GIPSA Extends Comment Period by 90 Days -Updated-
By Pork news source
| Monday, July 26, 2010
Updated Monday at 3:40 pm Central.
USDA Monday announced a 90-day extension to the comment period on the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration “undue preferences rule” that would place certain restrictions on how livestock are marketed. The proposal was published June 22 and originally set a 60-day comment period. Comments will now be due by November 22.
In announcing the extension, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Edward Avalos acknowledged the many requests for and against extensions of the comment period and said, “We take these requests very seriously. We feel it is important that producers and other stakeholders have adequate time to comment on the proposed rule.”
"Disaster" for Pork Producers
While it welcomed the extension of the comment period, the National Pork Producers Council said the USDA proposed rule on the buying and selling of livestock and poultry will be a disaster for producers.
“We are pleased that USDA extended the comment period on the proposed USDA rule,” said NPPC President Sam Carney, “but this thing will be a disaster for pork producers like me who need options for selling our pigs and for managing risks.”
According to a review by NPPC, the rule would dictate the terms of contracts, restrict marketing arrangements, require reams of paperwork, create legal uncertainty and limit producers’ ability to negotiate better prices for the animals they sell.
“That’s a recipe for stifling innovation, driving up costs, forcing simple contract disputes into court and – given those adverse consequences – compelling packers to own their animals rather than to contract with farmers like me to raise them,” Carney said.
In addition to the extension, USDA issued a “misconception and answer” document on the rule, attempting to clarify six provisions – a highly unusual move, particularly during a public comment period.
“In issuing the ‘clarifying’ document, it’s clear USDA had no idea of the tremendous adverse affects this rule would have on producers,” said Carney. “That said, we not only question why the agency would issue such a document during the public comment period but why it appears to be trying to confuse the plain meaning of the language in the proposed rule.”
American Meat Institute President J. Patrick Boyle, who had requested a 120-day extension called the move “a step in the right direction” given the size and scope of the rule, but one that should have gone further.
“While we appreciate the additional time, the new deadline precedes USDA’s final public meeting on competition issues schedule for December – a meeting that officials indicated in Congressional testimony this week is extremely important in determining public views on this issue,” he said. “Had the full 120 days been granted, the public meeting would have preceded the comment deadline and allowed all interested parties the full benefit of the public discourse in formulating their comments.”
Boyle also expressed appreciation to House and Senate leaders who sent letters to USDA encouraging an extension to the comment period. Noting that the rule is “broad in scope” and will have “far reaching effects on meat and poultry production in the U.S.,” 22 House members sent a letter July 16 asking for a 120-day extension saying that “the proposed rule contained no economic analysis regarding its need or impacts and interested parties will be unable to develop this data in the short timeline allowed.
Seventeen Senators wrote to the Secretary July 21 and expressed concern that the government is “missing a unique opportunity to hear directly from the various stakeholders” with its short comment deadline that precedes key public meetings and urged USDA to extend the comment period beyond the December 6 public meeting in Washington, D.C.
“As you move forward, we urge USDA to carefully consider the proper role and scope of federal regulation in this area and to actively listen to the concerns of everyone who will be impacted by this proposal,” the Senators said.
Source: NPPC, AMI
