2014 ERP New Member Book

If aPoolmember being considered to serve on anyparticular panel is an author, or his/her laboratory is the source of amethod under consideration by thePanel, theymust so indicate to theCSOorOMBChair. At the discretion of theCSOorOMB, the names of suchPoolmembersmaybe removed from consideration, or theymaybe considered to serve on theERPwith the understanding that a deliberate effort will be required to avoid anyknown or potential conflicts of interest. In these latter cases, assignments of individualmethods for peer reviewwill bemade in such awayby theChair that ERP memberswill not review anymethod forwhich they are an author or co-author, or for which their laboratory is the source; and,most importantly, theChairwill require that they abstain from voting on such amethod during the finalmethod selection process. TheCSOorOMBmay also allowPoolmembers that qualifyunder the requirements of expert reviewers, but forwhom there is a known or potential conflict of interest to be present as an observer on anyparticular Panel. In these cases, and only at the discretion of theChair, observersmayprovide comments, but only if andwhen called upon by the Chair to do so. Non-disclosureStatement: Allmembers of anERPmust have signed theAOAC VolunteerAcceptance Form. For certain contracts, eachPoolmember or observer chosenmaybe asked to sign a non-disclosure statement agreeingnot to discuss or disclose confidential information presented and discussed duringmeetings of theERP. Meetings of theERP: TheERPChairwill organizemeetings of theERP, to review the methods and accompanyingvalidation data, score them numerically, and prepare a summary report. Meetings of theERP can include votingmembers of the Panel, and non-votingmembers (AOAC staff, stakeholdermembers, and observers). TheCSOmay assist thePanel Chair in facilitatingmeetings. Themembers of thePanel are to reviewdistributed documents before themeeting. To facilitate the process, the Chairmay assign primary and secondary reviewers for eachmethod. The primary and secondary reviewers prepare a short critique of themethod that is distributed or presented to theERP. If both the primary and secondary reviewers conclude that themethod shouldnot be considered further, theERPChairmay call for a vote by the Panel; if a unanimous vote to drop amethodwithout further discussion results, theChair removes themethod from further consideration. ThePanel then discusses each of the remaining methods in turn. MethodSelectionProcess: TheERPwill evaluate all of themethods in a scientifically unbiasedmanner. Occasionally, a large number of analyticalmethods of variable quality are encountered. When this occurs, the following “pre-screening” procedure is suggested to eliminate methods that are not satisfactory. TheChair of theERPwith the assistance of at least one othermember of theERPmay review all of themethods and remove unsatisfactory methods from consideration. The remainder of themethodswould be sent to theERP members for review.

ApprovedbyOfficialMethods Board, November 13, 2008 ApprovedbyAOACBoardof Directors, December 9, 2008 AppealsProcessAppended–September 2009 RevisedbyAOACBoardof Directors,May 25, 2011

Page 3 of 6