[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 92723-92740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30429]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

9 CFR Part 201

RIN 0580-AB26


Poultry Grower Ranking Systems

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Grain Inspection, 
Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), Packers and Stockyards 
Program (P&SP) is proposing to amend the regulations issued under the 
Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented (P&S 
Act). The proposed amendments will identify criteria that the Secretary 
may consider when determining whether a live poultry dealer's 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. The proposed amendments will also clarify 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 section 202(a) of the P&S Act regardless of whether 
it harms or is likely to harm competition.

DATES: We will consider comments we receive by February 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on this proposed rule. You 
may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Mail: M. Irene Omade, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence 
Avenue SW., Room 2542A-S, Washington, DC 20250-3613.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: M. Irene Omade, GIPSA, USDA, 
1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2542A-S, Washington, DC 20250-3613.
     Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All comments should make reference to the date and 
page number of this issue of the Federal Register. Regulatory analyses 
and other documents relating to this rulemaking will be available for 
public inspection in Room 2542A-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20250-3613 during regular business hours. All comments 
received will be included in the public docket without change, 
including any personal information provided. All comments will be 
available for public inspection in the above office during regular 
business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). Please call the Management and Budget 
Services staff of GIPSA at (202) 720-8479 to arrange a public 
inspection of comments or other documents related to this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S. Brett Offutt, Director, Litigation 
and Economic Analysis Division, P&SP, GIPSA, 1400 Independence Ave. 
SW., Washington, DC 20250-3601, (202) 720-7051, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 92724]]

Background on Prior Rulemaking

    GIPSA previously published a notice of proposed rulemaking on June 
22, 2010, which included requirements regarding a live poultry dealer's 
use of a poultry grower ranking system when determining payment for 
grower services. That 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 further 
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, we 
have elected not to publish this rule as a final rule, but rather have 
modified proposed Sec.  201.214 and are publishing it as a proposed 
rule and requesting further public comment.

Background on Current Rulemaking

    The P&S Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) sets forth broad prohibitions on 
the conduct of entities operating subject to its jurisdiction. For 
example, section 202(a) of the P&S Act prohibits packers, swine 
contractors, and live poultry dealers from engaging in any unfair, 
unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices. 7 U.S.C. 192(a). 
Section 202(b) of the P&S Act prohibits packers, swine contractors, and 
live poultry dealers from making or giving any undue or unreasonable 
preference or advantage to any particular person, or subjecting any 
particular person to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or 
disadvantage. 7 U.S.C. 192(b). These broad provisions, which have not 
previously been interpreted in regulations, make enforcement difficult 
and create uncertainty among industry participants regarding 
compliance.
    GIPSA is proposing these regulations to clarify when certain 
conduct in the poultry industry related to poultry grower ranking 
systems violates sections 202(a) or 202(b) of the P&S Act. A poultry 
grower ranking system, sometimes called a ``tournament,'' is the 
process used by live poultry dealers to determine final payment to 
poultry growers upon settlement of each flock. Under a poultry grower 
ranking system, growers whose flocks are slaughtered during the same 
settlement week are paid according to a structure that compares 
growers' feed efficiency and live weight of the grown birds delivered 
to the plant. Growers with better performance according to a live 
poultry dealer's standards are ranked higher than growers with lower 
performance and, therefore, receive more compensation.
    Poultry grower ranking systems are widely used by live poultry 
dealers operating as vertically integrated companies. The vertically 
integrated company is responsible for every step of the poultry 
production process except the raising and caring of the live birds 
meant for slaughter. Independent farmers, acting as contractors and 
referred to as ``poultry growers,'' perform this function. The 
vertically integrated live poultry dealer provides the chicks,\1\ feed, 
and medication to poultry growers who house and feed the birds under a 
contract. The poultry grower grows the birds to market size (preferred 
weight for slaughter) and then, after slaughter, receives a settlement 
check for that flock. The payment received depends on how efficiently 
the poultry grower converted feed to meat as compared to the other 
poultry growers in the settlement group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Poultry grower ranking systems are used extensively in 
broiler production. The ranking systems are also used in turkey 
production. References in this document to chicks, chickens, or 
broilers are also relevant to the use of grower ranking systems in 
turkey production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA has received complaints from poultry growers alleging unfair 
treatment in poultry grower ranking systems. Many of the underlying 
factors in these complaints were shared with GIPSA in the comments to 
the 2010 proposed rule. The 2010 proposed rule (Sec.  201.214) 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 further required that growers be settled in groups 
with other growers with like house types. Comments in favor of the 
proposed rule most often cited the imbalance in power and control 
between the poultry companies and the growers. Most common among the 
reasons for supporting the proposed rule was the control the poultry 
company has over inputs. Growers have no control over numerous inputs 
that ultimately determine pay. In particular, the poultry companies 
control the following inputs and production variables: Chick health, 
number of chicks placed, feed quality, medications, growout time, breed 
and type of bird, weighing of the birds, and weighing of the feed. 
Commenters complained that the poultry grower ranking system is a poor 
indicator of the grower's abilities and performance in growing 
chickens. One commenter pointed out that bird age can vary as much as 9 
days in a group. Due to the relatively short growing period for 
poultry, there can be significant differences in bird size, and as a 
result, grower pay, in birds just a few days apart in age. Comments 
also expressed concern that company employees who are also poultry 
growers get preferential treatment and may get better birds or get to 
keep flocks longer.
    Comments opposed to the proposed rule overwhelmingly cited the loss 
of the incentive for growers to perform. For example, commenters 
complained that ``there will be no incentive available for above-
average growers,'' ``the pay system rewards the ones who strive to do 
best,'' it ``will take money from the most progressive growers,'' and 
``is grossly unfair to the most productive and successful growers, only 
benefits the least productive and least successful.'' Those opposed to 
the proposed rule commented that everyone should not be paid the same, 
that competition is good for the industry, and that those that spend 
money and expend effort should be rewarded. Some commenters stated 
there will not be enough like houses to group together for ranking 
purposes.
    A few commenters offered recommendations. Specifically, they 
suggested ``same type and kind'' of poultry should be defined as same 
breed, age range, sex, and target weight. Also, they suggested that the 
base pay rate should reflect grower's cost of production plus a 
reasonable rate of return. Other commenters suggested that GIPSA should 
clarify that incentive pay would still be allowed under the proposed 
rule. In GIPSA's experience reviewing live poultry dealer records, some 
poultry companies use the base pay as the minimum pay rate, so 
implementing the provision regarding base pay would not be difficult. 
Several comments said that ``like house type'' was poorly defined. 
Depending on the interpretation, there could be many different 
categories of like house types in which case, there could be very few 
growers in a given settlement group.
    Commenters critical of the poultry grower ranking system focused on 
the live poultry dealer's control over the inputs. Inputs and other 
factors influencing performance and pay are not equal among growers. 
Commenters noted that variations in chicks, feed, and medications have 
a significant influence on the poultry grower's performance, but the 
grower has no control or influence over the quality of those inputs. As 
an example, one comment stated that male chickens have higher average 
weight gain than female chickens. Therefore, if one grower gets a 
higher percentage of male chickens than other growers, that grower 
could

[[Page 92725]]

have an advantage in the ranking system over growers who receive all or 
a higher percentage of female chickens. The breed of the poultry is 
also a factor. Growers who receive a breed that does not perform as 
well, due to the characteristics of that breed, are disadvantaged 
compared to growers who receive a better-performing breed. Another 
factor noted by commenters was the age of the breeder flock and that 
chicks from breeder hens that are very young or very old are known to 
be inferior to chicks from hens that are of prime egg-laying age. 
Commenters stated that poultry growers who get all or a higher 
percentage of chicks from very old or very young breeder hens are at a 
disadvantage compared to growers who receive chicks from hens in the 
prime weeks of laying good eggs. Citing these examples, commenters 
pointed out the ways live poultry dealers could give preferential 
treatment to some growers by delivering superior chicks to their farms.
    Other comments focused on the quantity and quality of feed. One 
poultry grower commented about the effect on rankings when the live 
poultry dealer assumes that the grower receives more feed than the live 
poultry dealer actually delivered. The grower explained that a 200 
pound under-delivery of feed in a system where production costs are 
averaged to ten-thousandths of a cent, would affect the rankings and 
cause the grower to be paid less than other growers in the settlement 
group. Another grower commented that he had received a delivery of bad 
feed that made the chickens sick. Although the live poultry dealer 
replaced the bad or spoiled feed, the damage had been done and the 
grower's flock ranked at the bottom of the poultry grower ranking for 
that settlement group. These commenters were expressing their 
frustration with the poultry grower ranking system that relied on 
inputs over which they had no control.
    Recognizing that not all inputs are the same, in proposed new Sec.  
201.214, GIPSA is not proposing that all poultry growers receive the 
same quality inputs, or that growers only be ranked in settlement 
groups where all growers receive the same quality inputs. In each 
settlement group, it is very likely that the live poultry dealer will 
place chicks on some farms that are inferior to other chicks simply due 
to the variation in the birds. Likewise, feed quality or the delivery 
quantity may vary.
    Unlike the proposed rule published in 2010 regarding poultry grower 
ranking systems, this proposed rule would not prohibit or prescribe 
certain conduct, nor would it prescribe specific payment to be made to 
growers. Instead, after consideration of the comments received, we are 
proposing a rule that encourages better sharing of information with 
growers and fairness in areas under a live poultry dealer's control. 
Proposed new Sec.  201.214 sets forth criteria that the Secretary may 
consider to determine whether live poultry dealers have used the 
poultry grower ranking system in a manner that violates sections 202(a) 
or (b) of the P&S Act.
    Proposed new Sec.  201.214, ``Poultry Grower Ranking Systems'' 
would establish a non-exhaustive list of criteria the Secretary may 
consider when determining whether a live poultry dealer has violated 
the P&S Act with respect to the use of a poultry grower ranking system. 
Under proposed Sec.  201.214(a), the Secretary may consider whether the 
grower is provided enough information to make informed decisions 
regarding the grower's poultry production operation. Such information 
would include the anticipated number of flocks per year and the average 
gross income from each flock. Because most growers borrow substantial 
sums of money to build and upgrade houses to meet the live poultry 
dealer's specifications, a grower would want a contract of sufficient 
length and with sufficient poultry production to repay the loan. For 
that reason, it is important for the poultry grower to know the 
anticipated average gross income from each flock in order to plan 
accordingly for future earnings and investments. Live poultry dealers 
should disclose information necessary to enable the grower to make 
informed decisions.
    Under proposed Sec.  201.214(b), the Secretary may consider whether 
a live poultry dealer supplies inputs (e.g., birds, feed, and 
medication) of comparable quality and quantity to all poultry growers 
in the ranking group. When considering the inputs provided by the live 
poultry dealer to the poultry grower and the growout specifications 
established for the poultry grower, GIPSA does not require uniformity, 
but rather fairness among the growers in a settlement group. Growers 
are not paid based solely on their individual performance, but as 
compared to other growers in a settlement group. When a grower received 
inputs of either superior or inferior quality as compared to the inputs 
provided to other growers, that grower may be at either an advantage or 
disadvantage when flocks are settled depending on the quality of the 
inputs received. Under proposed Sec.  201.214(b), the Secretary may 
also consider whether there is a pattern of supplying inferior inputs 
(e.g., birds, feed, and medication) to one or more poultry growers in 
the ranking group. With regards to supplying inferior birds, as 
discussed above, lower quality chicks may result from very young or 
very old breeder hens, from a poultry breed that does not perform as 
well as other breeds in the growout, or for other reasons. If a poultry 
grower consistently receives lower quality or inferior chicks, the 
grower will experience higher mortality rates and lower efficiency. The 
grower will rank lower in the settlement group and receive less 
compensation as compared to the other growers in the settlement group. 
Similarly, if a poultry grower receives lower quality feed, or if the 
grower receives less feed than the quantity used to calculate payment, 
the grower's performance will suffer as compared to other growers in 
the settlement group. Also, if a grower's flock needs medication, but 
the live poultry dealer fails to provide the medication, or if one 
flock is placed on a different treatment schedule, the flock 
performance may suffer as compared to other flocks in the settlement 
group. Under proposed Sec.  201.214(c), the Secretary may consider 
additional company-controlled factors that could affect a grower's 
performance in a settlement group.
    Proposed Sec.  201.214(d) provides that the Secretary may consider 
whether the live poultry dealer has demonstrated a legitimate business 
justification for conduct that may otherwise be unfair, unjustly 
discriminatory, or deceptive, or that gives an undue or unreasonable 
preference or advantage to any poultry grower or subjects any poultry 
grower to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. A 
legitimate business justification for certain conduct may be sufficient 
to find that the conduct does not violate the P&S Act. We request 
comment on the types of conduct that might be considered for a 
legitimate business justification, in order to give further context to 
this provision in the final rule.
    Concurrent with the publication of this proposed rule, GIPSA is 
also proposing another rule in this issue of the Federal Register that, 
among other things, would clarify the conduct or action by packers, 
swine contractors, or live poultry dealers that GIPSA considers unfair, 
unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive and a violation of section 202(a) 
of the P&S Act. Specifically, this proposed rule includes Sec.  
201.210, ``Unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices or 
devices by packers, swine contractors, or live poultry dealers,'' which 
includes in paragraph (b) a non-exhaustive list of conduct or action 
that, absent

[[Page 92726]]

demonstration of a legitimate business justification, GIPSA believes is 
unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive and a violation of 
section 202(a) of the P&S Act, regardless of whether the conduct harms 
or is likely to harm competition. Currently, proposed Sec.  201.210(b) 
contains nine examples. In this rule, GIPSA is proposing to add to 
proposed Sec.  201.210(b) a tenth example, Sec.  201.210(b)(10) GIPSA 
also considers a live poultry dealer's failure to use a poultry grower 
ranking system in a fair manner after applying the criteria in Sec.  
201.214 to be an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice 
or device and a violation of section 202(a) of the P&S Act regardless 
of whether it harms or is likely to harm competition.

IV. Required Impact Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rulemaking has been determined to be significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget. As a required part of the 
regulatory process, GIPSA prepared an economic analysis of proposed 
Sec.  201.214. The first section of the analysis is an introduction and 
discussion of the prevalence of contracting in the poultry industry as 
well as a discussion of potential market failures. Next, GIPSA 
discusses three regulatory alternatives it considered and presents a 
summary cost-benefit analysis of each alternative. GIPSA then discusses 
the impact on small businesses.

Introduction

    GIPSA issued a proposed rule on June 22, 2010, which included Sec.  
201.214. GIPSA has revised the 2010 version of Sec.  201.214 and is now 
proposing a new Sec.  201.214. The rule GIPSA proposed on June 22, 
2010, included several requirements regarding live poultry dealers' use 
of tournament systems. That section of the 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 
compensation and further required that growers be settled in groups 
with other growers with like house types. The rule also prohibited live 
poultry dealers from offering poultry growing arrangements containing 
provisions that decrease or reduce grower compensation below the base 
compensation amount.
    Upon review of public comments received both in writing and through 
public meetings held during the comment period in 2010, GIPSA elected 
not to publish this rule as a final rule and has removed the 
requirements and prohibitions in the rule proposed on June 22, 2010.
    GIPSA has re-written Sec.  201.214 and is proposing this regulation 
to establish criteria the Secretary may consider in determining whether 
a live poultry dealer has used a poultry grower ranking system to 
compensate poultry growers in an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or 
deceptive manner, or in a way that gives an undue or unreasonable 
preference or advantage to any poultry grower or subjects any poultry 
grower to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.\2\ 
Coupled with Sec.  201.3(a), which is being published as an interim 
final rule concurrently in this edition of the Federal Register and 
proposed Sec.  201.210(b)(10), which is discussed below, the criteria 
clarify whether a live poultry dealer's use of a poultry grower ranking 
system violates sections 202(a) and/or 202(b) of the P&S Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A tournament system is a type of poultry grower ranking 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interim Final Sec.  201.3(a) states that certain conduct or action 
can be found to violate sections 202(a) and/or 202(b) of the P&S Act 
without a finding of harm or likely harm to competition in all cases. 
Proposed Sec.  201.210(b)(10) would add to proposed Sec.  201.210(b), 
which is published as part of a separate proposed rule in this edition 
of the Federal Register, another example of conduct or action by a live 
poultry dealer that absent demonstration of a legitimate business 
justification, GIPSA considers an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or 
deceptive practice or device and a violation of section 202(a) of the 
P&S Act regardless of whether the conduct or action harms or is likely 
to harm competition. Specifically, proposed Sec.  201.210(b)(10) would 
clarify that absent demonstration of a legitimate business 
justification, GIPSA considers the failure to use a poultry grower 
ranking system in a fair manner after applying the criteria in proposed 
Sec.  201.214 to be an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive 
practice or device and a violation of section 202(a) of the P&S Act 
regardless of whether it harms or is likely to harm competition. Since 
Sec.  201.210(b)(10) relies on the criteria in Sec.  201.214, the 
estimated costs and benefits of Sec.  201.210(b)(10) are included in 
the estimated costs and benefits of Sec.  201.214.
    The criteria in proposed Sec.  201.214 would include whether a live 
poultry dealer has provided sufficient information to enable a poultry 
grower to make informed business decisions. The criteria would also 
address whether the inputs, including birds, feed, and medication, 
provided by live poultry dealers to poultry growers are of consistent 
quality and quantity. The criteria would recognize the non-uniformity 
of inputs provided by live poultry dealers to growers and discourage 
the live poultry dealer from consistently providing superior or 
inferior inputs to growers in a manner that consistently affects grower 
compensation. The criteria also would consider whether live poultry 
dealers have provided poultry growers with dissimilar production 
variables such as the density at which the live poultry dealer places 
birds, target bird sizes, and age of birds at slaughter that affects 
the performance and grower ranking. Finally, the criteria would 
consider whether a live poultry dealer has demonstrated a legitimate 
business justification for conduct that may otherwise be unfair, 
unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive or gives an undue or unreasonable 
preference or advantage to any poultry grower or subjects any poultry 
grower to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

Prevalence of Poultry Contracts and Poultry Grower Ranking Systems

    The production of poultry is highly vertically integrated with live 
poultry dealers owning or controlling most segments of the value chain. 
Live poultry dealers typically own the breeding stock, the hatcheries, 
the feedmills, the live birds, and they own and operate the slaughter 
operations. Live poultry dealers typically contract out the growing 
operations for their live birds to independent poultry growers. Live 
poultry dealers who own or control most segments of the value chain and 
contract out the growing operations of live birds are commonly referred 
to as integrators.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the purposes of this Regulatory Impact Analysis, the 
terms live poultry dealer and integrator are used interchangeably. 
P&SP has jurisdiction over live poultry dealers, most of which are 
also integrators. The only time the Regulatory Impact Analysis will 
refer to integrators is when another author uses the term integrator 
as in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Broilers are almost exclusively grown under production contracts. 
In 2012, 96.4% of broilers were grown under contract, while 68.5% of 
turkeys were grown under production contracts. Under a production 
contract, the live poultry dealer provides the poultry grower with many 
inputs including the live chicks, feed, and medications. The poultry 
grower in turn provides the housing, labor, water, electricity, fuel,

[[Page 92727]]

and provides for waste removal. At the end of the grow-out period, the 
live poultry dealer typically picks up the birds for slaughter. The 
payment to the poultry grower for the growing services is often 
determined by a poultry grower ranking system outlined in the 
production contract.
    Under a typical poultry grower ranking system, all growers who grew 
birds that were shipped to the same plant in the same week are grouped 
together for payment purposes. Their cost per pound of live weight is 
averaged using standard costs for chicks and feed. Live poultry dealers 
then rank the growers based on cost. Live poultry dealers typically 
reward growers with lower costs by providing higher compensation for 
their growing services. Live poultry dealers typically provide less 
compensation to growers with higher costs.
    Contracting is an important and prevalent feature in the production 
of poultry. The following table shows the share of poultry, by type, 
produced under contract over the years that the Census of Agriculture 
has published data on commodities raised and delivered under production 
contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Agricultural Census, 2007 and 2012. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/ and https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/.

               Table 1--Percentage of Poultry Raised and Delivered Under Production Contracts \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Poultry                                   2002            2007            2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broilers (%)....................................................            98.0            96.5            96.4
Turkeys (%).....................................................            41.7            67.7            68.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits of Contracting in Agricultural Production and the Poultry 
Industry

    Agricultural production contracts have many benefits. They help 
farmers and livestock producers manage price and production risks, 
elicit the production of products with specific quality attributes by 
tying prices to those attributes, and facilitate the smooth flow of 
commodities to processing plants encouraging more efficient use of farm 
and processing capacities. Agricultural production contracts can also 
lead to improvements in efficiency throughout the supply chain for 
products by providing farmers with incentives to deliver products 
consumers desire and produce products in ways that reduce processing 
costs and, ultimately, retail prices. Poultry production contracts are 
a specific type of agricultural production contract that are widely 
used due to the benefits of growing poultry under production contract 
arrangements.
    There are benefits to both live poultry dealers and poultry growers 
from entering into agricultural production contracts, referred to as 
contract poultry growing arrangements \5\ in the poultry industry. 
Contract poultry growing arrangements allow for a sharing of risk 
between the live poultry dealer and the poultry grower. Contract 
poultry growing arrangements have provided poultry growers with 
predictable income and access to financing to invest in more efficient 
types of houses. More efficient housing may lead to higher compensation 
under poultry grower ranking systems. Contract poultry growing 
arrangements have benefited live poultry dealers by shifting the 
capital expenses of growing poultry to the poultry growers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under section 2(a)(9) of the P&S Act, a ``poultry growing 
arrangement'' is defined as ``any growout contract, marketing 
agreement, or other arrangement under which a poultry grower raises 
and cares for live poultry for delivery, in accord with another's 
instructions, for slaughter.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pervasive use of contract poultry growing arrangements has 
benefited the poultry industry and consumers by increasing the rate of 
adoption of new technology, increasing feed conversion, and increasing 
the ability of the industry to respond to changes in consumer 
demand.\6\ The prevalence of contract poultry growing arrangements in 
the poultry industry is evidence of the benefits to growers, live 
poultry dealers, and consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Vukina, Tomislav, ``Vertical Integration and Contracting in 
the U.S. Poultry Sector,'' Journal of Food Distribution Research, 
July 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Structural Issues in the Poultry Industry

    As the above discussion highlights, there are important benefits 
associated with the use of agriculture contracts in the poultry 
industry. However, if there are large disparities in the bargaining 
power among contracting parties resulting from size differences between 
contracting parties or the use of market power by one of the 
contracting parties, the contracts may have detrimental effects on one 
of the contracting parties and may result in inefficiencies in the 
marketplace.
    For example, a contract that ties a grower to a single purchaser of 
a specialized commodity, even if the contract provides for fair 
compensation to the grower, still leaves the grower subject to default 
risks should the contractor fail. Another example is a contract that 
covers a shorter term than the life of the capital (a poultry house, 
for example). The grower may face the hold-up risk that the contractor 
(live poultry dealer) may require additional capital investments or may 
impose lower returns at the time of contract renewal. Hold-up risk is a 
potential market failure and is discussed in detail in the next 
section. These risks may be heightened when there are no alternative 
buyers for the grower to switch to, or when the capital investment is 
specific to the original buyer.\7\ Some growers make substantial long-
term capital investments as part of poultry production contracts, 
including land, poultry houses, and equipment. Those investments may 
tie the grower to a single integrator. Costs associated with default 
risks and hold-up risks are important to many growers in the industry. 
The table below shows the number of integrators that broiler growers 
have in their local areas by percent of total farms and by total 
production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Vukina and Leegomonchai, Oligopsony Power, Asset 
Specificity, and Hold-Up: Evidence From The Broiler Industry, 
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(3): 589-605 (August 
2006).

[[Page 92728]]



                               Table 4--Integrator Choice for Broiler Growers \8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Can change to
        Integrators in grower's area \9\               Farms           Birds        Production        another
                                                                                                    integrator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number                                                           Percent of total                     Percent of
                                                                                                           farms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            21.7            23.4            24.5               7
2...............................................            30.2            31.9            31.7              52
3...............................................            20.4            20.4            19.7              62
4...............................................            16.1            14.9            14.8              71
>4..............................................             7.8             6.7             6.6              77
No Response.....................................             3.8             2.7             2.7              Na
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data in the table show that 52 percent of broiler growers, 
accounting for 56 percent of total production, report having only one 
or two integrators in their local areas. This limited integrator choice 
may accentuate the contract risks. A 2006 survey indicated that growers 
facing a single integrator received 7 to 8 percent less compensation, 
on average, than farmers located in areas with 4 or more 
integrators.\10\ If live poultry dealers already possess some market 
power to force down prices for poultry growing services, some contracts 
can extend that power by raising the costs of entry for new 
competitors, or allowing for price discrimination.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ MacDonald, James M. Technology, Organization, and Financial 
Performance in U.S. Broiler Production. USDA, Economic Research 
Service, June 2014.
    \9\ Percentages were determined from the USDA Agricultural 
Resource Management Survey (ARMS), 2011. ``Respondents were asked 
the number of integrators in their area. They were also asked if 
they could change to another integrator if they stopped raising 
broilers for their current integrator.'' Ibid. p. 30.
    \10\ MacDonald, J. and N. Key. ``Market Power in Poultry 
Production Contracting? Evidence from a Farm Survey.'' Journal of 
Agricultural and Applied Economics. 44(4) (November 2012): 477-490.
    \11\ See, for example, Williamson, Oliver E. Markets and 
Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York: The Free 
Press (1975); Edlin, Aaron S. & Stefan Reichelstein (1996) 
``Holdups, Standard Breach Remedies, and Optimal Investment,'' The 
American Economic Review 86(3): 478-501 (June 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many poultry processing markets face barriers to entry, including: 
(1) Economies of scale; (2) high asset-specific capital costs with few 
alternative uses of the capital; (3) brand loyalty of consumers, 
customer loyalty to the incumbent processors, and high customer 
switching costs; and (4) governmental food safety, bio-hazard, and 
environmental regulations. Consistent with these barriers, there has 
been limited new entry.
    However, an area where entry has been successful is in developing 
and niche markets, such as organic meat and free-range chicken. 
Developing and niche markets have a relatively small consumer market 
that is willing to pay higher prices, which supports smaller plant 
sizes. Niche processors are generally small, however, and do not offer 
opportunities to many producers or growers.
    Economies of scale have resulted in large processing plants in the 
poultry processing industry. Barriers to entry limit the expansion of 
choice for poultry growers who have only one or two integrators in 
their local areas with no potential entrants on the horizon. The 
limited expansion of choice of processors by poultry growers may limit 
contract choices and the bargaining power of growers in negotiating 
contracts.
    One indication of potential market power is industry 
concentration.\12\ The following table shows the level of concentration 
in the poultry slaughtering industry for 2007-2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For additional discussion see MacDonald, J.M. 2016 
``Concentration, contracting, and competition policy in U.S. 
agribusiness,'' Competition Law Review, No. 1-2016: 3-8.
    \13\ These data were compiled from Packers and Stockyards 
industry annual reports, a proprietary data source.

       Table 5--Four-Firm Concentration in Poultry Slaughter \13\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                     Broilers (%)     Turkeys (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007....................................              57              52
2008....................................              57              51
2009....................................              53              58
2010....................................              51              56
2011....................................              52              55
2012....................................              51              53
2013....................................              54              53
2014....................................              51              58
2015....................................              51              57
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The table above shows the concentration of the four largest broiler 
and turkey processors has remained relatively steady at between 50 and 
60 percent.
    The data in Table 5 are estimates of national concentration and the 
size differences discussed below are also at the national level, but 
the economic markets for poultry may be regional or local, and 
concentration in regional or local areas may be higher than national 
measures.\14\ The data presented earlier in Table 4 highlight this 
issue by showing the limited ability a poultry grower has to switch to 
a different integrator. As a result, national concentration may not 
demonstrate accurately the options poultry growers in a particular 
region actually face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ MacDonald and Key (2012) Op. Cit. and Vukina and 
Leegomonchai (2006) Op. Cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another factor GIPSA considered in proposing Sec.  201.214 is the 
contrast in size and scale between poultry growers and the live poultry 
dealers they supply. The disparity in size between large oligopsonistic 
buyers and atomistic sellers may lead to market power. The National 
Chicken Council states that in 2016, approximately 35 companies were 
involved in the business of raising, processing, and marketing chicken 
on a vertically integrated basis, while about 25,000 family farmers had 
production contracts with those companies.\15\ That comes to about 714 
family-growers per company. Collectively, the family-growers produced 
about 95 percent of the nearly 9 billion broilers produced in the 
United States in 2015. The other 5 percent were grown on company-owned 
farms. That means the average family-grower produced about 342,000 
broilers. As Table 5 shows, the four largest poultry companies in the 
United States accounted for 51 percent of the broilers processed. That 
means the average volume processed by the four largest poultry 
companies was about 1.15 billion head, which was 3,357 times the 
average family grower's volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/broiler-chicken-industry-key-facts/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the above discussion highlights, there are large size 
differences between poultry growers and the live poultry dealers which 
they supply. These size differences may contribute to unequal

[[Page 92729]]

bargaining power due to monopsony market power or oligopsony market 
power, or asymmetric information. The result is that the contracts 
bargained between the parties may have detrimental effects on poultry 
growers due to the structural issues discussed above and may result in 
inefficiencies in the marketplace.

Hold-Up as a Potential Market Failure

    Integrators demand investment in fixed assets from the growers. One 
example is specific types of poultry houses and equipment the 
integrator may require the grower to utilize in their growing 
operations. These investments may improve efficiency by more than the 
cost of installation. Typically, the improved efficiency would accrue 
to both the integrator and the grower. The integrator has lower feed 
costs, and the grower performs better relative to other poultry growers 
in a settlement group. If the grower bears the entire cost of 
installation, then the grower should be further compensated for the 
feed conversion gains that accrue to the integrator. The risk is that 
after the assets are installed, the cost to the grower is ``sunk.'' 
This means that if the integrator reneges on paying compensation for 
the additional capital investments, and insists on maintaining the 
lower price, the grower will accept that lower price rather than 
receive nothing. This allows the integrator to get the benefit of 
efficiency gains, at no expense to them, with the grower bearing all of 
the cost. This reneging is termed ``hold-up'' in the economic 
literature.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See for example, Benjamin Klein, Robert G. Crawford, and 
Armen A. Alchian, ``Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and 
the Competitive Contracting Process,'' The Journal of Law and 
Economics 21, no 2 (Oct., 1978): 297-326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hold-up can have two consequences that result in market failures. 
If the growers do not anticipate hold-up, then growers will spend too 
much on investments because the integrator who demands them is not 
incurring any cost. That is inefficient. If the grower does anticipate 
hold-up, they will act as if the integrator was going to renege even 
when it was not, resulting in too little investment and loss of 
potential efficiency gains.
    Hold-up can be resolved with increased competition. If an 
integrator developed a reputation for reneging, and growers could go 
elsewhere, the initial integrator would be punished and disincentivized 
from reneging in the future. Unfortunately, in practice, many growers 
do not have the option of going elsewhere.
    Data shown above in Table 4 indicate that there are few integrators 
in these markets, and that growers have limited choice. Table 5, above, 
indicates the level of concentration in the poultry processing industry 
and shows that integrators operate in concentrated markets.
    This rule would allow growers to file complaints against 
integrators that renege, giving some of the incentive benefit of 
competition, without compromising the efficiency of having few large 
processors. In addition to addressing the potential market failure of 
hold-up, this rule would address inefficiencies due to incomplete and 
asymmetric information in poultry markets. Poultry growers who lack 
adequate information on the expected revenue from a growing arrangement 
may make inefficient investment decisions. For instance, a grower may 
invest too much money in building new houses or purchasing upgrades 
relative to what they would choose if they were fully informed about 
the expected return from those investments. By requiring that growers 
be provided sufficient information to make informed business decisions, 
this rule would help mitigate non-optimal investment by growers and 
improves social welfare.

Contracting, Industry Structure, and Market Failure: Summary of the 
Need for Regulation

    There are benefits of contracting in the poultry industry, as well 
as structural issues that may result in unequal bargaining power and 
market failures. These structural issues and market failures would be 
mitigated by relieving plaintiffs from the requirement to demonstrate 
competitive injury. For instance, contracting parties can alleviate 
hold-up problems if they are able to write complete contracts, and are 
able to litigate to enforce the terms of those contracts when there is 
an attempt to engage in ex-post hold-up. Because proving competitive 
injury is difficult and costly, removing that burden facilitate the use 
of litigation by producers and growers to address violations of the 
Packers and Stockyards Act. If growers are able to seek legal remedies, 
then their contracts would be easier to enforce. This will incentivize 
integrators to avoid exploitation of market power and asymmetric 
information, as well as behaviors that result in the market failure of 
hold-up. The result will be improved efficiency in poultry markets. 
GIPSA has a clear role to ensure that market failures are mitigated so 
that poultry markets remain fair and competitive. Section 201.214 seeks 
to fulfill that role by promoting fairness and equity for poultry 
growers.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Rule

Costs of the Regulations Proposed on June 22, 2010
    GIPSA issued a proposed rule on June 22, 2010, with several new 
regulations, many of which had the potential to impact the poultry 
industry. A brief summary of the regulations proposed in 2010 follows.
     Proposed Sec.  201.3(c) stated that certain conduct may be 
found to violate sections 202(a) and/or 202(b) of the P&S Act without a 
finding of harm or likely harm to competition.
     Proposed Sec.  201.210 would have provided specific 
examples of conduct that violate section 202(a) regardless of whether 
the conduct harms or is likely to harm competition.
     Proposed Sec.  201.211 would have provided specific 
criteria the Secretary may consider when determining whether an undue 
or unreasonable preference or advantage or an undue or unreasonable 
prejudice or disadvantage has occurred in violation of section 202(b) 
of the P&S Act.
     Proposed Sec.  201.213 stated that live poultry dealers 
obtaining poultry under a poultry growing arrangement must submit a 
sample copy of each unique contract or agreement to GIPSA for posting 
on its Web site.
     Proposed Sec.  201.214 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 compensation and 
further required that growers be settled in groups with other growers 
with like house types. Proposed Sec.  201.214 also would have 
prohibited live poultry dealers from offering poultry growing 
arrangements containing provisions that decrease or reduce grower 
compensation below the base compensation amount.
     Proposed Sec.  201.215 would have provided specific 
criteria the Secretary may consider when determining whether a poultry 
grower was provided with reasonable notice prior to suspension of the 
delivery of birds to a poultry grower.
     Proposed Sec.  201.216 would have set forth specific 
criteria the Secretary may consider when determining whether a 
requirement that a poultry grower make additional capital investments 
constitutes an unfair practice in violation of the P&S Act.
     Proposed Sec.  201.217 would have set forth the conditions 
under which a poultry grower may be required to make additional capital 
investments.

[[Page 92730]]

     Proposed Sec.  201.218 would have provided specific 
criteria the Secretary may consider in determining whether a live 
poultry dealer has provided a poultry grower a reasonable period of 
time to remedy a breach of contract.
     Proposed Sec.  201.219 would have provided specific 
criteria the Secretary may consider when determining whether the 
arbitration process in a contract provides a meaningful opportunity for 
the poultry grower to participate fully in the arbitration process.
    GIPSA considered thousands of comments before proposing the current 
version of Sec.  201.214. The following provisions were in the 2010 
rule, but not in the currently proposed regulation.
     Requirement that live poultry dealers paying poultry 
growers on a tournament system pay poultry growers raising the same 
type and kind of poultry the same base compensation, and that poultry 
growers be settled in groups with other poultry growers with like house 
types (Sec.  201.214).
     Prohibition on live poultry dealers from offering growing 
arrangements containing provisions that decrease or reduce poultry 
grower compensation below the base compensation amount (Sec.  
201.214(a)).
     Requirement that live poultry dealers submit sample 
contracts to GIPSA for posting to the public (Sec.  201.213).
    Additionally, GIPSA has adjusted the rule proposed in 2010 to give 
live poultry dealers more flexibility in suspending the delivery of 
birds and requiring capital improvements and those adjustments are 
reflected in current proposed Sec. Sec.  201.215 and 201.216, 
respectively.
    GIPSA is issuing Sec.  201.3(a) as an interim final rule 
concurrently in this issue of the Federal Register. GIPSA has also 
revised and is currently proposing new versions of Sec. Sec.  201.210 
and 201.211 concurrently in a separate proposed rule in this issue of 
the Federal Register. In December 2011, GIPSA issued as a final rule 
Sec. Sec.  201.215, 201.216, 201.217, and 201.218. Proposed Sec.  
201.217, capital investments requirements and prohibitions, was 
removed, and proposed Sec. Sec.  201.218 and 201.219 were renumbered as 
Sec. Sec.  201.217 and 201.218.
    GIPSA has now revised Sec.  201.214 and instead of proscribing 
certain conduct, new proposed Sec.  201.214 would establish criteria 
the Secretary may consider in determining whether a live poultry dealer 
has used a poultry grower ranking system to compensate poultry growers 
in an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive manner, or in a way 
that gives an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any 
poultry grower or subjects any poultry grower to an undue or 
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
    GIPSA received numerous comments on the proposed rule in 2010. 
Although many thousands of the comments submitted contained general 
qualitative assessments of either the costs or benefits of the proposed 
rule, only two comments systematically described quantitative costs 
across the rule's provisions.
    Comments from the National Meat Association included cost estimates 
by Informa Economics (the Informa Study). The Informa Study estimated 
that the proposed rule would cost the U.S. poultry industry 
approximately $361.6 million.\17\ The Informa Study estimated $26.0 
million for the one-time direct costs of rewriting contracts, 
additional record keeping, etc., $33.4 million for the ongoing direct 
costs, and $302.2 million for cost increases due to efficiency 
losses.\18\ However, these cost estimates assumed all of the 2010 
proposed changes, many of which now do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Informa Economics, Inc. ``An Estimate of the Economic 
Impact of GIPSA's Proposed Rules,'' prepared for the National Meat 
Association, 2010, Table 9, Page 53.
    \18\ Ibid. Page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Informa Study recognized that the economic costs of the 2010 
proposed rule would take time to materialize. The Informa Study 
estimated that only the direct, one-time costs would occur shortly 
after implementation and the more significant impacts, such as 
declining efficiency, would happen more slowly and would not reach the 
full impact until years 3 and 4 in the poultry industry after the rule 
become effective.\19\ Thus, the $361.6 million cost estimate by the 
Informa Study was for when the rule reached its full impact in years 3 
and 4. The Informa Study further recognized that companies would find 
ways to adapt to the provisions of the rule and the impact of the rule 
would decrease after year 4.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Informa Economics, Inc. ``An Estimate of the Economic 
Impact of GIPSA's Proposed Rules,'' prepared for the National Meat 
Association, 2010, Page 66.
    \20\ Ibid, Page 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Informa Study posited that the several elements in the proposed 
rule would likely alter the integrator-grower relationship in such a 
way as to slow down the adoption of new technologies that increase 
efficiency and reduce costs.\21\ The Informa Study also posited that 
the proposed rule would significantly increase the threat of 
litigation, which would reduce monetary incentives to encourage 
innovation and investment in new technology by growers. The resulting 
slowdown in investment in new and upgraded buildings would negatively 
impact efficiency, measured by feed conversion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Ibid. Page 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments from the National Chicken Council included cost estimates 
prepared by Dr. Thomas E. Elam, President, FarmEcon LLC (the Elam 
Study).\22\ The Elam Study estimated that the proposed rule would cost 
the chicken industry $84 million in the first year increasing to $337 
million in the fifth year, with a total cost of $1.03 billion over the 
first five years.\23\ The Elam Study identified $6 million as one-time 
administrative costs. The study states that most of the costs would be 
indirect costs resulting from efficiency losses,\24\ while more than 
half of the costs estimated would be due to a reduced rate of 
improvement in feed efficiency due to the proposed rule slowing the 
pace of innovation in the poultry industry. For litigation costs, the 
Elam Study concluded that the litigation costs are substantial, but 
unknown. Again, these cost estimates were for all of the 2010 proposed 
changes, many of which now do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Elam, Dr. Thomas E. ``Proposed GIPSA Rules Relating to 
the Chicken Industry: Economic Impact.'' FarmEcon LLC, 2010.
    \23\ Ibid. Page 24
    \24\ Ibid. Page 24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of the costs in the Informa Study and the Elam Study were 
largely due to business practices that live poultry dealers were 
projected to alter in reaction to the proposed rule rather than changes 
in business practices directly imposed by the rule proposed in 2010. 
For example, the Elam Study expected live poultry dealers to assay (a 
test to determine the quality of feed) each load of feed delivered to 
growers to avoid litigation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Elam, Page 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA believes the cost estimates presented in the Informa Study 
and the Elam Study were overstated. The studies relied on interviews 
that queried the willingness of live poultry dealers to alter their 
business practices. The estimates, based on interviews, may overstate 
costs because the live poultry dealers would face adjustment costs from 
the rule proposed in 2010 and had incentives to respond that they would 
discontinue current practices. GIPSA also believes that certain 
adjustments are unlikely to occur. For example, GIPSA believes it is 
unlikely that live poultry dealers would take on the costly

[[Page 92731]]

task of assaying each load of feed solely to avoid litigation.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Proposed Sec.  201.214

Regulatory Alternatives Considered
    Executive Order 12866 requires an assessment of costs and benefits 
of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the 
planned regulation and an explanation of why the planned regulatory 
action is preferable to the identified potential alternatives.\26\ 
GIPSA considered three regulatory alternatives. The first alternative 
that GIPSA considered was to maintain the status quo and not propose 
the rule. The second alternative that GIPSA considered was revising the 
version of Sec.  201.214 that GIPSA published in 2010 and proposing it 
as a new rule. This is GIPSA's preferred alternative as will be 
explained below. The third alternative that GIPSA considered was 
proposing a new version of Sec.  201.214, but instituting a phased 
implementation of the proposed rule. Under this alternative, proposed 
Sec.  201.214 would only take effect when a poultry growing contract 
expires, is replaced, or modified. The costs and benefits of the 
alternatives are discussed in order below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Section 6(a)(3)(C) of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Alternative 1: Status Quo
    If Sec.  201.214 is never finalized, there are no marginal costs 
and marginal benefits as industry participants will not alter their 
conduct. From a cost standpoint, this is the least cost alternative 
compared to the other two alternatives. This alternative also has no 
marginal benefits. Since there are no changes from the status quo under 
this regulatory alternative, it will serve as the baseline against 
which to measure the other two alternatives.
Regulatory Alternative 2: The Preferred Alternative--Costs of the 
Proposed Rule
    GIPSA expects that the direct costs of proposed Sec.  201.214 would 
consist of the costs of developing a consistency management system, 
providing income projections to poultry growers, keeping additional 
records, and reviewing and re-writing poultry growing contracts to 
ensure that poultry grower ranking systems are not used in an unfair, 
unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive manner or in any way that gives 
an undue or unreasonable preference, advantage, prejudice, or 
disadvantage.
    Based on its expertise regulating the poultry industry over several 
decades, GIPSA does not expect the proposed rule to result in a 
decrease in the use of poultry grower ranking systems, lower capital 
formation, or decreases in efficiencies in the poultry industry. The 
only indirect costs that GIPSA anticipates are the effects of the 
increase in industry costs from the direct costs on supply and demand 
and the resulting quantity and price impacts on the retail market for 
chicken and the related input market for broilers.
    To estimate the costs of the proposed rule, GIPSA divided costs 
into two major categories, direct and indirect costs. GIPSA expects 
that direct costs would be comprised of administrative costs. 
Administrative costs include items such as the following: (1) Providing 
income projections to growers; (2) development of company-specific 
consistency management systems (CMSs) to ensure poultry grower ranking 
systems are not used in an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or 
deceptive manner or in any way that gives an undue or unreasonable 
preference, advantage, prejudice, or disadvantage; (3) additional 
record keeping; (4) review of written contracts by attorneys and the 
employees of regulated companies; and (5) all other administrative 
office work associated with review of contracts.
    Indirect costs include costs caused by changes in supply and/or 
demand resulting from the proposed rule. Indirect costs also include 
potential efficiency losses due to potential changes in poultry grower 
ranking systems.
Regulatory Alternative 2: Direct Costs--Administrative Costs
    To estimate administrative costs of the proposed rule, GIPSA relied 
on its experience reviewing the operations and business records of live 
poultry dealers, poultry growing contracts, and other business records 
for compliance with the P&S Act and regulations. GIPSA also considered 
the impact of each criterion contained in Sec.  201.214 on 
administrative costs.
    Under Sec.  201.214(a), the Secretary may consider whether a live 
poultry dealer has provided sufficient information to a poultry grower 
to enable the poultry grower to make informed business decisions. Such 
information should include information necessary to calculate the 
expected income from the poultry growing arrangement. Current poultry 
growers who have been compensated for multiple flocks under a poultry 
grower ranking system may already have sufficient information because 
they have already established income patterns by participating in the 
poultry grower ranking system. The criterion in proposed Sec.  
201.214(a) would mainly apply to new growers, those growers switching 
to different live poultry dealers, or to growers considering housing 
upgrades where this information is not already available to the poultry 
grower.
    In the past, live poultry dealers commonly provided prospective 
growers with projection sheets that would provide a grower with 
estimates of the minimum and maximum compensation they could expect 
under a contract. GIPSA's experience conducting investigations and 
compliance reviews in the poultry industry has indicated that not all 
live poultry dealers currently provide projection sheets to poultry 
growers.
    GIPSA expects that it would not be difficult for live poultry 
dealers to develop and provide projection sheets for each contract type 
to all current and prospective growers. GIPSA believes that providing 
projection sheets to growers that contained the minimum, average, and 
maximum compensation they can expect for the contract type they are 
considering or under which they are currently growing would be 
sufficient information to enable the poultry growers to make informed 
business decisions about their future compensation and whether the 
compensation is sufficient to warrant increasing capital investments, 
for example.
    Based on GIPSA's experience regulating live poultry dealers and 
reviewing their records, it developed time estimates for the number of 
hours for company managers and information technology (IT) staff to 
develop new projection sheets or review and revise existing sheets for 
each type of poultry growing contract that contains a poultry grower 
ranking system on which to base grower compensation. GIPSA estimates 
that there are 10 individual contract types for each of the 133 live 
poultry dealers who report to GIPSA. GIPSA also developed time 
estimates for legal staff to review the projection sheets and for the 
company to deliver the projection sheets to all current and prospective 
growers. GIPSA estimates that each projection sheet for each of the 
1,330 unique contract types would take eight hours of management and IT 
time to prepare, and two hours of attorney time to review and rewrite 
the contract. In addition, it will take 0.2 hours of administrative 
time to print, and mail the projection sheets and revised contracts for 
each of the 21,925 individual poultry production contracts of which 
GIPSA is aware. GIPSA multiplied the estimated hours to conduct these 
tasks by the average

[[Page 92732]]

hourly wages for managers and IT staff at $58/hour, attorneys at $83/
hour, and administrative assistants at $34/hour as reported by the U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics in its Occupational Employment 
Statistics.\27\ GIPSA estimates the development and delivery of 
projection sheets to cost the poultry industry $0.99 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ All salary costs are based on mean annual 2015 salary 
adjusted for benefit costs, set to an hourly basis. http://www.bls.gov/oes/. Accessed on August 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The criterion in Sec.  201.214(b) permits the Secretary to consider 
whether a live poultry dealer supplies inputs of comparable quality and 
quantity to all poultry growers in the ranking group and whether there 
is a pattern or practice of supplying inferior inputs to one or more 
poultry growers in the ranking group. Inputs include birds, feed, 
medication, and any other input supplied by the live poultry dealer.
    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves all medication 
that can be administered to broilers that are grown for human 
consumption.\28\ GIPSA believes that live poultry dealers would not 
alter medication to such an extent that inferior medicine is 
consistently supplied to a grower and that this criterion would not be 
costly to the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/animaldrugsatfda/. 
Accessed on August 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA also believes that feed provided by live poultry dealers 
would be consistent across a group of growers and that this criterion 
would not be costly to the industry. Feed is produced by live poultry 
dealers at a feedmill and the same batch of feed is distributed to 
growers until more feed is produced and then that feed is distributed. 
The process of the production and distribution of feed ensures 
consistency across the group of growers that receive the same batch of 
feed. Once a batch of feed is produced, live poultry dealers truck it 
to growers according to established routes and schedules. All growers 
on the same route should receive feed of similar quality.
    The chicks supplied by a live poultry dealer to a poultry grower 
have the potential to be inconsistent and GIPSA believes that live 
poultry dealers would have to take action to ensure a poultry grower is 
not consistently supplied with inferior chicks. The factors that affect 
chick quality include the age and breed of the breeder stock and the 
conditions at the hatchery. Hatchery conditions affecting chick quality 
include, hatching egg quality, time of collection, egg storage 
temperature and humidity, incubation temperature, incubator carbon 
dioxide concentration, and chick hatching time in relation to being 
removed from the incubator.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, 
``Hatchery Breeder Tip . . . Chick Quality: An Update,'' May 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is possible that the rotation of chicks being hatched and 
delivered could result in the same grower(s) receiving inferior chicks 
on a consistent basis. In order to avoid the possibility of consistent 
placement of inferior chicks with the same grower, even if 
unintentional, live poultry dealers would likely respond by designing 
and implementing a CMS to identify and evenly distribute inferior 
chicks.
    GIPSA expects the same CMS to be used to demonstrate that a poultry 
grower ranking system is not used in an unfair, unjustly 
discriminatory, or deceptive manner, or in a way that gives an undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage to any poultry grower or subjects 
any poultry grower to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or 
disadvantage. Proposed Sec.  201.214(c) would allow the Secretary to 
consider whether a live poultry dealer provides poultry growers with 
dissimilar production variables in the ranking group in a manner that 
affects a poultry grower's compensation. Production variables include, 
but are not limited to, the density at which the live poultry dealer 
places birds, the target slaughter weights of the birds, and bird ages 
that vary by more than seven days. The live production and broiler 
management teams must work together to ensure that medication, bird 
densities, target bird sizes, and the timing of the harvesting of 
flocks does not consistently affect grower rankings. Each live poultry 
dealer, whether large or small, would need to design and implement one 
CMS to cover all of its breeding, hatching, feedmill, and broiler 
operations. This CMS would ensure that growers are not treated 
inconsistently and that there is not a pattern or practice of unfair, 
unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive treatment or undue or 
unreasonable preference, advantage, prejudice, or disadvantage.
    GIPSA relied on its knowledge of the poultry industry to estimate 
the cost of designing and implementing a CMS that could be used by both 
large and small live poultry dealers. GIPSA estimates that it would 
take 640 hours of management and IT staff time to develop a CMS. GIPSA 
estimates it would take 8 hours per live poultry dealer for its legal 
team to review the CMS and 96 hours to train the breeding, hatching, 
and broiler staff how to use the CMS to ensure the uniform distribution 
of inferior chicks. GIPSA multiplied the estimated hours to conduct 
these tasks by the average hourly wages for managers and IT staff at 
$58/hour, attorneys at $83/hour, and administrative assistants at $34/
hour as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in its 
Occupational Employment Statistics.\30\ GIPSA estimates that if all 133 
live poultry dealers who report operations to GIPSA develop and 
implement a CMS, the cost would total $5.46 million. This estimate 
overstates the cost because some of the 133 live poultry dealers do not 
use a poultry grower ranking system. Rather than risk underestimating 
the potential cost, GIPSA chose to include all 133 live poultry dealers 
in the calculations. We have not estimated any capital costs associated 
with the creation and implementation of a CMS, as we believe that there 
are none or existing equipment would be used; however, we seek comment 
on the validity of this assumption and if commenters disagree with it, 
to provide estimates of the capital costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ All salary costs are based on mean annual 2015 salary 
adjusted for benefit costs, set to an hourly basis. http://www.bls.gov/oes/. Accessed on August 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each live poultry dealer that uses a poultry grower ranking system 
to calculate grower compensation would need to keep additional records 
to demonstrate that poultry grower ranking systems are used in a fair 
manner after applying the criteria in proposed Sec.  201.214. Proposed 
Sec.  201.214(d) allows the Secretary to consider whether a live 
poultry dealer has demonstrated a legitimate business justification for 
use of a poultry grower ranking system in a manner that may otherwise 
be unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive or gives an undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage to any poultry grower or subjects 
any poultry grower to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or 
disadvantage.
    Based on GIPSA's knowledge and review of records kept by live 
poultry dealers, GIPSA believes that the live poultry dealers already 
keep very detailed records regarding the performance of each grower. 
The records include all information needed to calculate feed conversion 
such as weights and quantities of inputs provided, and all other data 
used to determine grower performance and compensation. Based on GIPSA's 
experience reviewing these records and the business operations of live 
poultry dealers, GIPSA estimates that live poultry dealers will spend 
an additional 8 hours of time preparing records for

[[Page 92733]]

each poultry contract in order to be able demonstrate that the poultry 
grower ranking system is used in a fair manner after applying the 
criteria in proposed Sec.  201.214. GIPSA has data on the number of 
production contracts between poultry growers and live poultry dealers. 
GIPSA multiplied 8 hours of time by the average hourly wages of $34/
hour as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in its 
Occupational Employment Statistics \31\ and then multiplied this total 
by the 21,925 individual poultry growing contracts reported to GIPSA by 
live poultry dealers to arrive at $5.96 million for additional record 
keeping costs for live poultry dealers. This record keeping estimate 
includes keeping records to demonstrate legitimate business 
justifications for proposed Sec.  201.214(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that proposed Sec.  201.214 is a new regulation, live poultry 
dealers would need to review the contractual language in their existing 
contracts with respect to poultry grower ranking systems to ensure that 
they are used in a fair and non-preferential manner after applying the 
criteria in proposed Sec.  201.214. GIPSA again relied on its 
experience and developed time estimates for the number of hours for 
attorneys and company managers to review and revise verbal and written 
production contracts and for staff to make changes, copy, and obtain 
signed copies of the contracts. For poultry growing contracts, GIPSA 
estimates that each of the 1,330 unique contract types would take 2 
hours of attorney time and 2 hours of company management time to review 
and rewrite, and it would take 2 hours of administrative time to review 
each of the 21,925 individual poultry production contracts. GIPSA 
multiplied the estimated hours to conduct these administrative tasks by 
the average hourly wages for attorneys at $83/hour, managers at $58/
hour, and administrative assistants at $34/hour as reported by the U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics in its Occupational Employment 
Statistics.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ All salary costs are based on mean annual 2015 salary 
adjusted for benefit costs, set to an hourly basis. http://www.bls.gov/oes/. Accessed on August 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA recognizes that contract review costs would also be borne by 
poultry growers. GIPSA estimates the each grower would spend 1 hour of 
time reviewing a contract and would spend 1 hour of their attorney's 
time to review the contract. GIPSA multiplied 1 hour of grower time and 
1 hour of attorney time to conduct the production contract review by 
the average hourly wages for attorneys at $83/hour and managers at $58/
hour. GIPSA then applied this cost to the 21,925 poultry growing 
contracts that have been reported to GIPSA to arrive at the total 
contract review costs that would be incurred by poultry growers. GIPSA 
then added together the contract review costs by live poultry dealers 
and by poultry growers to arrive at estimated contract review costs of 
$4.96 million for the poultry industry.
    GIPSA then added together all of the estimated types of 
administrative costs and the estimated first-year total administrative 
costs appear in the following table:

   Table 4--First-Year Administrative Costs of Proposed Sec.   201.214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Administrative cost type                    $ millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projection Sheet Costs..................................            0.99
Develop Consistency Management System...................            5.46
Industry Record Keeping.................................            5.96
Contract Review Costs...................................            4.96
                                                         ---------------
    Total Industry Administrative Cost..................           17.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first-year total administrative costs would be $17.37 million 
for the poultry industry. The two largest costs would be industry 
record keeping and the development of CMSs, followed by record keeping 
and the costs of developing projection sheets.

A. Regulatory Alternative 2: Direct Costs--Litigation Costs of the 
Preferred Alternative

    Interim final regulation 201.3(a) will already be in effect if and 
when Sec.  201.214 becomes effective. GIPSA expects that Sec.  201.3(a) 
will result in additional litigation as this rule states that certain 
conduct or action can violate sections 202(a) and/or 202(b) of the P&S 
Act without a harm or likely harm to competition in all cases. Section 
201.3(a) formalizes GIPSA's longstanding position that, in some cases, 
violations of sections 202(a) and 202(b) can be proven without 
demonstrating harm or likely harm to competition. Section 201.214 
provides clarity to the industry by establishing criteria the Secretary 
may consider in determining whether a live poultry dealer has used a 
poultry grower ranking system to compensate poultry growers in an 
unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive manner, or in a way that 
gives an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any poultry 
grower or subjects any poultry grower to an undue or unreasonable 
prejudice or disadvantage.
    Regulation 201.3(a) is broad in nature. Section 201.214 simply 
provides clarity and GIPSA believes that Sec.  201.214 will not lead to 
litigation above that already expected as a result of Sec.  201.3(a). 
Thus, GIPSA considers the additional litigation under Sec.  201.3(a) to 
be the baseline litigation costs for Sec.  201.214 and that the 
litigation costs for Sec.  201.3(a) already include the litigation 
costs of Sec.  201.214. Since those litigation costs have already been 
counted under Sec.  201.3(a), GIPSA does not allocate any additional 
litigation costs to Sec.  201.214 and for the purposes of this RIA, the 
marginal litigation costs are zero.
Regulatory Alternative 2: Total Direct Costs of the Preferred 
Alternative
    The total first-year direct costs of proposed Sec.  201.214 would 
consist of administrative and litigation costs (which are equal to 
zero) from above and they are summarized in the following table.

            Table 5--Direct Costs of Proposed Sec.   201.214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Cost type                          ($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Admin Costs.............................................           17.37
Litigation Costs........................................            0.00
                                                         ---------------
    Total Direct Costs..................................           17.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA estimates that the direct costs of proposed Sec.  201.214 
would be $17.37 million.
Regulatory Alternative 2: Indirect Costs of the Preferred Alternative
    As discussed previously, GIPSA does not expect proposed Sec.  
201.214 to result in a decrease in the use of poultry grower ranking 
systems, lower capital formation, or decreases in efficiencies in the 
poultry industry. The regulation simply establishes the criteria under 
which the Secretary may determine whether live poultry dealers are 
using poultry grower ranking systems in an unfair, unjustly 
discriminatory, or deceptive manner, or in a way that gives an undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage to any poultry grower or subjects 
any grower to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
    The only indirect costs that GIPSA anticipates are the effects of 
the increase in industry costs from the direct administrative costs on 
supply and demand, and the resulting quantity and price impacts on the 
retail market for chicken and the related input market for broilers.
    GIPSA modeled the impact of the increase in total industry costs 
resulting from the direct costs of proposed Sec.  201.214 in a 
Marketing Margins Model

[[Page 92734]]

(MMM) framework.\33\ The MMM allows for the estimation of changes in 
consumer and producer surplus and the quantification of deadweight loss 
or gain caused by changes in supply and demand conditions in the retail 
market for chicken as well as the input market for poultry growing 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The framework is explained in detail in Tomek, W.G. and 
K.L. Robinson ``Agricultural Product Prices,'' third edition, 1990, 
Cornell University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA modeled the increases in industry costs resulting from higher 
direct costs as an inward (or upward) shift in the supply curve for 
chicken. This has the effect of increasing the equilibrium prices and 
reducing the equilibrium quantity traded. This also has the effect of 
reducing the derived demand for poultry growing services, which causes 
a reduction in the equilibrium prices and quantity traded. Established 
economic theory suggests that these shifts in the supply curve and 
derived demand curve and the resulting price and quantity impacts will 
result in a reduction in social welfare through a deadweight loss.
    To estimate the output and input supply and demand curves for the 
MMM, GIPSA constructed linear supply and demand curves around 
equilibrium price and quantity points using price elasticities of 
supply and demand from the USDA's Economic Research Service.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ ERS Price Elasticities: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-and-food-elasticities/demand-elasticities-from-literature.aspx. Accessed on August 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA then shifted the supply curve for chicken up by the amount of 
the increase in total costs for the poultry industry from Table 5 
above. GIPSA calculated the new equilibrium price and quantity traded 
of chicken. GIPSA also calculated the new equilibrium price and 
quantity in the poultry growing services market resulting from the 
decreases in derived demand for growing services. GIPSA calculated the 
resulting social welfare changes in the input and output markets.
    The calculation of the price impact from the increase in poultry 
industry costs from proposed Sec.  201.214 would have in a price 
increase of approximately two-hundredths of a cent in the retail price 
of chicken.\35\ This is because the increase in total industry costs is 
very small in relation to overall industry costs. The result is that 
the resulting deadweight losses from the increases in total industry 
costs is indistinguishable from zero and therefore, GIPSA concludes 
that the indirect costs of proposed Sec.  201.214 are zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The $17.37 million increase in total industry costs from 
proposed Sec.  201.214 is only 0.04 percent of total poultry 
industry costs of approximately $40 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Alternative 2: Total Costs of the Preferred Alternative
    GIPSA added all direct costs to the indirect costs, which are equal 
to zero, to arrive at the estimated total first-year costs of proposed 
Sec.  201.214. The total costs are summarized in the following table.

             Table 6--Total Costs of Proposed Sec.   201.214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Cost type                          ($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Admin Costs.............................................           17.37
Litigation Costs........................................            0.00
Total Direct Costs......................................           17.37
Total Indirect Costs....................................            0.00
                                                         ---------------
    Total Costs.........................................           17.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA estimates that the total costs of proposed Sec.  201.214 to 
be $17.37 million for the poultry industry in the first full year of 
implementation
Regulatory Alternative 2: 10-Year Total Costs of the Preferred 
Alternative
    To arrive at the estimated 10-year costs of proposed Sec.  201.214, 
GIPSA expects the costs to be constant for the first 5 years while 
courts are setting precedents for the interpretation of proposed Sec.  
201.214 if indeed it is finalized. GIPSA expects that case law with 
respect to proposed Sec.  201.214 would be settled after 5 years, and 
by then, industry participants would likely know how GIPSA would 
enforce the proposed regulation and how courts would interpret the 
proposed regulation if finalized. The effect of courts establishing 
precedents is that administrative costs would likely decline after 5 
years.
    Once courts establish precedents in case law, GIPSA expects the 
direct administrative costs of reviewing and revising contracts and 
developing projection sheets would decrease rapidly as contracts would 
already contain any language modifications necessitated by 
implementation of the proposed rule, and projection sheets would 
already have been developed for most contracts. GIPSA also expects that 
the direct costs of record keeping and operating CMSs would decrease 
rapidly as courts set precedents on which records would be required and 
how detailed a CMS must be, and as companies become more efficient in 
ensuring that poultry grower ranking systems are used in a fair manner 
after applying the criteria in proposed Sec.  201.214.
    To arrive at the estimated 10-year costs of proposed Sec.  201.214, 
GIPSA estimates that contracts would expire at a steady rate. Based on 
its expertise, GIPSA believes that 20 percent of contracts would expire 
on a yearly basis and thus, in the first five years, 20 percent of all 
contracts would expire and need to be renewed each year or new 
production contracts would be put in place. Thus in years 2 through 
year 5, contract review costs would be 20 percent of the costs of 
review in the first year because the costs of reviewing and revising 
contracts would only apply to the 20 percent of contracts that are 
expiring or are new contracts each year. Based on GIPSA's expertise, 
GIPSA also estimates that in years 2 through year 5, 20 percent of all 
projection sheets would require updating each year, the cost of 
operating and updating CMSs would be 20 percent of first-year 
development costs, and that record keeping costs would be 20 percent of 
the first-year cost as companies become more efficient in record 
keeping and learn which records are required. Based on its expertise, 
GIPSA estimates that in the second 5 years, the direct administrative 
costs of revising contracts, projection sheets, CMS operation, and 
record keeping would decrease by 50 percent per year as the courts 
establish precedents, contracts would contain standard language, and 
companies would become more efficient at ensuring poultry grower 
ranking systems are used in a fair manner after applying the criteria 
in proposed Sec.  201.214. The total 10-year costs of proposed Sec.  
201.214 appear in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ GIPSA uses 2018 as the date for the proposed rule to be in 
effect for analytical purposes only. The date the proposed rule 
becomes final is not known.

        Table 7--Ten-Year Total Costs of Proposed Sec.   202.214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Total direct
                          Year                             ($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 \36\...............................................           17.37
2019....................................................            3.47
2020....................................................            3.47
2021....................................................            3.47
2022....................................................            3.47
2023....................................................            1.74
2024....................................................            0.87
2025....................................................            0.43
2026....................................................            0.22
2027....................................................            0.11
                                                         ---------------
    Totals..............................................           34.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the analysis, GIPSA expects the 10-year total costs of 
proposed Sec.  201.214 would be $34.64 million.

[[Page 92735]]

Regulatory Alternative 2: Net Present Value of Ten-Year Total Costs of 
the Preferred Alternative
    The total costs of proposed Sec.  201.214 in the table above show 
that the costs are highest in the first year, decline to a constant 
lower level over the next 4 years, and then gradually decrease again 
over the subsequent 5 years. Costs to be incurred in the future are 
less expensive than the same costs to be incurred today. This is 
because the money that is used to pay the costs in the future can be 
invested today and earn interest until the time period in which the 
cost is incurred. After the cost has been incurred, the interest earned 
would still be available.
    To account for the time value of money, the costs of the 
regulations to be incurred in the future are discounted back to today's 
dollars using a discount rate. The sum of all costs discounted back to 
the present is called the net present value (NPV) of total costs. GIPSA 
relied on both a three percent and seven percent discount rate as 
discussed in Circular A-4.\37\ GIPSA measured all costs using constant 
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf. Accessed on August 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA calculated the NPV of the ten-year total costs of the 
proposed regulation using both a three percent and seven percent 
discount rate and the NPVs appear in the following table.

     Table 8--NPV of Ten-Year Total Costs of Proposed Sec.   201.214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Discount rate                        ($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent...............................................           32.16
7 Percent...............................................           29.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA expects the NPV of the 10-year total costs of Sec.  201.214 
will be $32.16 million at a three percent discount rate and $29.36 
million at a seven percent discount rate.
Regulatory Alternative 2: Annualized Costs of the Preferred Alternative
    GIPSA then annualized the NPV of the 10-year total costs (referred 
to as annualized costs) of proposed Sec.  201.214 using both a three 
percent and seven percent discount rate as required by Circular A-4 and 
the results appear in the following table.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Ibid.

          Table 9--Annualized Costs of Proposed Sec.   201.214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Discount rate                        ($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent...............................................            3.77
7 Percent...............................................            4.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA expects that the annualized costs of Sec.  201.214 would be 
$3.77 million at a three percent discount rate and $4.18 million at a 
seven percent discount rate.
Impacts on Costs of Interim Final Sec.  201.3(a)
    Concurrent with proposing Sec.  201.214, GIPSA is issuing an 
interim final version of Sec.  201.3(a). Section 201.3(a) states that 
conduct or action can be found to violate sections 202(a) and/or 202(b) 
of the P&S Act without a finding of harm or likely harm to competition 
in all cases. As a stand-alone regulation, Sec.  201.3(a) formalizes 
GIPSA's longstanding position that, in some cases, violations of 
sections 202(a) and 202(b) can be proven without demonstrating harm or 
likely harm to competition.
    In its Regulatory Impact Analysis, GIPSA estimated the annualized 
costs of Sec.  201.3(a) would range from $6.87 million to $96.01 
million at a three percent discount rate and from $7.12 million to 
$98.60 million at a seven percent discount rate. The range of potential 
costs is broad and GIPSA relied on its expertise to arrive at a point 
estimate of expected annualized costs. GIPSA expects the cattle, hog, 
and poultry industries to primarily take a ``wait and see'' approach to 
how courts will interpret Sec.  201.3(a) and only slightly adjust its 
use of AMAs, and incentive or performance-based payment systems. GIPSA 
estimates that the annualized costs of Sec.  201.3(a) at the point 
estimate will be $51.44 million at a three percent discount rate and 
$52.86 million at a seven percent discount rate based on an anticipated 
``wait and see'' approach by the cattle, hog, and poultry industries.
    GIPSA recognizes that courts, after the implementation of a 
finalized Sec.  201.3(a), may opt to continue to apply earlier 
precedents of requiring the showing of harm or potential harm to 
competition in section 202(a) and 202(b) cases. This has the potential 
to affect the costs of Sec.  201.214 and 201.211 should they become 
finalized. GIPSA expects that even if courts continue to require 
showing of harm or potential harm to competition in section 202(a) and 
202(b) cases, that firms would likely still incur costs of complying 
with Sec.  201.214. Even if regulated entities expect that courts would 
require showing of a harm to competition for Sec.  201.214 violations, 
the regulated entities may still expect litigation as private parties 
test the courts application of Sec.  201.3 as it relates to Sec.  
201.214 violations. To reduce this threat of litigation, regulated 
entities may still incur the administrative costs detailed above. 
Should Sec.  201.214 become finalized and courts still require a 
showing of harm or potential harm to competition, regulated entities 
may still voluntarily undertake the adjustment costs detailed above.
    GIPSA expects proposed Sec.  201.214 to reduce the costs of 
implementing Sec.  201.3 by providing more clarity in the appropriate 
application of sections 202(a) and (b) of the P&S Act as they apply to 
poultry grower ranking systems. Section 201.214 provides clarity to the 
industry by establishing criteria the Secretary may consider in 
determining whether a live poultry dealer has used a poultry grower 
ranking system to compensate poultry growers in an unfair, unjustly 
discriminatory, or deceptive manner, or in a way that gives an undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage to any poultry grower or subjects 
any poultry grower to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or 
disadvantage.
Regulatory Alternative 2: Benefits of the Preferred Alternative
    GIPSA was unable to quantify all the benefits of proposed Sec.  
201.214. However, there are a number of important qualitative benefits 
of proposed Sec.  201.214 that merit discussion. Proposed Sec.  201.214 
contains several provisions that GIPSA expects would improve 
efficiencies and reduce market failures. For regulations to improve 
efficiencies for market participants and generate benefits for 
consumers and producers, they must increase the amount of relevant 
information to market participants, reduce information asymmetries, 
protect private property rights, or foster competition.
    Proposed Sec.  201.214(a) would reduce information asymmetries and 
result in poultry growers making informed business decisions such as 
whether to enter the industry and in which capital improvements to 
invest. Growers having more complete information would result in more 
efficient levels of capital in the growing industry than with less 
information. Less information may lead to too much or too little 
capital. More complete information in the growing industry would allow 
live poultry dealers to send price signals to growers about levels of 
capital they desire. For example, if a live poultry dealer desires

[[Page 92736]]

its birds be grown with a more capital-intensive housing type, it can 
increase its base payment rate in a grower ranking system for that 
particular housing type and provide projection sheets to growers so 
they can assess whether to upgrade. Live poultry dealers would have to 
increase the base compensation to a high enough level to spur the 
additional capital investment in upgrades. Similarly, too little 
compensation may result in under investment in capital, which is also 
inefficient.
    Proposed Sec.  201.214(b) would encourage live poultry dealers to 
supply inputs of more consistent quantity and quality to all growers. 
Thus, inferior chicks, which are more costly to grow, would likely be 
distributed more uniformly across growers. This would facilitate a 
level playing field and foster fair competition in poultry grower 
ranking systems. If proposed Sec.  201.214 is finalized and becomes 
effective, growers would be compensated for their performance based 
more accurately on their skill and less so on the quality of inputs 
provided. The more efficient growers would receive more compensation in 
poultry grower ranking systems, which sends a signal to expand their 
offering of growing services. Less efficient growers would earn less, 
which sends a signal to reduce their offering of growing services or, 
at the extreme, to exit the industry. The result is lower costs to the 
industry as poultry grower ranking systems would incentivize the more 
efficient growers to expand and less efficient growers to contract or 
exit the industry.
    Proposed Sec.  201.214(c) would also provide a similar benefit to 
the industry. Under this section, the Secretary may consider whether a 
live poultry dealer includes poultry growers provided with dissimilar 
production variables in the ranking group in a manner that affects a 
poultry grower's compensation. The live poultry dealer would be 
expected to assure that growers are treated consistently as compared to 
other growers in the settlement group. This would allow growers to 
compete in poultry grower ranking systems on their skill level and not 
be disadvantaged by factors outside of their control. The result, 
again, is lower costs to the industry as the poultry grower ranking 
system would likely incentivize the more efficient growers to expand 
and the less efficient growers to reduce operations or exit the 
industry.
    Proposed Sec.  201.214(d) would benefit the industry by allowing 
the Secretary to consider whether a live poultry dealer has 
demonstrated a legitimate business justification for use of a poultry 
grower ranking system that would otherwise violate the P&S Act. This is 
a benefit for live poultry dealers as it provides a level of protection 
against potentially frivolous litigation.
    Another important qualitative benefit of proposed Sec.  201.214 is 
the increased ability for the enforcement of the P&S Act for use of 
poultry grower ranking systems in a manner that does not result in a 
harm or likelihood of harm to competition. This occurs through Sec.  
201.3(a), which states that conduct can be found to violate sections 
202(a) and/or 202(b) of the P&S Act without a finding of harm or likely 
harm to competition and more specifically through Sec.  201.210(b)(10) 
which clarifies that absent demonstration of a legitimate business 
justification, failing to use a poultry grower ranking system in a fair 
manner after applying the criteria in Sec.  201.214 is unfair, unjustly 
discriminatory, or deceptive and a violation of section 202(a) of the 
P&S Act regardless of whether it harms or is likely to harm 
competition.
    A simple example is a live poultry dealer consistently supplying 
inferior chicks to a particular grower. The grower is harmed by this 
conduct because the grower consistently under-performs in the poultry 
grower ranking system and receives lower compensation than if the 
grower had been provided higher quality chicks. This can be considered 
an unfair and deceptive practice under section 202(a) and/or as 
subjecting the grower to an unfair disadvantage under section 202(b). 
The impact of this harm to the grower is very small when compared to 
the entire industry and there is no harm to competition from this one 
instance. Because there is no harm or likely harm to competition, 
courts have been reluctant to find a violation of section 202(a) or (b) 
of the P&S Act in such a situation, despite the harm suffered by the 
individual poultry grower.
    However, if similar, though unrelated, harm is experienced by a 
large number of growers, the cumulative effect does result in a harm to 
competition. The individual harm is inconsequential to the industry, 
but the sum total of all individual harm has the potential to be quite 
significant when compared to the industry and therefore, courts have 
found harm or likely harm to competition in such a situation. The 
regulations in this proposed rule, in conjunction with Sec.  201.3(a), 
clarify that consistently supplying inferior chicks, absent 
demonstration of a legitimate business justification, would constitute 
unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices or devices 
under section 202(a) of the P&S Act or the giving of an undue or 
unreasonable preference, advantage, prejudice or disadvantage under 
section 202(b) of the P&S Act.
    The sum of all individual harm is likely to increase total industry 
costs of producing poultry due to an inefficient allocation of 
resources. The cost of all unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or 
deceptive practices, or undue or unreasonable preferences or advantages 
to any poultry grower or undue or unreasonable prejudices or 
disadvantages are reflected in higher costs of producing poultry, with 
some portion of these costs passed along to consumers in the form of 
higher prices.
    GIPSA expects proposed Sec.  201.214 coupled with Sec. Sec.  
201.3(a) and 201.210(b)(10) to increase enforcement actions against 
live poultry dealers for use of poultry grower ranking systems in a 
manner that violates sections 202(a) and/or 202(b) when the use of the 
poultry grower ranking system does not harm or is not likely to harm to 
competition. Several appellate courts have disagreed with USDA's 
interpretation of the P&S Act that harm or likely harm to competition 
is not necessary in all instances to prove a violation of sections 
202(a) or 202(b). In some cases in which the United States was not a 
party, these courts have concluded that plaintiffs could not prove 
their claims under section 202(a) and/or (b) without proving harm to 
competition or likely harm to competition. One reason the courts gave 
for declining to defer to USDA's interpretation of the statute is that 
USDA had not previously formalized its interpretation in a regulation.
    Section 201.3 addresses that issue and Sec. Sec.  201.214 and 
201.210(b)(10) provide clarity regarding the circumstances under which 
use of a poultry grower ranking system, absent demonstration of a 
legitimate business justification, would constitute an unfair, unjustly 
discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device under section 202(a) of 
the P&S Act or the giving of an undue or unreasonable preference, 
advantage, prejudice or disadvantage under section 202(b) of the P&S 
Act. GIPSA expects the result would be additional enforcement actions 
successfully litigated, which will serve as a deterrent to using a 
poultry grower ranking system in a manner that violates sections 202(a) 
or (b) of the P&S Act. Successful deterrence would likely result in 
lower overall costs throughout the entire production and marketing 
complex of all poultry and chicken.
    Benefits to the industry and the market also arise from 
establishing parity of negotiating power between live

[[Page 92737]]

poultry dealers and poultry growers by reducing the ability to abuse 
market power with the resulting deadweight losses.\39\ Establishing 
parity of negotiating power in contracts promotes fairness and equity 
and is consistent with GIPSA's mission ``[T]o protect fair trade 
practices, financial integrity, and competitive markets for livestock, 
meats and poultry.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ MacDonald, J. and N. Key. ``Market Power in Poultry 
Production Contracting? Evidence from a Farm Survey.'' Journal of 
Agricultural and Applied Economics. 44(4) (November 2012): 477-490. 
Discusses evidence for the effect of concentration on grower 
compensation.
    \40\ See additional discussion in Steven Y. Wu and James 
MacDonald (2015) ``Economics of Agricultural Contract Grower 
Protection Legislation,'' Choices 30(3): 1-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Alternative 2: Cost-Benefit Summary of the Preferred 
Alternative
    GIPSA expects the annualized costs of Sec.  201.214 will be $3.77 
million at a three percent discount rate and $4.18 million at a seven 
percent discount rate. GIPSA was unable to quantify the benefits of the 
regulations, but explained numerous qualitative benefits derived from 
increased information and reduced information asymmetries. The 
regulation contains several provisions that GIPSA expects will: (1) 
Improve efficiencies in the formation of capital in the poultry growing 
industry; and (2) lower costs to the industry as grower ranking systems 
will incentivize the more efficient growers to expand and less 
efficient growers to reduce operations or exit the industry. Another 
benefit of proposed Sec.  201.214 is the deterrent effect of increased 
enforcement of the P&S Act for violations of section 202(a) or (b). 
This, in turn, would reduce instances of unfair, unjustly 
discriminatory, or deceptive practices or devices and undue or 
unreasonable preferences, advantages, prejudices, or disadvantages and 
increased efficiencies in the marketplace. At the same time, allowing 
the Secretary to consider legitimate business justifications for use of 
a poultry grower ranking system in a manner that might otherwise be 
seen as a violation of section 202(a) or (b) of the P&S Act would 
provide a level of protection against potentially frivolous litigation. 
Thus, proposed Sec.  201.214 would likely increase efficiency, lower 
costs, and reduce market failures in the poultry industry. These 
benefits would accrue to all segments of the poultry value chain, and 
ultimately consumers.
Regulatory Alternative 3: Contract Duration--Phased Implementation
    GIPSA considered a third regulatory alternative of phased 
implementation. Under this third alternative, proposed Sec.  201.214 
would only apply to poultry growing contracts when they expire, are 
altered, or new contracts are put in place. Consider for example, a 
poultry growing contract with 3 years remaining in the contract when 
the regulations become effective. Proposed Sec.  201.214 would not be 
applicable to this contract, under phased implementation, until the 
contract expires after 3 years and is either modified or replaced.
Regulatory Alternative 3: Cost Estimation of Phased Implementation
    GIPSA estimated the costs of phased implementation by multiplying 
the majority of the ten-year total costs of the preferred alternative 
(Table 7) for each year of the first 10 years the rule would be in 
effect by the percentage of contracts expiring or altered in the same 
year. The data on contract lengths for broiler production appear in the 
table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ USDA's Economic Research Service Agricultural Resource 
Management Survey (ARMS) 2011.

          Table 10--Production and Marketing Contract Durations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Broiler
                    Contract duration                       production
                                                             \41\ (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Term < = 12 months................................           65.20
Medium Term 13-60 months................................           19.20
Long Term > 60 months...................................           15.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data in the table above show that 65.2 percent of broiler 
production contracts have a duration of 12 months or less and 84.4 
percent have a duration of 60 months or less. Only 15.64 percent of 
broiler production contracts are longer than 60 months in duration.
    For the first year of the regulation, GIPSA multiplied the costs of 
Sec.  201.214 by 65.20 percent. The one exception is the cost of the 
development of CMSs. GIPSA's experience reviewing poultry growing 
contracts suggests that most live poultry dealers have some contracts 
that are of a short-term duration. Therefore, GIPSA estimates that all 
live poultry dealers would have to develop a CMS in the first year 
after the implementation of the regulation. GIPSA allocates 100 percent 
of CMS development costs in the first year under the phased 
implementation alternative. All other direct administrative costs are 
multiplied by 65.20 percent in the first year.
    For years 2 through 5, GIPSA followed the same procedure and 
adjusted total industry costs by 84.4 percent, the number of contracts 
that are 5 years or less in duration. For years 6 through 10, GIPSA 
applied 100 percent of the preferred alternative costs to reflect the 
full phase in of costs.
    The following tables show the 10-year total costs of the phased 
implementation alternative. The 10-year total costs for each year of 
the preferred alternative (Table 7) are also shown for convenience.

      Table 11--Phased Implementation Total Costs of Sec.   201.214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Preferred          Phased
                Year                   alternative ($    implementation
                                          millions)       ($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018................................             17.37             13.23
2019................................              3.47              2.93
2020................................              3.47              2.93
2021................................              3.47              2.93
2022................................              3.47              2.93
2023................................              1.74              1.74
2024................................              0.87              0.87
2025................................              0.43              0.43
2026................................              0.22              0.22

[[Page 92738]]

 
2027................................              0.11              0.11
                                     -----------------------------------
    Totals..........................             34.64             28.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA estimates that the first-year total costs of Sec.  201.214 
under the phased implementation alternative would be $13.23 million and 
the 10-year total costs would be $28.32 million. As the table shows, 
the costs in the first 5 years are lower under the phased 
implementation option than under the preferred alternative because 
regulated entities with contracts longer than 1 year are not covered 
until the contracts expire, are modified, or replaced.
Regulatory Alternative 3: NPV of 10-Year Total Costs of Phased 
Implementation
    GIPSA calculated the NPV of the 10-year total costs of proposed 
Sec.  201.214 under phased implementation using both a three percent 
and seven percent discount rate as required by Circular A-4. The NPVs 
are shown in the following table.

   Table 12--NPVs of Ten-Year Total Costs of Proposed Sec.   201.214--
                          Phased Implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Discount rate                        ($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent...............................................           26.18
7 Percent...............................................           23.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA expects the NPV of the 10-year total costs of Sec.  201.214 
under the phased implementation option to be $26.18 million at a three 
percent discount rate and $23.77 million at a seven percent discount 
rate.
Regulatory Alternative 3: Annualized Costs of Phased Implementation
    GIPSA then annualized the costs of Sec.  201.214 using both a three 
percent and seven percent discount rate as required by Circular A-4 and 
the results appear in the following table.

      Table 13--Annualized Costs of Proposed Sec.   201.214--Phased
                             Implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Discount rate                        ($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent...............................................            3.07
7 Percent...............................................            3.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA expects the annualized costs of Sec.  201.214 under the 
phased implementation option to be $3.07 million at a three percent 
discount rate and $3.38 million at a seven percent discount rate.
Regulatory Alternative 3: Benefits of the Phased Implementation 
Alternative
    The benefits of phased implementation are identical to the benefits 
of the preferred alternative with the exception of when the benefits 
will be received and the amount of the benefits. Like the costs, the 
benefits will be received only when contracts expire, are modified, or 
new contracts are put in place. Moreover, benefits to be received in 
the future are worth less than benefits received today. The benefits 
will be received in the same proportion of the total costs and are 
based on contract durations. The benefits of phased implementation are 
less than under the preferred alternative because the full benefits 
will not be received until all contracts have expired, been modified, 
or replaced by new contracts. The full benefits of phased 
implementation will be received beginning in year 6.
Regulatory Alternative 3: Cost-Benefit Summary of Phased Implementation
    GIPSA expects the annualized costs of Sec.  201.214 under the 
phased implementation option to be $3.07 million at a three percent 
discount rate and $3.38 million at a seven percent discount rate. The 
benefits will be received in the same proportion as total costs and are 
based on contract durations. The benefits of the phased implementation 
alternative are less than under the preferred alternative because the 
full benefits will not be received until all contracts have expired, 
been altered, or replaced by new contracts.
Cost-Benefit Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives
    The status quo alternative has zero marginal costs and benefits as 
GIPSA does not expect any changes in the industry. GIPSA compared the 
annualized costs of the preferred alternative to the annualized costs 
of the phased implementation alternative by subtracting the annualized 
costs of phased implementation from the preferred alternative and the 
results appear in the following table.

   Table 14--Difference in Annualized Costs of Proposed Sec.   201.214
     Between the Preferred Alternative and the Phased Implementation
                               Alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Discount rate                        ($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent...............................................            0.70
7 Percent...............................................            0.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annualized costs of the phased implementation alternative is 
$0.70 million less expensive using a three percent discount rate and 
$0.80 million less expensive using a seven percent discount rate. As is 
the case with costs, the benefits of the preferred alternative will be 
highest for the preferred alternative because the full benefits will be 
received immediately and not when contracts have expired, been altered, 
or replaced by new contracts as is the case under the phased 
implementation alternative.
    Though the phased implementation alternative would save between 
$0.70 million and $0.80 million on an annualized basis, this 
alternative would deny the protections offered by proposed Sec.  
201.214 to a substantial percentage of poultry growers for five or more 
years based on the length of their production contracts. As the data in 
Table 10 show, 15.6 percent of poultry growers have contracts with 
durations exceeding five years. Under the phased implementation 
alternative, these growers would continue to be exposed to the 
potential market failures discussed above until their contracts expire 
or are renewed. GIPSA considered all three regulatory alternatives and 
believes that the preferred alternative is the best alternative as the 
benefits of the regulation will be captured immediately by all growers, 
regardless of the length of their contracts.

[[Page 92739]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small businesses by 
their North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS).\42\ 
Live poultry dealers, NAICS 311615, are considered small businesses if 
they have fewer than 1,250 employees. Broiler and turkey producers, 
NAICS 112320 and 112330, are considered small businesses if their sales 
are less than $750,000 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See: http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. Accessed on August 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GIPSA maintains data on live poultry dealers from the annual 
reports these firms file with GIPSA. Currently, there are 133 live 
poultry dealers that would be subject to the proposed regulations. 
According to U.S. Census data on County Business Patterns, there were 
74 poultry slaughter firms that had more than 1,000 employees in 
2013.\43\ The difference yields approximately 59 poultry slaughters 
that have fewer than 1,000 employees and would be considered small 
businesses that would be subject to the proposed regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. Accessed on August 26, 2016. The U.S. 
Census data reports data in thousands making 1,000 the closest 
number of employees to SBA's small business classification of 1,250 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another factor, however, that is important in determining the 
economic effect of the regulations is the number of contracts held by a 
firm. GIPSA records for 2014 indicated there were 21,925 poultry 
production contracts in effect, of which 13,370, or 61 percent, were 
held by the largest six live poultry dealers, and 90 percent (19,673) 
were held by the largest 25 live poultry dealers. These 25 live poultry 
dealers are all in the large business SBA category, whereas the 21,925 
poultry growers holding the other end of the contracts are almost all 
small businesses by SBA's definitions.
    To the extent the proposed rule imposes costs, these costs are 
expected to be borne by live poultry dealers. The costs likely include 
legal review of contracts, record-keeping, administrative costs, 
developing a CMS, and developing projection sheets.
    Live poultry dealers classified as large businesses are responsible 
for about 89.7 percent of the poultry growing contracts. Assuming that 
live poultry dealers classified as small businesses will bear about 
10.3 percent of the costs, expected costs in the first year for live 
poultry dealers classified as small businesses would be $1.8 
million.\44\ Expected 10-year costs annualized at a three percent 
discount rate for live poultry dealers classified as small businesses 
would be $387,000. Expected 10-year costs annualized at a seven percent 
discount rate for live poultry dealers classified as small businesses 
would be $429,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Estimated first year costs of $17.37 million x 10.27 
percent of firms that are small businesses = $1.8 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering the impact on small businesses, GIPSA considered the 
average costs and revenues of each small business impacted by Sec.  
201.214. The number of small businesses impacted by Sec.  201.214, by 
NAICS code, as well as the per entity, first-year and annualized costs 
at both the three percent and seven percent discount rates appear in 
the following table.

                        Table 15--Per Entity Costs to Small Businesses of Sec.   201.214
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of small                      Annualized       Annualized
                    NAICS                         business      First year ($)   costs--3% ($)    costs--7% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
311615--Poultry.............................              59           30,246            6,563            7,278
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table compares the average per entity first-year and 
annualized costs of Sec.  201.214 to the average revenue per 
establishment for all firms in the same NAICS code. The annualized 
costs are slightly higher at the seven percent rate than at the three 
percent rate, so only the seven percent rate is shown as it is the 
higher annualized cost.

                                Table 16--Comparison of Per Entity Cost to Small Businesses of Sec.   201.214 to Revenues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Average revenue
                                                    Number of small   Average first-      Average            per        First-year cost  Annualized cost
                       NAICS                            business      year cost per   annualized cost   establishment    as percent of    as percent of
                                                                        entity ($)     per entity ($)        ($)          revenue (%)      revenue (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
311615--Poultry...................................              59           30,246            7,278       13,842,548             0.22             0.05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revenue figure in the above table come from Census data for 
live poultry dealers, NAICS code 311615.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Source: http://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/econ/susb/2012-susb-annual.html. Accessed on November 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the results in Table 16 demonstrate, the first-year and 
annualized costs of Sec.  201.214 as a percent of revenue is small at 
less than one percent.
    Based on the above analyses regarding Sec.  201.214, GIPSA 
certifies that this rule is not expected to have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities as defined in 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). While confident 
in this certification, GIPSA acknowledges that individual businesses 
may have relevant data to supplement our analysis. We would encourage 
small stakeholders to submit any relevant data during the comment 
period.

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. These actions are not intended to have 
retroactive effect, although in some instances they merely reiterate 
GIPSA's previous interpretation of the P&S Act. This proposed rule 
would not pre-empt state or local laws, regulations, or policies, 
unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There 
are no

[[Page 92740]]

administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial 
challenge to the provisions of this proposed rule. Nothing in this 
proposed rule is intended to interfere with a person's right to enforce 
liability against any person subject to the P&S Act under authority 
granted in section 308 of the P&S Act.

Executive Order 13175

    This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements of Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 requires 
Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-
to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, 
including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, 
and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct 
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
    GIPSA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and 
determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal 
implications that require tribal consultation under EO 13175. If a 
tribe requests consultation, GIPSA will work with the Office of Tribal 
Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, 
additions, and modifications identified herein are not expressly 
mandated by Congress.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not contain new or amended information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). It does not involve collection of new or 
additional information by the federal government.

E-Government Act Compliance

    GIPSA is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act, to 
promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to 
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government 
information and services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 201

    Contracts, Poultry, Livestock, Trade Practices.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend 9 
CFR part 201 to read as follows:

PART 201--Regulations Under the Packers and Stockyards Act

0
1. The authority citation for Part 201 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 181-229c.

0
2. Amend Sec.  201.210 by adding paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (10) Failing to use a poultry grower ranking system in a fair 
manner after applying the criteria in Sec.  201.214.

0
2. Add new Sec.  201.214 to read as follows:


Sec.  201.214  Poultry grower ranking systems.

    The Secretary may consider various criteria when determining 
whether a live poultry dealer has engaged in a pattern or practice to 
use a poultry grower ranking system to compensate poultry growers in an 
unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive manner, or in a way that 
gives an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any poultry 
grower or subjects any poultry grower to an undue or unreasonable 
prejudice or disadvantage. These criteria include, but are not limited 
to:
    (a) Whether a live poultry dealer provides sufficient information 
to enable a poultry grower to make informed business decisions. Such 
information should include the anticipated number of flocks per year, 
the average gross income from each flock, and any other information 
necessary to enable a poultry grower to calculate the expected income 
from the poultry growing arrangement;
    (b) Whether a live poultry dealer supplies inputs of comparable 
quality and quantity to all poultry growers in the ranking group; and 
whether there is a pattern or practice of supplying inferior inputs to 
one or more poultry growers in the ranking group. Inputs include birds, 
feed, medication, and any other input supplied by the live poultry 
dealer;
    (c) Whether a live poultry dealer includes poultry growers provided 
with dissimilar production variables in the ranking group in a manner 
that affects a poultry grower's compensation. Production variables 
include, but are not limited to, the density at which the live poultry 
dealer places birds, the target slaughter weights of the birds, and 
bird ages that vary by more than seven days; and
    (d) Whether a live poultry dealer has demonstrated a legitimate 
business justification for use of a poultry grower ranking system that 
may otherwise be unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive or gives 
an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any poultry grower 
or subjects any poultry grower to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or 
disadvantage.

Larry Mitchell,
Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-30429 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P