United States of America: Postponement in imposition of reinspection user fees for food
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration was scheduled to put new reinspection user fees for domestic and imported products into effect on October 1, 2011, as authorized in the Food Safety Modernization Act, but has decided to delay them. Under the law, the agency was authorized to assess and collect the fees from, among others,
(1) the responsible party for each domestic facility and the US agent for each foreign facility subject to a reinspection to cover reinspection-related costs;
(2) the responsible party for a domestic facility and an importer who does not comply with a recall order issued under section 423 or 412(f) of the FD&C Act, to cover food recall activities associated with such order performed by FDA; and
(3) each importer subject to a reinspection, to cover reinspection-related costs.
The FDA had on August 1, 2011 published the fee rates for Fiscal Year 2012 for domestic and foreign facility reinspections, recall orders, and importer reinspections. The agency has not announced a new deadline for imposing the fees. In a later posting to its website it observed that, "The agency is still evaluating comments received in response to the August 1, 2011 Federal Register notice establishing fee rates for Fiscal Year 2012 ... Recognizing the particular complexities involved in these issues, FDA is not in a position to assess import reinspection fees until the agency has resolved these issues and the agency notifies the public."
The American Council of Independent Laboratories, Association of Food Industries and Cheese Importers Association of America filed a petition urging the FDA to abandon the fees, arguing that they are illegal.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
|Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations?|
|Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered?|
|Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government?|
|Was such evidence identified?|
|Is such evidence publicly available?|
|Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives?|
|Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken?|
|Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory?|
|Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation?|
Date of inception:
GTA Evaluation: Green
See the hyperlinked material in the description.