USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration announced yesterday that it will extend the comment period for proposed regulations to November 22, 2010, according to the press release.
The proposed rule (75 FR 35338) was published on June 22, 2010 and includes proposed definitions and new sections to the regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (P&S Act). The purpose of the P&S Act is "to assure fair competition and fair trade practices, to safeguard farmers and ranchers ... to protect consumers ... and to protect members of the livestock, meat, and poultry industries from unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory and monopolistic practices." To read an Ag&Food Law and Policy blog post on this subject, click here.
This extension comes after controversy over the proposed provisions and many requests to extend the comment period for 120 days. Additionally, 22 House members and 17 Senators requested the extension, according to Pork Magazine.
Edward Avalos, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, issued a letter stating that the proposed rule "seeks to improve fairness and transparency" and "also seeks to address concerns raised by thousands of producers across the country that have called on USDA for decades to evaluate deceptive and anticompetitive practices in the market." He then recognizes that there have been misunderstandings about the contents of the proposed rule, stating that this "rule does not limit or prohibit marketing agreements, the use of premiums, or other value-added activities." He continues, "The rule does not require anyone to do business with any particular person or require packers to pay all producers the same price." To read the full text of the letter, click here.
Avalos also issued a document containing a list of misconceptions and individual explanations. The first issue addressed, and also the most detailed explanation given, dispels fears on the competitive injury issue. The explanation states that the "proposed rule embraces the concepts of competitive harm and likelihood of competitive harm in certain circumstances; the proposed rule states that whether proof of harm or the likelihood of harm to competition is necessary depends on the nature and circumstances of the challenged conduct." The explanation continues, stating that if the matter deals with "practices that could cause competitive harm, such as manipulation of prices, the producer would need to show harm or the likelihood of harm to competition." If, however, "a producer filed a claim on matters that do not involve competitive harm, such as retaliatory conduct, using inaccurate scales, or providing a grower sick birds, proof of competitive injury or the likelihood of competitive injury would not apply."
Other misconceptions addressed include marketing agreements, packer to packer sales, return on production contracts, premiums, and privacy issues related to contracts. The full text of the misconception/explanation document is available here.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) petitioned for the 120 day extension, but applauded the USDA's 90 day extension of the comment period, according to Feedstuffs.
For the full text of the proposed rule, click here.
To read the USDA press release, click here.
To read the Pork Magazine story, click here.
To read the Feedstuffs story, click here.
Posted: 07/27/2010
