Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

60779

Proposed Rules
Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 211
Thursday, November 4, 2021

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service 9 CFR Part 201
Doc. No. AMSFTPP210052
RIN 0580AB26

Poultry Grower Ranking Systems;
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:

The United States Department of Agricultures USDA Agricultural Marketing Service AMS is withdrawing a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2016. The proposed rule would have identified criteria that the Secretary of Agriculture Secretary could consider when determining whether a live poultry dealers use of a system for ranking poultry growers for settlement purposes is unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive or gives an undue or unreasonable preference, advantage, prejudice, or disadvantage.
Proposed amendments would also have clarified that, absent demonstration of a legitimate business justification, failing to use a poultry grower ranking system in a fair manner after applying the identified criteria is unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive and a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, regardless of whether it harms or is likely to harm competition. The Secretary has determined to withdraw the 2016 proposed rule and develop revised proposals pertaining to poultry grower ranking systems.
DATES: The proposed rule published at 81 FR 92723 on December 20, 2016, is withdrawn as of November 4, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S.
Brett Offutt, Chief Legal Officer/Policy Advisor, Packers and Stockyards Division, USDA AMS Fair Trade Practices Program, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250;

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:19 Nov 03, 2021

Jkt 256001

Phone: 202 6904355; or email:
s.brett.offutt@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A
proposed rule published at 81 FR 92723
on December 20, 2016, would have identified criteria the Secretary could consider when determining whether a live poultry dealers use of a poultry grower ranking system for ranking poultry growers for settlement purposes is unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive or gives an undue or unreasonable preference, advantage, prejudice, or disadvantage. Further, the 2016 proposed rule would have amended regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act regulations to clarify that, absent demonstration of a legitimate business justification, failure to use a poultry grower ranking system in a fair manner after applying the identified criteria is unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive and a violation of section 202a of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented Act, regardless of whether it harms or is likely to harm competition.
The December 2016 proposed rule published by USDAs former Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration GIPSA was a modification to an earlier GIPSA
proposed rule 75 FR 35338; June 22, 2010 that included requirements regarding a live poultry dealers use of a poultry grower ranking system when determining payment for grower services. The 2010 proposed rule would have required live poultry dealers paying growers on a tournament system to pay growers raising the same type and kind of poultry the same base pay and would have required that growers be settled in groups with other growers with like house types. Upon review of public comments received both in writing and through public meetings held during the comment period in 2010, GIPSA elected not to finalize the 2010 proposed rule, and instead modified the earlier proposal, published the modification in the December 2016
proposed rule, and requested further public comment.
The comment period for the December 2016 proposed rule was originally scheduled to close on February 21, 2017. GIPSA extended the comment period until March 24, 2017
82 FR 9533; February 7, 2017, consistent with the memorandum of
PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

January 20, 2017, to heads of executive departments and agencies from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled Regulatory Freeze Pending Review. In total, GIPSA
received 239 comment submissions on the December 2016 proposed rule. A
number of submissions included lists of signatories or multiple copies of identical form letters signed by different individuals.
In November 2017, responsibility for GIPSA activities was transferred to AMS, which now administers the Packers and Stockyards Act and regulations, and which has assumed responsibility for this rulemaking.
Comments submitted on the December 2016 proposed rule, as well as comments submitted in response to a related Packers and Stockyards proposed rule 85 FR 1771; January 13, 2020 and input from the industry, reflected both support for and opposition to the December 2016
proposals.
Comments on the December 2016 rule were submitted by individual poultry growers and processors, associations representing poultry growers and processors, other livestock producers and producer associations, individual consumers and consumer advocacy groups, and other interested entities.
Many grower and consumer commenters supported proposals, saying the criteria in proposed 201.214
offered tools with which poultry growers and family farms could protect themselves from severe economic losses under potentially unfair contract terms.
Commenters further suggested adoption of the proposed rule and its grower protections would strengthen rural economies and the U.S. poultry industrys position in the global marketplace. Some commenters said that provisions of the proposed rule would help level the playing field between poultry growers and processors by giving growers greater contracting power. Other commenters said the proposed criteria for evaluating contract terms would ensure farmers can continue to operate with basic protections under the law. A comment from an animal welfare organization supported the proposed rule because they believe its provisions would protect growers who speak out about inhumane practices from retaliation.

E:FRFM04NOP1.SGM

04NOP1