprehensive Searches of Essential Automated 

Fingerprint Identification System Databases. The intended scope of this document is to provide standard practice guidelines regarding postmortem fingerprint impression evidence during a mass fatality 

incident response. 

•	 Forensic Anthropology in DVI: Standard Practices for the Medicolegal Authority. The intended scope of 

this document is to provide standards regarding the application of forensic anthropological methods in 

the mass fatality context.

•	 Mass Fatality Incident Scene Processing: Standard Practices for the Medicolegal Authority. The intended 

scope of this document is to provide standards for the management of human remains recovery from a 

mass fatality incident scene.

Disaster Victim Identification Subcommittee
OSAC Annual Report 53

February 2015 – February 2016

Dogs and Sensors Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Dogs and Sensors Subcommittee focuses on standards and guidelines resulting 

in continual improvement of consistency, 

performance, and legal acceptance of deployed detection teams. Focus areas include 

the optimal integration with other sensors 

designed to improve overall detection capabilities.

Kenneth Furton, Provost and Executive Vice President of 

Florida International University, is the chair. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 36 Members: 17

Task Groups: 

•	 Canine Terminology

•	 Canine Career Field Progression

•	 Canine Narcotic Detection

•	 Tracking/Trailing People Based on Last Known 

Position

•	 (K)Canine Document Cross-Utilization

•	 Canine Document Review (CDRTG)

•	 Canine Integration of Dogs and Sensors

•	 Canine Outreach and Education

•	 Canine Training/Competency

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 5

Standards/Guidelines Projects

•	 General Canine Guidelines. The scope is to establish consensus-based best practice general guidelines 

for training, certification, and documentation pertaining to all canine disciplines. Discipline-specific 

guidelines are found within the corresponding subcommittee documents.

•	 Working Canine Terminology. To provide the industry with a comprehensive terminology list as it pertains to the working canine industry at large to ensure consistency and understanding of terms and the 

vernacular most commonly used across canine disciplines. This will benefit the forensic science community through consolidation of terms and definitions used for operational reports, testimony, report 

documentation, certification procedures, and training records documentation. 

•	 Canine Career Field Progression. Provide recommended best practice guidelines for career progression 

system to ensure proper training and experience within canine organizations.

•	 Canine Narcotics Detection. To provide recommended guidelines for training, certification and documentation pertaining to narcotic detector canines.

•	 Tracking/Trailing People Based on Last Known Position. Provide recommended best practice guidelines 

for training, certification and documentation pertaining to tracking/trailing people based on last known 

position. Tracking or trailing people based on their last know position is the area of canine scent detection that utilizes a canine team to search for and follow a specific person’s track or trail after the canine 

has been started on the person’s last known position or a scented article associated with that person. 
54 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Fire and Explosion Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Fire and Explosion Identification Subcommittee focuses on standards and guidelines related to the investigation, analyses 

and interpretation of fire and explosion 

incidents. The subcommittee works closely 

with the OSAC Subcommittee on Fire Debris 

and Explosives (Chemistry/Instrumental 

Analysis SAC).

Craig Beyler, Technical Director at Jensen Hughes, is the 

chair. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 67 Members: 17

Task Groups: 

•	 Competencies

•	 Report Writing

•	 Comparative Analysis

•	 Research Agenda

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 10

Standards/Guidelines Projects

•	 NFPA 921 (2014) Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations 

•	 NFPA 1033 (2014) Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator

•	 ASTM E860, 2007 (2013) Standard Practice for Examining and Preparing Items that Are or May Become 

Involved in Criminal or Civil Litigation 

•	 ASTM E678, 2007 Standard Practice for Evaluation of Scientific or Technical Data

•	 ASTM E620, 2011 Standard Practice for Reporting Opinions of Scientific or Technical Experts

•	 ASTM E1459, 2013 Standard Guide for Physical Evidence Labeling and Related Documentation, 

•	 ASTM E1188, 2011 Standard Practice for Collection and Preservation of Information and Physical Items 

by a Technical Investigator

•	 ASTM E1020, 2013 Standard Practice for Reporting Opinions of Technical Experts

Competencies. Evaluation of investigator competencies required 

•	 Documentation. Documentation of the investigation, report preparation. Enhance quality of investigation reports

In addition to these projects, this subcommittee is analyzing cognitive bias issues. 
OSAC Annual Report 55

February 2015 – February 2016

Medicolegal Death Investigation Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Medicolegal Death Investigation 

Subcommittee focuses on standards and 

guidelines related to deaths reportable to 

coroners and medical examiners including 

sudden, unattended, unexpected, or suspicious deaths and deaths due to violence 

(accidents, suicides and homicides). This 

subcommittee also focuses on education, 

research, certification, accreditation, systems administration, and the value of medicolegal death investigation to public health.

John Fudenberg, Coroner at the Clark County Office of 

the Coroner/Medical Examiner, is the chair. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 136 Members: 17

Task Groups: 

•	 Autopsy Standards

•	 MDLI Glossary

•	 Medical Legal Death Scene Investigation

•	 Peer Review

•	 Quality Assurance & Human Factors and Cognitive Bias

•	 Standards Document Review 

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 10

Standards/Guidelines Projects

•	 Communicating findings, including final cause and manner of death and access to autopsy reports, to 

the next of kin of decedents.

•	 Documentation of medicolegal death investigator findings

•	 Jurisdictional determination by certified medicolegal death investigators

•	 Collection of blood or other appropriate samples for potential genetic testing in sudden, unexplained 

deaths that remain unexplained at the completion of the autopsy

•	 Determination of cause of death

•	 Evaluation of circumstances surrounding death

•	 Medical examiner and coroner independence

•	 Recognition of the NAME Forensic Autopsy Standards as the National Practice Model

•	 Forensic pathology as the practice of medicine

•	 Medicolegal death investigation offices shall participate in local or state level child fatality review teams
56 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Odontology Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Odontology Subcommittee focuses 

on standards and guidelines related to 

the application of dentistry to legal issues 

including, but not limited to, human identification, bitemark analysis, age estimation, 

litigation, oral and facial injuries, and human abuse and neglect.

Robert Barsley, D.D.S., a professor and division head at 

the Louisiana State University Health Science Center, is 

the subcommittee chair.

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants 55 Members 17

Task Groups 

•	 Dental Identification

•	 Dental Age Assessment

•	 Oral and Perioral Injuries: Abuse and Neglect

•	 Bitemark

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 3

Standards/Guidelines Projects

•	 ANSI/ADA Standard No. 1058, Forensic Dental Data Set

o Uniform nomenclature for forensic dental data with standardized terms to convey information 

for human identification

•	 ADA Technical Report Addressing Dental Age Assessment

•	 ADA Technical Report No. 1088, Human Identification by Comparative Dental Analysis

o Guidelines for dental identification formatted for SDO

•	 Performed an analysis of potential SDOs for the committee. 

•	 Performed review of other relevant standards, guidelines, and reference materials. 
OSAC Annual Report 57

February 2015 – February 2016

Digital/Multimedia SAC

SCOPE CHAIR

The Digital/Multimedia SAC manages the activities of four subcommittees which include Digital 

Evidence, Facial Identification, Speaker Recognition and Video/Imaging Technology and Analysis 

(VITAL)

Richard Vorder Bruegge, a Senior Photographic 

Technologist, the FBI, is the chair. He has performed 

analyses of thousands of image and in-depth analysis 

examinations. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 100 Members: 15

Activities

The SAC and its subcommittees are working to: 

•	 Define the discipline

•	 Develop a SAC-wide terminology document in order to establish consistency within the SAC where 

possible. 

•	 Professional qualifications

•	 Gap analysis/research agenda

•	 Sample identification and collection

•	 Validation

•	 Methods, tools, people

•	 Documentation

•	 Conclusion scales

•	 Interpretation of results

•	 Human factors

•	 Automated systems

There are approximately 80 relevant existing documents that fall within the area of expertise of this SAC. 

Key challenges include:

•	 Defining the scientific paradigm for digital/multimedia forensics 

•	 Error rates through testing examiners (human beings are an important part of this forensic science 

discipline)

•	 Working closely with the Physics/Pattern SAC on conclusion scales 

•	 Working to define discipline-specific terminology, as well as global terminology 
58 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Digital Evidence Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Digital Evidence Subcommittee focuses on 

standards and guidelines related to information 

of probative value that is stored or transmitted 

in binary form. This subcommittee’s activities 

are more encompassing of digital evidence 

overall, whereas the other subcommittees in 

this discipline are more specialized. 

James Darnell, Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge at 

the U.S. Secret Service, is the chair. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 135 Members: 19

Task Groups

•	 Training/ Certification 

•	 Education 

•	 Audio 

•	 Mobile Devices 

•	 Computer 

•	 Quality Assurance

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 4

Standards/Guidelines Projects

With input from members as well as affiliates representing national and international agencies, the subcommittee is working on the following projects: 

•	 Minimum Requirements for Quality Assurance in the Processing of Digital and Multimedia Evidence. This 

document proposes minimum requirements regarding training/education, examiner certification, examination requirements, and lab requirements. The objective is to describe minimum requirements to 

achieve quality assurance in regard to completing digital evidence forensic examinations. The subcommittee is placing a lot of care on defining what the proper certification requirements should be. 

•	 The subcommittee has begun paperwork to submit ASTM E2678-09 Standard Guide for Education and 

Training in Computer Forensics. 

•	 The subcommittee is developing documents related to Forensic Audio Examination, Retrieval, Workflow; 

these will be new standards derived from Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) Best 

Practices for Forensics Audio. The objective of these documents is to provide forensic audio practitioners recommendations for the handling and examination of forensic audio evidence.

•	 Best Practices for Preservation, Isolation, and Acquisition of Mobile and Other Embedded Systems; new 

guidelines derived from NIST 800-101 (3 new documents). The objective of these documents is to help 

organizations evolve appropriate policies and procedures for dealing with mobile devices and to prepare 

forensic specialists to conduct forensically sound examinations involving mobile devices.

The subcommittee is focused on completing all of the OSAC forms and putting new documents into specific 

SDO templates for submission to the SDOs. Long term, the subcommittee is currently considering questions 

related to lab accreditation and to what level it should be necessary. Another long-term consideration are the 

potential harmful effects of long-term exposure of practitioners to questionable stressful material.
OSAC Annual Report 59

February 2015 – February 2016

Facial Identification Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

 The Facial Identification .Subcommittee facilitates 

development and promotes consensus standards 

and guidelines for the image-based comparisons of 

human facial features and to provide recommendations for the research and development necessary to 

advance the state of the science.

Lora Sims, a Biometric Examiner at Ideal Innovations, is 

the chair. 

BY THE NUMBERS

Applicants: 70 Members: 16

Task Groups:

•	 One -to-One

•	 Systems and Capture

•	 Public Communications

•	 Training

Items reached RA-100: 0

Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 5

Standards/Guidelines Projects

With input from members as well as affiliates representing national and international agencies, the subcommittee is working on the following projects: 

•	 Facial Image Comparison Feature List for Morphological Analysis. The scope of this document is to 

provide a standardized list to be considered when conducting morphological analysis

•	 Capture and Equipment Assessment for Face Recognition Systems. The scope of this document is to 

provide best practices for collection to ensure the images captured are suitable for Face Recognition 

(FR) system use

•	 Guidelines for Post Mortem Facial Image Capture. The scope of this document is to provide guidelines 

for capturing postmortem facial images of unidentified human remains in a controlled (morgue) and 

semi-controlled (field) settings to facilitate Facial Recognition (FR) searches or facial comparison that 

may contribute to determining the identity of the unidentified person.

•	 Facial Comparison Overview. The scope of this document is to provide an overview of how facial comparisons are used in the security, intelligence, law enforcement, and forensic communities.

•	 Guidelines for Facial Comparison Methods. The scope of this document is to describe current methods 

for facial comparison and to provide guidelines for their appropriate use. 
60 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

SCOPE CHAIR

The Speaker Recognition Subcommittee supports 

and promotes the scientific foundations and 

practice of speaker recognition, voice data collec- tion, measurement, transmission, and retrieval, 

through the development and dissemination 

of consensus-based standards, guidelines, best 

practices, and recommendations for forensic and 

investigatory applications. Activities:

•	 Identifying the scope, theories, and practice areas 

of the disciplines of voice biometrics, speaker 

identification, voice data collection, measurement, 

transmission, and retrieval

•	 Recommending best practices for data collection, 

quality assessment, compression, decompression, 

transmission protocols, reports, and terminology

•	 Proposing standard procedures for data interpretation and wording of conclusions presented in court

•	 Suggesting education, training, and continuing 

education requirements for practitioners

•	 Promulgating and disseminating research and development priorities to the community

•	 Collecting and distributing discipline-specific information on scientific foundations

•	 Seeking international recognition and harmoniza- tion of appropriate work products

Hirotaka Nakasone, a Senior Audio Electronics Engineer at the FBI, is the chair. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 65 Members: 24

Task Groups:

•	 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

•	 Best Practice 

•	 Legal Aspect of Speaker Recognition (LASR) 

•	 Ad hoc Committee

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 0

Standards/Guidelines Projects

•	 Speech collection guidelines for speaker recognition applications 

•	 Recommendations for prioritized research areas

•	 Data and evaluation surveys 

•	 Annotated list of important speaker recognition cases 

•	 Guidelines for Data Preparation

•	 Guidelines for the Use of ANSI/NIST-Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) Type 11 Voice Records

•	 Forensic Speaker Recognition Process Map

•	 Contributions to law journals on the current technical and legal status of speaker recognition methods

•	 Annotated list of important speaker recognition cases

Speaker Recognition Subcommittee
OSAC Annual Report 61

February 2015 – February 2016

Video/Imaging Technology and Analysis (VITAL) Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIRS

The VITAL Subcommittee focuses on standards 

and guidelines related to the application of 

methods and technologies to analyze information related to forensic imagery from a variety of systems. This encompasses aspects of 

capture, storage, processing, archiving, quality 

assurance and training. Major areas of interest 

include: 

•	 Photography - forensic photographic 

acquisition and documentation 

•	 Image Analysis - examine, evaluate, 

and render an opinion pertaining to an 

image and/or image-related data

•	 Video Analysis - the acquisition, examination and evaluation pertaining to 

a video and/or video-related data for 

rendering an opinion.

Carl Kriigel, a Digital Evidence Examiner at the Defense 

Forensic Science Center, is the chair. Bill Trenkle is the 

vice chair, and Christina Malone is the executive secretary.

BY THE NUMBERS

Applicants: 71 Members: 16

Task Groups:

•	 Image Analysis 

•	 Video Analysis 

•	 Photography 

•	 VITAL

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 2

Standards/Guidelines Projects

With input from members as well as affiliates representing national and international agencies, the subcom- mittee is working on the following projects: 

•	 Guidelines for the Forensic Use of Photogrammetry involves the process of obtaining dimensional 

information as regards objects and people depicted in imagery. For forensic purposes, photogrammetry 

provides information including, but not limited to, the heights of individuals, velocity of vehicles, and/or 

lengths of objects. 

•	 Standards for Image Authentication is a subtask of Image Analysis. This document addresses issues 

specific to Image Authentication. One question involved in authentication is the issue of image manipu- lation.

•	 Best Practices for Data Retrieval from Digital Video Recorders (DVR). This document is intended to pro- vide procedures for the collection of data from digital video recorders (DVRs) that ensure playback while 

maintaining best evidence.

•	 Latent Print Evidence Photography. The scope of this document is to provide recommendations on the 

best practices for properly trained and qualified personal to capture images of latent print evidence 

using a digital single lens reflex camera or a flatbed scanner that is suitable for comparison purposes. 

•	 Training Guidelines for Video Analysis, Image Analysis and Photography. This document recommends 

topics and guidelines for training within the disciplines of video analysis, image analysis and photogra- phy. 
62 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Physics/Pattern SAC

SCOPE CHAIR

The Physics/Pattern SAC fosters the development of rigorous standards and 

guidelines within and across the pattern 

disciplines, assists in the adoption of these 

standards/guidelines, encourages enforcement of the standard/guidelines through 

accreditation, certification, and training, 

and encourages evaluations to test and 

validate procedures. The SAC encourages 

research to improve the disciplines and 

enhance the rigor of these disciplines 

through transparent, accurate, and reliable 

processes.

Austin Hicklin, the chair, is a Fellow at Noblis.

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 158 Members: 15

Task Groups: 

• Terminology 

• Collection Crime Scene Investigation

• Conclusions

• Documentation

• Imaging

• Reporting

• Research

• Testimony

• Training/accreditation

• Validation

• Website

Activities

The Physics/Pattern SAC has set goals for the standards and guidelines within the group. Standards and guidelines need to be rigorous as practical given current capabilities, but OSAC also needs to recommend research to 

continually improve the disciplines in these areas.

The SAC is facilitating consistent terminology and conclusions across the disciplines, requesting that procedures be as quantitative and objective as practical, and that documentation is complete and transparent. 

Standards and guidelines related to reporting and testimony should:

o include all data on which conclusions are based

o distinguish data, conclusions, and opinions

o clearly state the limitations and caveats of conclusions

o clearly specify the bases of opinions
OSAC Annual Report 63

February 2015 – February 2016

Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Bloodstain Patt ern Analysis (BPA) Subcommitt ee, one of the subcommitt ees within the 

Physics/Patt ern Interpretati on SAC, focuses on 

standards and guidelines related to the scienti fic detecti on and analysis of bloodstain patt erns 

present at crime scenes and on associated 

evidence. The committ ee focuses on standards 

and guidelines related to two disti nct roles in 

bloodstain patt ern analysis—fi rst is related 

to the analyst who goes to a crime scene to 

perform onsite interpretati ons, perform reconstructi ons, and develop documentati on. There 

are also lab-based analysts who interpret stains 

on clothing and other associated evidence.

Toby L. Wolson, M.S., F-ABC is a forensic consultant with 

33 years of experience. Prior to being a consultant he was 

a Criminalist Supervisor in the Forensic Biology Secti on 

of the Miami-Dade Police Department Forensic Services 

Bureau.

BY THE NUMBERS

Applicants: 106 Members: 19

Task Groups: 

• BPA Reports and Validati on 

• BPA Training & Educati on 

• BPA Quality Assurance and Standard Operati ng 

Procedures

• BPA Research 

• Terminology, Taxonomy, and Conclusions 

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 10

Standards/Guidelines Projects

With input from members as well as affi liates representi ng nati onal and internati onal agencies, the subcommitt ee completed the initi al draft of discipline-relevant terminology for considerati on by the SAC. The subcommitt ee is currently working on development of standardized conclusion statements. Aft er that it will focus on 

conclusion statements for bloodstain patt ern reconstructi ons. The subcommitt ee is working on guidelines for 

reporti ng, and guidelines for the validati on of new methods. The task group has also begun discussions for the 

development of taxonomy for bloodstain patt ern identi fi cati on. 

Standards/guidelines projects include: 

• BPA Terminology

• Development of Conclusion Statements for BPA

• Development of BPA Taxonomy

• Guidelines for Report Writi ng in Bloodstain Patt ern Analysis

• Guidelines for the Validati on of New Procedures in Bloodstain Patt ern Analysis

• Guidelines for the Minimum Educati on and Training Requirements for Bloodstain Patt ern Analysts

• Guidelines for a BPA Certi fi cati on Program

• Guidelines for a Quality Assurance Program in Bloodstain Patt ern Analysis

• Guidelines for Developing Standard Operati ng Procedures for Bloodstain Patt ern Analysis

• Guidelines for Profi ciency Testi ng in Bloodstain Patt ern Analysis

The BPA Subcommitt ee currently has 50+ BPA experts who are approved to be affi liates. They include citi zens 

of 6 countries, public, private, academia, law enforcement, crime scene investi gati ons, crime laboratory, and 

judicial sectors.
64 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Firearms and Toolmarks Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Firearms and Toolmarks Subcommittee, 

within the Physics/Pattern Interpretation SAC, 

focuses on standards and guidelines related 

to the examination of firearm and toolmark 

evidence. This includes the comparison of 

microscopic toolmarks on bullets, cartridge 

cases, and other ammunition components. 

Examinations may also include firearm function testing, serial number restoration, muzzle-to-object distance determination, tools, 

and toolmarks.

Andy Smith is the Supervisor of the Firearm and 

Toolmark Unit for the San Francisco Police Department 

Crime Lab. He is currently a board member for the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners and was 

previous chair of Scientific Working Group for Firearms 

and Toolmarks. 

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 93 Members: 20

Task Groups: 

•	 Technology Development, Validation, and 

Implementation 

•	 Firearm and Toolmark Examination Standards 

•	 Uncertainty of Measurement 

•	 Training Program 

•	 Standard Criteria for Identification, Documentation, and Reporting

# Items reached RA-100: 0 

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 9

Standards/Guidelines Projects

Within the past year, the subcommittee has been working on terminology and conclusions documents as well 

as the projects listed below. They have also provided a written response to a series of questions asked by the 

President’s Council of Advisor’s on Science and Technology (PCAST). The subcommittee has been working to 

make sure task groups are strategically focused on completing the proposed projects and prepared for submission to the selected SDO body. Standards/guidelines projects include: 

 •	 Topography Analysis and Comparison Software for Toolmarks 

•	 Implementation of 3D Technologies in Forensic Laboratories 

•	 3D Measurement Hardware and Measurement Quality Control 

•	 Standard Guideline/Best Practice for the Safe Handling of Firearms and Ammunition

•	 Standard Test Method for the Physical Examination and Classification of Firearms

•	 Standard Test Method for Function/Operability Testing of Firearms

•	 Standard Test Method for Measuring Trigger Pull of Firearms

•	 Standard Test Method for Measuring Barrel and Overall Length of Firearms

•	 Guidelines for Barrel and Overall Length Measurements for Firearms

•	 Uncertainty for B/OL Measurement and Two Spreadsheets

•	 Minimum Qualifications for Firearm and Toolmark Examiner

•	 Minimum Qualifications for Firearm and Toolmark Examiner Trainee

•	 Required Material/Modules of Instruction for Firearm and Toolmark Examiner in Training

•	 Standard Criteria for Identification, Documentation, and Reporting
OSAC Annual Report 65

February 2015 – February 2016

Friction Ridge Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Friction Ridge Subcommittee, one of 

the subcommittees within the Physics/Pattern Interpretation SAC, focuses on standards and guidelines related to the forensic 

examination of friction ridge detail from 

the hands and feet.

Melissa Gische works for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. She has over sixteen years of experience as a latent 

print examiner and was an active member of Scientific 

Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology prior to its transition to OSAC.

BY THE NUMBERS 

Applicants: 137 Members: 20 (+ 3 routine international guests)

Task Groups: 

• Research

• Articulation

• Training

• Examination

• Conclusions

• Process Map

• Roadmap

• Terminology

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 5

Standards/Guidelines Projects

Within the past year, the Friction Ridge Subcommittee (FRS) has focused on consolidating and reorganizing 

tasks, staffing task groups with affiliates, navigating SDO issues, and identifying a strategic path forward. The FRS 

finalized priority research needs and completed a draft of the Guideline for the Articulation of the Source Identification Conclusion in Friction Ridge Examinations. The FRS has worked on defining conclusions and criteria for 

examination decisions, as well as developing both a terminology document and a training guideline. Members of 

the subcommittee have also participated in several interdisciplinary virtual subcommittees, including one established to create a process map across multiple disciplines. As the subcommittee evolves from primarily focusing 

on best practices and standards solely geared towards practitioners to also considering standards and guidelines 

that may be adopted by the accrediting bodies, an additional task group has been created to develop a roadmap 

for the subcommittee. Standards/guidelines projects include:

•	 Guideline for the Articulation of the Source Identification Conclusion in Friction Ridge Examinations 

•	 Guideline for Friction Ridge Examiner Training 

•	 Standard for Examination 

•	 Standard for Conclusions 

•	 Terminology 

•	 Roadmap

•	 ACE Process Map

•	 ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 Update: 2013 Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial

& Other Biometric Information 

•	 ISO/IEC 17020:2012(E) Conformity Assessment — Requirements for the Operation of Various Types of 

Bodies Performing Inspection 

•	 ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E) General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories
66 OSAC Annual Report

February 2015 – February 2016

Footwear and Tire Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Footwear and Tire Subcommittee, one of 

the subcommittees within the Physics/Pattern 

Interpretation SAC, focuses on standards and 

guidelines related to the detection, documentation, recovery, examination and comparison 

of footwear and tire evidence.

Matt Johnson works for the Orange County (California) 

Sheriff’s Department, OC Crime Lab and is a footwear and 

tire track examiner.

BY THE NUMBERS

Applicants: 70 Members: 23

Task Groups: 

•	 Footwear and Tire Examination/Comparison 

Methods

•	 Footwear and Tire Research/Technology 

•	 Footwear and Tire Terminology, Training and Competency 

•	 Footwear and Tire Processing/Enhancement 

Methods

•	 Footwear and Tire Detection/Collection Methods, 

Resources, Footwear & Tire Statistics

# Items reached RA-100: 0

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 5

Standards/Guidelines Projects

Within the past year, the subcommittee has focused on standards and guideline projects. In addition, we 

added a task group to communicate between the subcommittee and NIST researchers conducting research into 

quantification of footwear evidence. We also have been discussing a report writing/testimony document to 

complement the conclusions scale document under consideration. Our Kavi Workspace staff have been busy 

creating “Projects” in Kavi Workspace, and all of us on the subcommittee are learning how to work with documents within Kavi Workspace.

Standards/Guidelines Projects Include:

•	 Footwear/Tires Test Impression Guide

•	 Footwear/Tire Terminology Guide

•	 Footwear and Tire Examiner Scope of Work, Minimum Requirements, and Training Standard (tentative 

title)

•	 Footwear and Tire Impression Chemical Enhancement Guide

•	 Guide for Casting Footwear and Tire Impression Evidence

•	 Guide for Lifting Footwear and Tire Impression Evidence

•	 Guide for the Forensic Documentation and Photography of Footwear and Tire Impressions at the Crime 

Scene
OSAC Annual Report 67

February 2015 – February 2016

Forensic Document Examination Subcommittee

SCOPE CHAIR

The Forensic Document Examination Subcommittee, one of the subcommittees within the 

Physics/Pattern Interpretation SAC, focuses 

on standards and guidelines related to the 

discipline, including:

(1) source of handwriting, (2) source of machine-produced documents, typewriting, or 

other impressions and marks, (3) materials 

and devices involved in the production of 

documents, (4) genuineness and alterations, 

(5) preservation and/or restoration of legibility, (6) documentation and reporting, and (7) 

training and competency.

Rigo Vargas works with the Mississippi Forensics Laboratory 

located in Biloxi, Mississippi. Mr. Vargas is the past chairman of the former E30.02 subcommittee on Questioned 

Documents in ASTM and the current vice-chair of Scientific 

Working Group for Forensic Document Examination. 

BY THE NUMBERS

Applicants: 80 Members: 19

Task Groups:

• Expressing Conclusions

• Handwriting

• Questioned Document Terminology

• Scope of Work

• Training

• Human Factors (Research)

# Items reached RA-100: 1

# Items reached SDO-0 or SDO-100: 7

Standards/Guidelines Projects

With input from members as well as affiliates representing national and international agencies, the subcommittee is working on the following projects. Standards/Guidelines Projects include: 

• Standard Guide for Minimum Training Requirements for Forensic Document Examiners. This guide 

provides minimum requirements and procedures that should be used for the fundamental training of 

forensic document examiners.

• Scope of Expertise in Forensic Document Examination. This guide describes the responsibilities and general qualifications of individuals engaged in the scientific practice of forensic document examination. 

• OSAC Standard Terminology Relating to the Examination of Questioned Documents. This technical report 

includes terminology that relates to the examinations performed by forensic document examiners.

• OSAC Standard for Examination of Handwritten Items. This standard provides procedures that should be 

used by forensic document examiners (SWGDOC Standard for Scope of Work of Forensic Document Exam- iners) for examinations and comparisons involving handwritten items and related procedures.

• OSAC Standard for Source Conclusions. This standard is a multi-disciplinary effort being crafted by all five 

Physics/Pattern subcommittees in unison. 

• Standard Guide for Indentation Examinations. This standard provides procedures that should be used by 

forensic document examiners (SWGDOC Standard for Scope of Work of Forensic Document Examiners) for 

examinations and comparisons involving visualization and recording of indentations. 

• Standard Guide for Examination of Altered Documents. This standard provides procedures for exam- inations that should be used by forensic document examiners (SWGDOC Standard for Scope of Work of 

Forensic Document Examiners) for examinations involving altered documents. 

• Standard for Bias (to be determined).
Organization of Scie

for Foren

N