Federal Register weekly update: Amended regulations issued for poultry markets (June 29, 2024)

Ballotpedia’s Federal Register weekly update reviews rules, agency documents, and notices published by federal agencies. First, we summarize federal government agency activity by the numbers. Then we highlight one or two of the most significant rules published over the last week and drill into the details in this week’s rule review.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference on June 28, which means federal courts are no longer directed to defer to agency interpretations when evaluating their rules in ambiguous cases. Explore our learning journey on Chevron and our coverage of the ruling that overturned it to learn about the history, application, and evolution of Chevron deference.

By the numbers:

The Federal Register is a daily journal of federal government activity that includes presidential documents, proposed and final rules, and public notices. It is a common measure of an administration’s regulatory activity, accounting for both regulatory and deregulatory actions.

From June 24, 2024, through June 28, 2024, the Federal Register grew by 1,974 pages for a year-to-date total of 54,328 pages.

The Federal Register hit an all-time high of 95,894 pages in 2016.

This week’s Federal Register featured the following 618 documents:

• 521 notices
• two presidential documents
• 28 proposed rules
• 67 final rules

Two proposed rules and five final rules from last week were deemed significant under E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094. Significant rules are defined by the potential to have large impacts on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. Significant actions may also conflict with presidential priorities or other agency rules.

The Biden administration in 2024 has issued 81 significant proposed rules, 181 significant final rules, and one significant notice as of June 28, 2024.

Rule review:

The Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published one of last week’s significant proposed rules. It would define with specifics the term unfair practices prohibited under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The stated purpose of the rule is to “promote fair and competitive markets in the livestock, meats, poultry, and live poultry markets.” A highlighted purpose of the rule is to give courts a definition of unfair practices that includes both harm to the market and harm to market participants in order to stop courts from requiring proof of competitive injury to determine conduct as unfair under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

• Who would be affected: The rule would apply to meat packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors industries. AMS said the benefits of the rule would accrue to livestock producers, poultry growers, and consumers.
• Estimated costs and benefits: AMS estimated the rule would directly cost the affected industries a combined total of $20.14 million in one-time administrative costs of reviewing and learning the rule, assessing business impacts, and reviewing contracts for compliance. AMS was not able to quantify the indirect costs or benefits of the rule.

Dig deeper:

Ballotpedia maintains page counts and other information about the Federal Register as part of its neutral, nonpartisan encyclopedic coverage that defines and analyzes the administrative state, including its philosophical origins, legal and judicial precedents, and scholarly examinations of its consequences. The coverage area also monitors and reports on measures of federal government activity.