Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 211 / Thursday, November 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

carry a greater proportion of the risk because they supply most of the production inputs. Further, these commenters asserted that vertically integrated processors are in a better position than growers to assume most of the risk because those processors can operate on a more efficient scale than growers.
According to the comment from an association of chicken production and processing companies, GIPSAs regulatory impact analysis projected decreased certainty for regulated entities and increased risk of litigation due to the proposed rule. This commenter suggested the regulation should instead increase certainty for regulated entities and decrease risk of wasteful litigation.
Some commenters maintained that the provisions of the proposed rule would establish an unprecedented level of government intervention that would have negative ramifications for the industry and consumers. Others insisted that the rule contradicted the Packers and Stockyards Acts provisions and intent,2 exceeded the Congressional mandate of the 2008 Farm Bill,3 and/or conflicted with court precedence with respect to competitive harm.
A comment from a federation of turkey producers opposed the proposed rule. The commenter asserted that the proposed rule failed to recognize important distinctions between broiler chicken and turkey production in matters such as breeder diversity, production cycle length, gender segregation, and farm and facility size.
The commenter said proposed requirements intended to address broiler production issues would not always be applicable to turkey production models and could prove to be injurious to the turkey industry. The commenter recommended that USDA
rescind the proposed rule and pay significant attention to the effects on turkey production in future rulemaking attempts.
Several commenters, although purportedly responding to the proposed rule, submitted comments that were outside the scope of this particular rulemaking. For example, commenters 2 Some commenters asserted that the Act protects individual growers from the effects of competitive harm, while other argued that a violation of Section 202a or b has not occurred unless there is harm to multiple individuals in the market. One commenter argued that the Act provides clear authority to USDA to clarify terms and interpret the Acts intent.
3 Provisions of Title XI of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 2008 Farm Bill; Pub. L.
110234 require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish criteria to consider when determining whether the Packers and Stockyards Act has been violated.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:19 Nov 03, 2021

Jkt 256001

offered suggestions about alternative contract production and pay methods the industry could adopt or discussed issues related to cattle production and marketing. Several commenters criticized GIPSA for disregarding public input about systematic abuses suffered by contract poultry growers. According to commenters, such abuses were described by participants in a May 2010
USDA/Department of Justice-sponsored workshop held to better understand industry concerns. Other commenters addressed provisions of the two other rules GIPSA published on December 20, 2016, including the previously mentioned Scope of Sections 202a and b of the Packers and Stockyards Act, and the proposed rule titled Unfair Practices and Undue Preferences in Violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act 81 FR 92703.
AMS values the input of all commenters. AMS finds that many of the comments on the proposed rule both supportive and opposed identified reasonable concerns regarding the proposed regulations structure and language. These concerns included uncertainties about USDAs method for applying criteria and vague criteria language. AMS recognizes that differences in broiler and turkey production systems need fair consideration. Moreover, the proposed rule may not have adequately addressed information imbalances between contracting parties. In light of these comments, AMS prefers to reexamine regulatory requirements, specific potential violations, general criteria, and recordkeeping aspects, as well as the structure, of a rule regarding poultry production contracts.
Because of the breadth of this reexamination, AMS concludes that this proposed rulemaking is unable to address many of the commenters concerns without material changes.
AMS intends to consider further the issues raised by the commenters, as well as study any developments since publication of the proposed rule.
Following those activities, we plan to issue and solicit comments on a new regulatory proposal pertaining to poultry grower ranking systems.
Therefore, we are withdrawing the December 2016 proposed rule.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 181229c.
Erin Morris, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
FR Doc. 202123945 Filed 11321; 8:45 am BILLING CODE P

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

60781

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71
Docket No. FAA20210924; Airspace Docket No. 21ANM48
RIN 2120AA66

Proposed Establishment of Class E
airspace; Monticello Airport, UT
Federal Aviation Administration FAA, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking NPRM.
AGENCY:

This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Monticello Airport, Monticello, UT. The establishment of airspace supports the airports transition from visual flight rules to instrument flight rule IFR
operations. This action would ensure the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 20, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1
8006475527, or 202 3669826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA
20210924; Airspace Docket No. 21
ANM48, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https www.regulations.gov.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https www.faa.gov/air_
traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: 202 2678783. FAA Order JO 7400.11 is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration NARA. For information on the availability of FAA
Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email fr.inspection@nara.gov or go to https
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone 206 2313695.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:

E:FRFM04NOP1.SGM

04NOP1