NATIONAL MEAT
ASSOCIATIONâ
1970 Broadway, Suite 825,
Oakland, CA 94612
Ph. (510) 763-1533 or (202)
667-2108 · Fax (510) 763-6186
[email protected] · http://www.nmaonline.org
Office
of Information & Regulatory Affairs
Office
of Management & Budget
NEOB Room 10235
725 17th Street NW
Washington,
DC 20503
Dear
Dr. Morrall:
Re: Draft Report to Congress on the Costs & Benefits
of Federal Regulations
Notice
& Request for Comments
Federal
Register March 28, 2002
National Meat Association (NMA) represents meat packers and processors throughout the United States. NMA provides regulatory guidance and assistance to an industry which is heavily burdened by regulatory oversight. We are pleased to have this opportunity to provide comment on your Draft Report on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations.
NMA
supports the initiatives outlined in your draft report to Congress. OIRA has a strong record of supporting fair
and open rule making. The improvements
which you propose build on a bi-partisan record and consensus built by your predecessors,
beginning with Jim Miller and Wendy Gramm, and continuing through with Sally
Katzen and John Spotilla.
Specifically,
we are pleased by your encouragement of open dialogue between regulatory
agencies and persons who are regulated, as well as with consumers, and indeed
all Americans, who are the intended beneficiaries of regulation. In this regard, we think that your report
should address the role of negotiated rulemaking in the Federal Agency
process. In 1995, National Meat
Association asked the Secretary of Agriculture, who was one of the
Congressional authors of negotiated rulemaking legislation, to use this process
in developing new meat inspection controls.
NMA’s request was denied.
Eventually, USDA held a series of six public meetings to receive input
on its pathogen reduction and hazard analysis critical control point
regulations. However, portions of the
final regulations were not based on either the Agency’s proposal or the
discussions at the public meetings. The
result of this failed dialogue was the application of broad new requirements
which were substantially and generally supported by our association, but which
contained flawed elements which went beyond the Agency’s legal authority and
eventually led to costly litigation.
Had
the principles outlined in your report to Congress been followed, industry,
consumers and government would have been able to communicate through the rulemaking
process, rather than being forced to communicate through federal courts. The failure to follow reasonable and legally
mandated rulemaking procedures was costly to all concerned.
Legal
uncertainty regarding the scope or application of regulations creates an
unquantifiable cost for a regulated company and provides an incentive for the
owners of small companies to sell their businesses to larger competitors and to
invest their capital in less regulated businesses. In USDA’s 1996 Pathogen Reduction HACCP rulemaking, comments from
the Department’s Office of Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis (ORACBA)
were effectively ignored.
Your
report to Congress emphasizes the need to weigh costs and benefits. It is also important to weigh benefits
against benefits. In connection with
pathogen reduction, there has never been a quantification of the benefits of
end-product testing compared with carcass testing and/or the use of various
intervention techniques.
Cost
benefit analyses should evaluate whether proposed regulations will result in
greater industry concentration and should quantify the economic and social
costs that are likely. In this regard,
the National Meat Association has previously asked the Department of
Agriculture to institute a Concentration Watch to measure the impact of
regulations as they are implemented.
However, that request was never accepted. Perhaps it is an appropriate function for OIRA.
Finally,
it is important to measure the absolute value of benefits. For example, in efforts to control
pathogens, regulatory analysis needs to focus on where those pathogens
originate and where they are most controllable, whether that be on the farm, in
the processing plant, or during food handling in a restaurant or at home. The economic benefits of a control program
which only focuses on one sector are questionable unless equally effective
controls can be maintained at each level.
The economic resources available for regulation and control should be
targeted to those points where controls can be most effective.
National
Meat Association commends and supports the initiatives identified in OIRA’s
report to Congress. We trust these
comments are helpful.
Sincerely,
Rosemary
Mucklow
Executive
Director