Vilsack’s office received the letter Monday. The letter includes signatures from House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn.; Ranking Member Frank Lukas, R-Okla.; Livestock Subcommittee Chairman David Scott, D-Ga., and Livestock Subcommittee Ranking Member Randy Neugbauer, R-Texas.

The proposed rules were published in the federal register by the USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) on June 22. Public comment is being made on the rules until Nov. 22.

The letter said the GIPSA rules had regulations that “greatly exceed the mandate of the Farm Bill” of 2008, and that if passed “would have major consequences in the marketing of livestock and poultry and producers and processors of all sizes,” thus necessitating some expanded economic analysis. The initial analysis done with the federal rule falls short in demonstrating the need for the rules, and its impact on the marketplace, the authors said.

The letter was praised by National Cattlemen’s Beef Association President Steve Foglesong as a common-sense approach to the rule-making process. Foglesong criticized the administration for backing a rule that intrudes on the free market .

“To further regulate America’s farmers and ranchers with no aggressive economic analysis of the rule’s unintended consequences is foolish,” he said. “Those supporting this rule are doing so blindfolded with no facts and figures.”

Since its release in June, the GIPSA rule has garnered widespread debate in its push to regulate fairness in its enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The rules would prohibit meat packers from buying livestock from other packers, and place limits on exclusive arrangements between packers and dealers. The rules also make it easier for a producer to prove harm under the law in bringing a legal complaint against another party under the PSA.

In August, a group of 21 U.S. senators, 19 of them Democrats, wrote a letter to Vilsack supporting the GIPSA rule proposals for clarifying the unjust and unfair practices that violate the PSA, while defending the market premiums that benefit producers in contracts.

Vilsack also received a letter last week from renowned animal welfare specialist Temple Grandin, a Colorado State University professor and author on cattle handling.

In her letter, Grandin expressed concerns for how the proposed rules would force packers to market cattle by requiring them to ship cattle at greater distances to a processing facility. Doing so would increase stress to the animals, she said and could also reverse progress on animal welfare-certification programs.

“As a scientist who has dedicated her life to improving livestock welfare, I am extremely alarmed that although this rule is concerned with marketing and competition, the department ultimately responsible for it – USDA – is also charged with enforcing the Humane Slaughter Act and apparently has paid so little attention to the animal welfare implications of this proposal,” Grandin’s stated in the letter, according to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association website.