	Introduction

On June 22, 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) published a proposed rule on the implementation of regulations dealing with livestock marketing practices as mandated by Title XI (Livestock) of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 farm bill; P.L. 110-246 ). The proposed rule amends the regulations (9 C.F.R. to describe and clarify conduct that violates the P&S Act. On December 9, 2011, USDA issued the final rule on livestock and poultry marketing practices. The rule went into effect on February 7, 2012. It included four provisions from the proposed rule, addressing suspension of the delivery of birds, additional capital investment, remedy of breach of contract, and arbitration. A similar House bill ( H.R. The farm bill also added Section 209 to the P&S Act to include provisions about the choice of law and venue in a contract dispute. The farm bill specifically directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish criteria in four areas: first, criteria to determine if producers or growers are treated with undue or unreasonable preference or advantage; second, criteria to determine whether poultry dealers give enough notice to poultry growers before suspending the delivery of birds; third, criteria to determine if required additional capital investments during a poultry or swine contract were a violation of the P&S Act; and fourth, criteria to determine if poultry growers or swine producers are given enough time to remedy a breach of contract before contracts are terminated. Arbitration

In Section 201.219 of the proposed rule, GIPSA set the criteria to be used to ensure that contract growers have a meaningful opportunity to participate in arbitration. 112-55 . The fourth provision on arbitration addressed Section 11005 of the 2008 farm bill, which required the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations to carry out the arbitration amendment to the P&S Act and to establish criteria to determine that poultry growers and livestock producer are able to participate in the arbitration process. According to proponents, the proposed rule would bring fairness to contracts and reshape interactions between producers and large meat packers and processors, especially for poultry growers who rely almost entirely on contracts. GIPSA argued in its discussion of the proposed rule that USDA has long believed that unfair or deceptive practices or unreasonable or discriminatory preferences (Sections 202 (a) and (b) of the P&S Act) can be a violation of the P&S Act without a finding of harm to competition. Also, the proposed provision would require creating new records, which was not the intent of the proposed rule. Provisions in the FY2012, FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 appropriations acts did not address the proposed rule on recordkeeping. The 113 th Congress continued to enact the prohibitions in appropriations bills for FY2013 through FY2015, and included provisions to rescind parts of the finalized rule in FY2013 and FY2015. The GIPSA rule was part of the farm bill debate, as House-passed measures in the 2012 and 2013 farm bill versions would have permanently prevented USDA from finalizing and implementing the GIPSA rule or issuing similar rules in the future. The three provisions were the definition of the "suspension of delivery of birds" (§201.2(o)), the provision that made the rule applicable to live poultry (§201.3(a)), and the 90-day notification period required when a poultry company intends to suspend the delivery of birds to a grower (§201.215(a)). 933 , the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, included language to continue the prohibitions on finalizing and implementing parts of the GIPSA rule, and rescinded three of USDA's finalized provisions. On February 5, 2015, USDA issued a final rule that permanently removed the three rescinded provisions from regulations. FY2016 Appropriations

The enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) does not include a GIPSA rider prohibiting USDA from finalizing and implementing rules on livestock and poultry marketing. The Senate-passed 2013 farm bill ( S. 954 ) did not contain provisions similar to the House versions. In the end, the farm bill conference report for the Agriculture Act of 2014 ( P.L. 2642 .
The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) included new provisions that amended the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act) to give poultry and swine growers the right to cancel contracts, to require that poultry processors clearly disclose to growers additional required capital investments, to set the choice of law and venue in contract disputes, and to give poultry and swine growers the right to decline an arbitration clause that requires arbitration to resolve contract disputes. The farm bill required USDA to propose rules to implement these provisions.
On June 22, 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) published a proposed rule to implement regulations (9 C.F.R. 201) on livestock and poultry marketing practices as mandated by the 2008 farm bill. The proposed rule, commonly referred to as the "GIPSA rule," added new regulations to clarify conduct that violates the P&S Act. The P&S Act regulations are used by USDA to ensure fair competition in livestock and poultry markets.
In what some saw as a major change from current practice, GIPSA proposed that a violation of the P&S Act does not require a finding of "harm or likely harm to competition." The proposed rule set criteria for "unfair, discriminatory, and deceptive practices" and "undue or unreasonable preference or advantages" that violate the P&S Act. The proposed rule also included arbitration provisions to ensure that contract growers have a meaningful opportunity to participate in arbitration and the right to decline arbitration.
According to proponents of the proposed rule implementing the farm bill provisions, the rule brought fairness to contracts and reshaped interactions between producers and large meat packers and poultry processors. Opponents argued that the proposed rule went far beyond the intent of Congress in the 2008 farm bill, and that the rule altered business practices to the detriment of producers, consumers, and the industries.
USDA issued a final rule on December 9, 2011, which went into effect on February 7, 2012. The final rule, a significant modification of the proposed rule, included four provisions that address, respectively, suspension of the delivery of birds, additional capital investments, remedy of breach of contract, and arbitration.
In November 2011, before USDA finalized the GIPSA rule, Congress passed the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-55), which prohibited USDA from finalizing or implementing the most contentious parts of the rule. Congress continued to enact such appropriations riders in FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015.
In addition, the FY2013 and FY2015 appropriations acts included language to rescind three provisions that USDA had finalized in 2011. These were the definition of the "suspension of delivery of birds," the 90-day notification period required when a poultry company intends to suspend the delivery of birds to a grower, and the provision that made the rule applicable to live poultry. In February 2015, USDA removed the three provisions from its regulations.
For the first time in four years, the enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) did not include a GIPSA rider prohibiting USDA from finalizing and implementing rules on livestock and poultry marketing.
Also, the GIPSA rules were addressed during the debate over the 2014 farm bill. Section 12102 of the House-passed 2013 farm bill (H.R. 2642) permanently prohibited USDA from finalizing or implementing GIPSA provisions that have been temporarily halted in appropriations acts. The Senate-passed farm bill (S. 954) did not contain a similar provision. The House GIPSA provision was not included in the conference report for the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79).