cover letter samples for executive secretary

Best 3 Executive Secretary Cover Letter Samples

Executive secretaries are trained professionals who are expected to provide administrative and clerical support to high-level management personnel.

During a typical working day, they perform a number of tasks such as managing correspondence, preparing presentations, and handling scheduling which is essential for the smooth running of an executive’s office.

When an executive secretary applies for a job, they must ensure that their cover letter reflects their administrative abilities. Since this position usually requires an individual to be an expert in carrying out many diverse tasks, it is important to highlight the ability to perform many tasks at the same time.

The following cover letter will provide you with an idea on how to write an excellent cover letter for an executive secretary resume.

Executive Secretary Cover Letter Sample 1 Experience: 15+ Years

Samuel Staley (010) 000-3333 sameul.staley @ email . com

October 24, 2020

Mr. Ashton Kirk Recruiter Asphalt 300 Moldway Road Tulsa, OK 77911

Dear Mr. Kirk:

With extensive administrative support experience, as well as attention to detail, I am confident I perfectly meet the requirements that you have specified in your advertisement for the Executive Secretary position. Dedicated, professional, and hardworking are three adjectives that have been used for me by my supervisor quite often over the 15 years that I have worked in the secretarial roles.

My expertise as an executive secretary is backed by years of performing general secretarial work at Clockwise. I am well versed in revamping the scheduling and filing system, thereby ensuring quick and efficient management of the executive meetings and conference schedules and reduction of paperwork. At my previous place of work, I was promoted to the position of an executive secretary owing to my ability to gauge and meet high-level management’s official needs and my professionalism in carrying out the core secretarial functions of the office.

Over the years, I have developed extreme proficiency in preparing the meeting of minutes, press releases, and managing high-end executive correspondence. I have an inherent ability to deal with internal conflicts and provide practical solutions constructively. My people and communication skills are especially excellent, where customers, consultants, vendors, and government agencies are concerned, which would bring great benefit to your company.

This vast and diverse pool of my experience will help me contribute successfully. I would like to meet with you to discuss how I may be an asset to your organization. The enclosed resume will provide you with a deep insight into my abilities.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

(Signature) Samuel Staley (010) 000-3333 sameul.staley @ email . com

Enc. Resume

Executive Secretary Cover Letter Sample 2 Experience: 10+ Years

Alan Martin 56 Flake Lane, Ocala, FL 87221 (000) 323-3432 anna.martin @ email . com

Mr. Peter Jones CEO Wayzata Associates 890 Berkley Towers Ocala, FL 87221

Dear Mr. Jones:

I am writing in response to your ad for an Executive Secretary, as cited in yesterday’s Florida Times. The opportunity is very exciting for me since my profile fully complements your job description. Possessing 5+ year’ extensive experience in clerical and administrative capacities, I fully specialize in all the required skills.

The following is a brief overview of my qualifications in alignment with your desired skills and competencies.

• 10+ years in public dealing and a demonstrated ability to understand PR protocols associated with this position.
• Expert in handling the front desk and managing appointments for busy calendar schedules of executives and high officials.
• Office management and administrative skills.
• Familiar with bookkeeping, corresponding handling, and payroll processing.
• Proficient in usage of all applications associated with MS Office suite in addition to front desk software and a typing speed of 50 WPM.

I am confident that my secretarial expertise will play a major role in simplifying your official tasks and relieve you in many ways.

In order to briefly discuss my skills and capabilities, I’d like to meet with you soon. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Alan Martin

(000) 333-4444

Executive Secretary Cover Letter Sample 3 Experience: 5+ Years

Mr. Max Gabriel Manager Human Resources Zale Corporation 490 Parkway Avenue Ewing, NJ 72015

Dear Mr. Gabriel:

Performance – Analytic Thinking – Results. These are only three of the many values that I can bring to Zale Corporation in the role of an Executive Secretary. I have a broad spectrum of administrative experience spanning over five years which would enable me to meet and exceed your expectations.

My academic qualifications, professional experiences and personal strengths reveal a great ability to handle high-end executives’ support, budget management, scheduling, and records keeping tasks.

I have a proven track record of presenting a pleasant and professional attitude and have the ability to handle most queries independently. Also, I possess ample experience in managing travel and accommodation details and possess the technical knowledge needed for creating presentations for meetings and seminars. I have been credited with implementing a sophisticated scheduling system that was useful in handling projects having a tight deadline.

As a proactive and diplomatic professional, I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate how I can provide benefit to your organization using my skills and expertise. If you prefer, you may reach me at (000) 000-3333.

Sincere regards,

Zara Elijah

Enc: Resume

• 5 Executive Secretary Summary Profile for Resume
• Executive Secretary Reference and Recommendation Letter Sample
• Executive Secretary Resume Example and Guide
• Top 10 Executive Secretary Resume Objective Examples (+How to Write)

6 Executive Secretary Cover Letter Examples

Executive secretary cover letter examples.

When applying for a job as an executive secretary, a well-crafted cover letter can make all the difference. In today's competitive job market, a generic cover letter simply won't cut it. Employers are looking for candidates who can demonstrate their skills, experience, and enthusiasm for the role. A tailored cover letter allows you to highlight your qualifications and show why you are the perfect fit for the position.

In this article, we will provide you with a collection of executive secretary cover letter examples that you can use as inspiration when crafting your own. Each example will showcase different approaches and highlight various key elements that can help your application stand out. By following the examples and incorporating their key takeaways, you can create a compelling cover letter that grabs the attention of hiring managers and sets you apart from the competition.

So, whether you're an experienced executive secretary looking to switch companies or a recent graduate seeking your first role in the field, these cover letter examples will provide you with valuable insights and guidance. Let's dive in and explore the world of executive secretary cover letters!

Example 1: Executive Secretary Cover Letter Example

Key takeaways.

Samantha's cover letter effectively showcases her extensive experience as an Executive Assistant, Office Manager, and Executive Secretary, positioning her as a highly qualified candidate for the Executive Secretary position at CNN.

It's crucial to highlight your relevant job history and emphasize your experience in similar roles. This demonstrates your familiarity with the responsibilities and challenges of the position, increasing your chances of being considered.

She highlights two key achievements - implementing a digital filing system that reduced document retrieval time by 40% and successfully organizing a high-profile industry conference as the Office Manager at NBCUniversal. These accomplishments demonstrate her ability to streamline processes, drive efficiency, and handle complex projects.

Quantify your achievements whenever possible to provide concrete evidence of your skills and accomplishments. This allows the hiring manager to assess the impact you can make in the role.

Samantha also aligns herself with CNN's mission and values, emphasizing her belief in the power of journalism to shape public opinion and drive positive change. This shows her genuine interest in the organization and her commitment to its goals.

Research the company and understand its core values and mission. Incorporate this knowledge into your cover letter to demonstrate your alignment with the company culture and your enthusiasm for contributing to its success.

Example 2: Legal Executive Secretary Cover Letter

Emily's cover letter effectively highlights her relevant experience and skills in legal administration, positioning her as an ideal candidate for the Legal Executive Secretary position at the Law Offices of Smith & Johnson.

When applying for a legal support role, it's crucial to showcase your understanding of legal processes and your ability to handle administrative tasks efficiently. This demonstrates your readiness to contribute immediately to the firm's operations.

She emphasizes her experience in managing legal documents, conducting legal research, and providing administrative support to attorneys. By mentioning specific tasks such as preparing and proofreading legal documents, maintaining an organized filing system, and managing calendars, Emily demonstrates her attention to detail and ability to handle multiple responsibilities.

Highlight specific tasks and responsibilities that are directly relevant to the position you are applying for. This shows that you have the necessary skills and experience to excel in the role.

Emily also mentions her experience in supervising a team of legal assistants, showcasing her leadership and management skills. This demonstrates her ability to handle complex projects, coordinate with others, and ensure timely completion of tasks.

If you have experience in a managerial or supervisory role, be sure to mention it in your cover letter. This highlights your ability to take on additional responsibilities and effectively manage a team.

To further strengthen her application, Emily could have mentioned any specific software or technology skills she possesses that are relevant to the role.

If you have experience with legal software, document management systems, or other technology commonly used in law firms, be sure to mention it in your cover letter. This demonstrates your ability to adapt to the firm's existing tools and systems, making you a valuable asset to the team.

Example 3: Medical Executive Secretary Cover Letter

Jennifer's cover letter effectively showcases her experience and skills as a medical office professional, making her a strong candidate for the Medical Executive Secretary position at Mayo Clinic.

When applying for a medical administrative role, it is crucial to highlight your experience in managing patient records, scheduling appointments, and providing administrative support to healthcare professionals. This demonstrates your familiarity with the specific requirements of medical office operations.

Jennifer emphasizes her attention to detail, organizational skills, and ability to multitask, which are essential qualities for a successful medical executive secretary.

Highlighting your organizational skills and ability to handle a high volume of tasks with accuracy is important in a medical administrative role. This demonstrates your capacity to manage complex administrative responsibilities in a fast-paced healthcare environment.

She also highlights her experience in supporting executive teams and managing complex calendars, demonstrating her ability to handle confidential information and coordinate the schedules of multiple individuals.

Emphasizing your experience in supporting executives and managing calendars showcases your professionalism, discretion, and ability to handle sensitive information. These skills are vital in a medical executive secretary role.

Jennifer concludes her letter by expressing her admiration for Mayo Clinic's reputation and mission, demonstrating her enthusiasm and genuine interest in working for the organization.

When applying to a specific healthcare institution, it is important to convey your knowledge of and alignment with the organization's values and goals. This shows your dedication to contributing to the organization's mission and culture.

Example 4: Executive Secretary to CEO Cover Letter Example

Michael's cover letter effectively positions him as a strong candidate for the Executive Secretary to CEO position at Google by showcasing his relevant experience and highlighting his key achievements.

When applying for a role as an executive secretary to a CEO, it is crucial to emphasize your experience in supporting high-level executives and managing confidential information. This demonstrates your ability to handle sensitive tasks and maintain professionalism.

Michael highlights his achievement in implementing a digital filing system at Facebook, which improved document organization and retrieval. This showcases his problem-solving skills and commitment to efficiency.

When discussing achievements in your cover letter, focus on quantifiable results and how they positively impacted the organization. This demonstrates your ability to make tangible contributions and adds credibility to your application.

The cover letter could further emphasize Michael's ability to handle complex tasks and his strong communication skills, which are essential for an executive secretary role.

Don't forget to mention your ability to handle multiple responsibilities, coordinate meetings and events, and effectively communicate with various stakeholders. These skills are crucial for success in an executive secretary role and should be highlighted in your cover letter.

Example 5: Executive Secretary to Board of Directors Cover Letter

Nicole's cover letter effectively highlights her relevant experience and skills as an executive secretary, positioning her as the ideal candidate for the Executive Secretary to the Board of Directors position at Amazon.

When applying for a role as an executive secretary, it is crucial to emphasize your experience supporting high-level executives and managing complex administrative tasks. This demonstrates your ability to handle confidential information and perform under pressure.

Nicole showcases her experience in managing calendars, coordinating travel arrangements, organizing meetings, and preparing meeting materials. These responsibilities exemplify her strong organizational skills and attention to detail.

Highlight specific tasks and responsibilities that are directly relevant to the executive secretary role. This demonstrates your practical experience and expertise in supporting executives and managing board-related activities.

Nicole also mentions her experience in overseeing budgets, coordinating large-scale events, and working collaboratively with cross-functional teams. These additional skills demonstrate her ability to handle diverse responsibilities and work effectively in a fast-paced environment.

If you have experience in areas beyond traditional executive support, such as event coordination or budget management, be sure to mention these skills. This shows your versatility and ability to contribute to broader organizational goals.

Overall, Nicole's cover letter effectively positions her as a highly qualified candidate with the necessary skills and experience to excel in the role of Executive Secretary to the Board of Directors at Amazon.

Example 6: Government Executive Secretary Cover Letter

Thomas' cover letter effectively highlights his relevant experience and skills, positioning him as a strong candidate for the Government Executive Secretary position at the United States Department of State.

When applying for a government role, it's crucial to emphasize your experience in working within federal agencies. This demonstrates your familiarity with government processes and regulations, making you a valuable asset to the organization.

Thomas showcases his administrative expertise by highlighting his accomplishments in previous roles, such as managing calendars, scheduling meetings, and organizing travel arrangements. These tasks are essential for supporting high-level executives and ensuring smooth operations.

Highlight your specific administrative skills and achievements to demonstrate your ability to handle the responsibilities of the role effectively. This shows that you have a track record of success and can contribute immediately to the organization.

Thomas also emphasizes his leadership and organizational skills, which he developed as an Office Manager at the Central Intelligence Agency. By implementing streamlined processes and reducing costs, he demonstrates his ability to improve efficiency and drive results.

If you have experience in a leadership role, emphasize your ability to manage teams and implement process improvements. These skills are highly valued in administrative positions and can set you apart from other candidates.

Additionally, Thomas highlights his experience in managing sensitive information and coordinating complex projects, essential skills for a Government Executive Secretary. He mentions his ability to handle multiple projects simultaneously and maintain confidentiality, which are critical in supporting high-level executives in their strategic initiatives.

When applying for positions that involve handling confidential information or coordinating complex projects, emphasize your ability to maintain confidentiality and manage multiple tasks efficiently. These skills are essential for success in the role and demonstrate your suitability for the position.

Skills To Highlight

As an executive secretary, your cover letter should highlight the unique skills that make you a strong candidate for the role. These key skills include:

Strong Organizational Abilities : As an executive secretary, you will be responsible for managing the administrative tasks of a high-level executive or a team of executives. It is crucial to showcase your strong organizational abilities, including your ability to prioritize tasks, manage calendars, coordinate meetings and travel arrangements, and maintain files and records. Highlight any experience you have in managing complex schedules and juggling multiple priorities effectively.

Communication Skills : Excellent communication skills are essential for an executive secretary. You will be the primary point of contact for internal and external stakeholders, including executives, clients, and vendors. Your cover letter should demonstrate your ability to communicate professionally and effectively both verbally and in writing. Emphasize your experience in drafting and proofreading correspondence, preparing reports and presentations, and handling phone calls and emails with tact and diplomacy.

Attention to Detail : Attention to detail is a critical skill for an executive secretary, as you will be responsible for ensuring accuracy and precision in all administrative tasks. From reviewing documents and contracts to proofreading reports and presentations, your cover letter should showcase your keen eye for detail. Highlight any experience you have in conducting thorough quality checks, identifying errors, and implementing corrective measures to maintain high standards of accuracy.

Time Management : As an executive secretary, you will often be working on multiple projects with tight deadlines. It is crucial to demonstrate your ability to manage your time effectively and prioritize tasks accordingly. Your cover letter should highlight your experience in managing competing priorities, meeting deadlines, and handling unexpected changes in schedules or priorities. Discuss any strategies or tools you have used to stay organized and meet deadlines successfully.

Proficiency in Office Software : Proficiency in office software is a must-have skill for an executive secretary. Your cover letter should mention your proficiency in using common office software, such as Microsoft Office Suite (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook), as well as any specialized software or tools relevant to the role. Highlight specific tasks or projects where you have utilized these software skills effectively, such as creating spreadsheets, preparing presentations, or managing email accounts.

Professional Discretion : As an executive secretary, you will often handle sensitive and confidential information. It is vital to demonstrate your ability to maintain professional discretion and handle confidential matters with utmost confidentiality and integrity. Your cover letter should emphasize your understanding of the importance of confidentiality and your commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards in your work.

By highlighting these key skills in your cover letter, you can demonstrate to potential employers that you have the necessary qualifications and abilities to excel as an executive secretary. Remember to provide specific examples and quantify your achievements whenever possible to make your cover letter more impactful.

Common Mistakes To Avoid

When crafting your executive secretary cover letter, it is important to avoid these common mistakes:

Including Irrelevant Information : Your cover letter should be focused on showcasing your qualifications and experiences that are directly relevant to the executive secretary role. Avoid including irrelevant information or personal details that do not contribute to your candidacy.

Using Generic Language : A generic cover letter will not make you stand out from other applicants. Avoid using clichés and generic language that could apply to any job. Instead, tailor your cover letter to the specific requirements and responsibilities of the executive secretary position.

Failing to Demonstrate Knowledge of the Company : Employers want to see that you have done your research and are genuinely interested in their organization. Failing to mention specific details about the company or not showcasing your understanding of their industry can give the impression that you are not truly invested in the role.

Not Showcasing Specific Achievements and Contributions : Your cover letter is an opportunity to highlight your accomplishments and how you have added value in your previous roles. Avoid simply listing your job duties; instead, focus on specific achievements and contributions that demonstrate your skills, expertise, and impact as an executive secretary.

Neglecting to Customize Your Cover Letter : Each cover letter should be tailored to the specific job you are applying for. Avoid using a generic cover letter for multiple applications. Take the time to customize your cover letter to match the requirements and qualifications outlined in the job description.

Neglecting to Proofread and Edit : Spelling and grammatical errors can create a negative impression and indicate a lack of attention to detail. Always proofread your cover letter and consider having someone else review it as well to catch any mistakes or inconsistencies.

Being Too Long or Too Short : Your cover letter should be concise yet comprehensive. Avoid writing a cover letter that is too long and includes unnecessary details. At the same time, make sure your cover letter provides enough information to showcase your qualifications and make a compelling case for your candidacy.

Focusing Too Much on Yourself : While it is important to highlight your qualifications and experiences, it is equally important to emphasize how you can contribute to the company's success. Avoid focusing solely on what the company can do for you; instead, demonstrate your understanding of the company's needs and how you can meet them as an executive secretary.

By avoiding these common mistakes, you can create a strong executive secretary cover letter that effectively highlights your qualifications and convinces employers of your suitability for the role.

In conclusion, a well-crafted cover letter is essential for executive secretaries who want to stand out in today's competitive job market. By following the examples provided in this article and tailoring their cover letter to each specific role and organization, candidates can greatly enhance their chances of landing a coveted position.

The key takeaways from the cover letter examples are:

Clearly highlight relevant skills and experiences that align with the job requirements.

By showcasing their expertise in areas such as calendar management, travel coordination, and document preparation, executive secretaries can demonstrate their ability to handle the responsibilities of the role effectively.

Emphasize strong communication and interpersonal skills.

Effective communication and the ability to collaborate with colleagues and stakeholders are crucial for executive secretaries. By highlighting their excellent verbal and written communication skills, candidates can showcase their ability to maintain effective working relationships.

Show enthusiasm and passion for the organization.

Employers are looking for candidates who are genuinely interested in their organization and its mission. By expressing enthusiasm and explaining why they are excited about the opportunity to work for a particular company, executive secretaries can demonstrate their commitment and dedication.

By avoiding common mistakes such as generic salutations, lack of customization, and excessive use of jargon, executive secretaries can ensure that their cover letter stands out for all the right reasons.

In today's competitive job market, a well-written cover letter can be the key to landing a desired executive secretary position. By following the tips and examples provided in this article, candidates can create a compelling cover letter that showcases their skills, experiences, and enthusiasm, ultimately increasing their chances of success. So, take the time to craft a strong cover letter and make a lasting impression on potential employers.

Executive Secretary Cover Letter Example for 2024 (Skills & Templates)

Create a standout executive secretary cover letter with our online platform. browse professional templates for all levels and specialties. land your dream role today.

If you're an executive secretary looking to make the right impression, crafting a compelling cover letter is crucial. Our guide will provide you with tips, tricks, and examples to help you stand out from the competition and display how your skills, experience, and passion make you the best candidate for the job. Take the first steps towards your dream career with us today!

We will cover:

• How to write a cover letter, no matter your industry or job title.
• What to put on a cover letter to stand out.
• The top skills employers from every industry want to see.
• How to build a cover letter fast with our professional Cover Letter Builder .
• What a cover letter template is, and why you should use it.

Related Cover Letter Examples

• Billing Representative Cover Letter Sample
• Program Associate Cover Letter Sample
• Title Searcher Cover Letter Sample
• Desk Receptionist Cover Letter Sample
• Insurance Processor Cover Letter Sample
• Reimbursement Specialist Cover Letter Sample
• Receiving Clerk Cover Letter Sample
• Business Support Cover Letter Sample
• Purchasing Assistant Cover Letter Sample
• Document Clerk Cover Letter Sample
• Administrative Secretary Cover Letter Sample
• Insurance Verification Specialist Cover Letter Sample
• Clerical Associate Cover Letter Sample
• Receiver Cover Letter Sample
• Insurance Clerk Cover Letter Sample
• Administrative Clerk Cover Letter Sample
• Office Manager Cover Letter Sample
• Billing Coordinator Cover Letter Sample
• Telephone Operator Cover Letter Sample
• Inventory Control Specialist Cover Letter Sample

Executive Secretary Cover Letter Sample

Dear Hiring Manager,

I am writing to express my interest in the Executive Secretary position advertised on your company's website. With my extensive administrative and secretarial experience, coupled with my passion for professional development, I believe I could make a substantial contribution to your team.

Possessing more than five years' experience as an executive-level secretary, I have developed a repertoire of skills and capabilities that I believe will benefit your company. I have extensive experience in the following areas:

• Administrative support: Supported senior executives by managing calendars, executing tasks, coordinating meetings, and handling correspondence.
• Communication: Efficiently liaised with internal and external stakeholders, thus facilitating timely and effective communication.
• Document management: Organized and maintained essential files, thus ensuring quick access to vital information.
• Problem-solving: Deftly handled unanticipated situations, effectively resolving issues in a timely and professional manner.
• Project coordination: Successfully coordinated complex tasks, meeting strict deadlines while ensuring top-quality execution.

I also bring a strong aptitude for technology, having used diverse office software and productivity tools in my previous roles. My proficiency in these areas can be used to enhance efficiency and productivity in your team.

In my previous position at XYZ Corporation, I worked as an Executive Assistant for the CEO. This role required high levels of organization, adaptability, and attention to detail - all skills that are crucial for effective secretariat work. My experience working in this demanding environment has equipped me with the skill set required to thrive in the role at your company.

I am drawn to your company due to its commitment to innovation and quality - values that align with my professional ethos. In addition to my strong administrative skills, my ability to work well under pressure and multitask effectively will make me an asset to your team.

I look forward to the opportunity of discussing my application with you further. I believe I can bring valuable skills and experiences that will complement your team. Thank you for considering my application.

Sincerely, [Your Name]

Why Do you Need a Executive Secretary Cover Letter?

An Executive Secretary cover letter is an essential addition to your job application process. This document communicates in detail your specific skills, qualifications, and experiences that make you the best fit for the role. Here are several reasons why you need an Executive Secretary cover letter:

• First Impression: A cover letter helps to make a grand first impression on an employer. The format, tone, and content of the letter allow the employer to form a preliminary impression of your communication skills, professionalism, and attention to detail.
• Personal Touch: Your resume provides an outline of your skills and experiences. However, it's your cover letter that adds a personalized touch to your application. It showcases your personality and gives the employer an insight on what to expect from you.
• Showcase Your Skills: A cover letter is a great platform to talk about your previous experiences and how they shaped your skills. As an Executive Secretary, you can highlight your exceptional organizational skills, ability to handle confidential matters, proficiency in business correspondence, and other relevant skills that might not come through in a resume.
• Chance to Differentiate: A cover letter allows you to differentiate yourself from other candidates. You can explain why you are particularly interested in the company or the role, provide examples of how you can add value to the organization, and mention any relevant achievements or accolades.
• Address Gaps: If there are any gaps in your employment history or you are changing careers, a cover letter gives you the chance to address these issues and put them in a positive light.
• Show Enthusiasm: Finally, enthusiasm is contagious! A cover letter is an excellent vehicle to express your passion for the role, the company, and the industry it operates in. This is more likely to result in call-backs for interviews than a resume alone.

A Few Important Rules To Keep In Mind

When drafting an Executive Secretary cover letter, it's vital to adhere to specific rules to craft a piece that's not only professional but also capable of grabbing the attention of your potential employer. Below are a few guidelines to help you create a top-notch cover letter.

• Formal style: Use a formal style of writing to show your professionalism. Avoid using slang or too casual language.
• Address the recipient appropriately: Always address the recipient formally by using their proper title and surname. If you do not know their name, use a general term like "Hiring Manager.
• Echo the job description: Reflect the language of the job description in your cover letter to show that you understand the role, its requirements, and possess the necessary skills. Do not copy and paste the job description into your letter; instead, echo specific phrases.
• Providing specific examples: Cite concrete examples where you exercised skills relevant to the job posting. This helps the reader understand your competence and experience in various situations.
• Keep it concise: Your cover letter should be direct and concise. Aim to keep your letter within one page to grab the reader's attention.
• Proofread: It is vital to proofread your letter for grammar, spelling, or punctuation mistakes. These errors can detract from your professionalism and may cost you the job opportunity.
• Format appropriately: A typical letter format includes your contact information, the date, the recipient's contact information, a salutation, the body, and the closing. Make sure all these elements are included.
• End on a positive note: Concluding your cover letter positively can leave an impression on the recipient. A note of gratitude for considering your application or a statement of enthusiasm about the opportunity to further discuss your suitability for the role is a great way to end.

What's The Best Structure For Executive Secretary Cover Letters?

After creating an impressive Executive Secretary resume , the next step is crafting a compelling cover letter to accompany your job applications. It's essential to remember that your cover letter should maintain a formal tone and follow a recommended structure. But what exactly does this structure entail, and what key elements should be included in a Executive Secretary cover letter? Let's explore the guidelines and components that will make your cover letter stand out.

Key Components For Executive Secretary Cover Letters:

• Your contact information, including the date of writing
• The recipient's details, such as the company's name and the name of the addressee
• A professional greeting or salutation, like "Dear Mr. Levi,"
• An attention-grabbing opening statement to captivate the reader's interest
• A concise paragraph explaining why you are an excellent fit for the role
• Another paragraph highlighting why the position aligns with your career goals and aspirations
• A closing statement that reinforces your enthusiasm and suitability for the role
• A complimentary closing, such as "Regards" or "Sincerely," followed by your name
• An optional postscript (P.S.) to add a brief, impactful note or mention any additional relevant information.

Cover Letter Header

A header in a cover letter should typically include the following information:

• Your Full Name: Begin with your first and last name, written in a clear and legible format.
• Contact Information: Include your phone number, email address, and optionally, your mailing address. Providing multiple methods of contact ensures that the hiring manager can reach you easily.
• Date: Add the date on which you are writing the cover letter. This helps establish the timeline of your application.

It's important to place the header at the top of the cover letter, aligning it to the left or center of the page. This ensures that the reader can quickly identify your contact details and know when the cover letter was written.

Cover Letter Greeting / Salutation

A greeting in a cover letter should contain the following elements:

• Personalized Salutation: Address the hiring manager or the specific recipient of the cover letter by their name. If the name is not mentioned in the job posting or you are unsure about the recipient's name, it's acceptable to use a general salutation such as "Dear Hiring Manager" or "Dear [Company Name] Recruiting Team."
• Professional Tone: Maintain a formal and respectful tone throughout the greeting. Avoid using overly casual language or informal expressions.
• Correct Spelling and Title: Double-check the spelling of the recipient's name and ensure that you use the appropriate title (e.g., Mr., Ms., Dr., or Professor) if applicable. This shows attention to detail and professionalism.

For example, a suitable greeting could be "Dear Ms. Johnson," or "Dear Hiring Manager," depending on the information available. It's important to tailor the greeting to the specific recipient to create a personalized and professional tone for your cover letter.

Cover Letter Introduction

An introduction for a cover letter should capture the reader's attention and provide a brief overview of your background and interest in the position. Here's how an effective introduction should look:

• Opening Statement: Start with a strong opening sentence that immediately grabs the reader's attention. Consider mentioning your enthusiasm for the job opportunity or any specific aspect of the company or organization that sparked your interest.
• Brief Introduction: Provide a concise introduction of yourself and mention the specific position you are applying for. Include any relevant background information, such as your current role, educational background, or notable achievements that are directly related to the position.
• Connection to the Company: Demonstrate your knowledge of the company or organization and establish a connection between your skills and experiences with their mission, values, or industry. Showcasing your understanding and alignment with their goals helps to emphasize your fit for the role.
• Engaging Hook: Consider including a compelling sentence or two that highlights your unique selling points or key qualifications that make you stand out from other candidates. This can be a specific accomplishment, a relevant skill, or an experience that demonstrates your value as a potential employee.
• Transition to the Body: Conclude the introduction by smoothly transitioning to the main body of the cover letter, where you will provide more detailed information about your qualifications, experiences, and how they align with the requirements of the position.

By following these guidelines, your cover letter introduction will make a strong first impression and set the stage for the rest of your application.

Cover Letter Body

Dear [Manager's Name],

I am writing to apply for the Executive Secretary position at your company, as advertised on [Job Portal's Name]. I am confident that my broad experience in executing high-level administrative duties would add immense value to your team.

Key Qualifications

• Offering over [Your Experience] years of experience working in demanding, fast-paced office environments as an Executive Secretary.
• Demonstrated expertise in arranging and scheduling meetings, organizing office documentation, managing travel itineraries, and providing comprehensive administrative support to C-suite executives.
• Highly skilled in using various office software programs including [Software Name] to create presentations, maintain account records, and streamline office operations.

I am a highly organized and self-motivated professional who is known for multitasking while maintaining attention to detail. My ability to effectively prioritize tasks, coupled with reliable problem-solving capabilities, would allow me to thrive in the role of Executive Secretary at your company.

Notable Achievements

• Received 'Employee of the Month" for my performance at [Previous Company Name].
• Implemented an innovative file management system which improved operational efficiency by [percentage].
• Successfully managed the communication flow within the office at [Previous Company Name], improving inter-departmental collaboration.

I eagerly look forward to the opportunity of discussing my application and how I could contribute to your team in further detail. Thank you for considering my application.

Complimentary Close

The conclusion and signature of a cover letter provide a final opportunity to leave a positive impression and invite further action. Here's how the conclusion and signature of a cover letter should look:

• Summary of Interest: In the conclusion paragraph, summarize your interest in the position and reiterate your enthusiasm for the opportunity to contribute to the organization or school. Emphasize the value you can bring to the role and briefly mention your key qualifications or unique selling points.
• Appreciation and Gratitude: Express appreciation for the reader's time and consideration in reviewing your application. Thank them for the opportunity to be considered for the position and acknowledge any additional materials or documents you have included, such as references or a portfolio.
• Call to Action: Conclude the cover letter with a clear call to action. Indicate your availability for an interview or express your interest in discussing the opportunity further. Encourage the reader to contact you to schedule a meeting or provide any additional information they may require.
• Complimentary Closing: Choose a professional and appropriate complimentary closing to end your cover letter, such as "Sincerely," "Best Regards," or "Thank you." Ensure the closing reflects the overall tone and formality of the letter.
• Signature: Below the complimentary closing, leave space for your handwritten signature. Sign your name in ink using a legible and professional style. If you are submitting a digital or typed cover letter, you can simply type your full name.
• Typed Name: Beneath your signature, type your full name in a clear and readable font. This allows for easy identification and ensures clarity in case the handwritten signature is not clear.

Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing an Executive Secretary Cover Letter

When crafting a cover letter, it's essential to present yourself in the best possible light to potential employers. However, there are common mistakes that can hinder your chances of making a strong impression. By being aware of these pitfalls and avoiding them, you can ensure that your cover letter effectively highlights your qualifications and stands out from the competition. In this article, we will explore some of the most common mistakes to avoid when writing a cover letter, providing you with valuable insights and practical tips to help you create a compelling and impactful introduction that captures the attention of hiring managers. Whether you're a seasoned professional or just starting your career journey, understanding these mistakes will greatly enhance your chances of success in the job application process. So, let's dive in and discover how to steer clear of these common missteps and create a standout cover letter that gets you noticed by potential employers.

• Not addressing the recipient by name : Addressing your letter to "Sir/Madam" or "To whom it may concern" is too impersonal and may give the impression that you did not put in the effort to research the company.
• Grammatical errors : Any spelling or grammar mistakes can immediately mark you out as careless or unprofessional. Always double or triple check before sending.
• Not tailoring the letter to the job : Avoid sending a generic cover letter. Each one should be individually tailored to the specific job post and company to which you are applying.
• Lacking clear structure : Your cover letter should have an introduction, body paragraphs outlining your suitability for the role, and a conclusion. Without this structure, your letter may be difficult to follow.
• Repeating your resume verbatim : Your cover letter should complement—not duplicate—your resume. It's your chance to tell a story about why you're the right fit for the job.
• Focusing on what the company can do for you : Although it's important to express excitement about the position, your cover letter should primarily highlight what you can do for the company, not what the company can do for you.
• Being too vague : Avoid generic statements like "I'm a hard worker." Instead, use specific examples that demonstrate your skills and experience.
• Being too lengthy : Your cover letter should be concise and brief. Aim for no more than one page.
• Not following up : If you don't hear back, it's acceptable to follow up with the company about a week after you've sent your cover letter. But remember to be patient and polite in your follow-up email or phone call.
• Forgetting to include contact information : Always include your email address and phone number at the top of your cover letter.

Key Takeaways For an Executive Secretary Cover Letter

• An Executive Secretary cover letter should focus on showcasing the candidate's strong organizational and administrative skills as these are essential for the role.
• The cover letter should highlight the candidate's experience in maintaining executive schedules, coordinating meetings, and handling correspondence and communications.
• It's also important to emphasize any experience with preparing reports, presentations, and briefs for the executive. This will show that the candidate is able to handle the significant responsibilities that come with the role.
• Candidates should detail their proficiency with office software and technologies used by executive secretaries. This can include anything from Microsoft Office to scheduling and email software.
• Another key aspect to highlight in the cover letter is the candidate's interpersonal skills. Executive Secretaries are often the first point of contact between the executive and other employees or external contacts, so being approachable and professional is crucial.
• Through their cover letter, candidates should convey their ability to work efficiently under pressure and with minimal supervision, as these are key requirements of the job.
• Lastly, candidates should mention any specific qualifications or certifications they might have that are relevant to the role of an Executive Secretary, such as a degree in Business Administration or a certification in office management.

Secretary Cover Letter Examples and Templates for 2024

• Cover Letter Examples

How To Write a Secretary Cover Letter

• Cover Letter Text Examples

To generate traction during the job search, build an accomplishment-driven secretary cover letter demonstrating your communication and administrative skill sets. Show potential employers how you can help refine office operations, improve scheduling processes, and coordinate client communications effectively. Our guide includes cover letter examples and expert tips to help capture your experience and land your next job interview.

Secretary Cover Letter Templates and Examples

• Entry-Level
• Senior-Level

Writing a great secretary cover letter requires a creative approach that differs from many other types of positions. This is because your day-to-day administrative duties might not always seem like genuine achievements. That said, your contributions are vital to daily operations, and it’s important to emphasize the true value you bring to your teams and organizations. Below, we’ll provide guidance to help you capture the most compelling aspects of your professional experience in your secretary cover letter:

1. Contact information and salutation

List all essential contact information at the top of your secretary cover letter, including your name, phone number, email, and LinkedIn URL. Greet the hiring manager by name — Mr. or Ms. [Last Name]. If you can’t find the hiring manager’s name, use a variation of “Dear Hiring Manager.” This shows you’ve taken the time to research the company before applying and demonstrates your genuine enthusiasm for the opportunity.

2. Introduction

Lead your secretary cover letter with a strong introduction to convey your interest in the job and grab the attention of the hiring manager. Build your paragraph around one of your most impressive career achievements, preferably backed by an eye-catching number or metric. Be sure to highlight your expertise in administrative support, client communications, and calendar management, skills especially important for secretarial roles.

In the example below, the applicant highlights the impact of their administrative support on a doctor’s office. Showcasing hard data in a similar manner is a great way to bolster the impact of your achievements on your secretary cover letter.

I’m interested in applying for the medical secretary position with Miami Cancer Institute. During my time with Ormond Beach Oncology Associates, I coordinated with physicians, nurses, and office personnel to enhance patient flow, resulting in a 20% reduction in wait times and a 92% patient satisfaction rating. I can achieve similar results for your organization in this role.

3. Body paragraphs

In the body paragraphs of your secretary cover letter, highlight your qualifications and career achievements as a secretary. Start by mentioning something specific about the company’s culture, reputation, or mission statement and why you’re enthusiastic about the opportunity. Feature tangible examples of the value you bring as a secretary and administrative professional, emphasizing quantifiable results. Consider adding a list of bullet points to break up the text on the page and improve the readability of your document.

Notice how the candidate below leverages their administrative experience within the health care field. Clinical environments are often fast-paced and high-stress, and yet the secretary has consistently found ways to improve operational efficiency and patient satisfaction throughout their career. Emphasizing your proven track record of success is essential for building a stand-out secretary cover letter.

As a seasoned administrator with 12 years of experience providing efficient secretarial support in hospitals, I am drawn to OrthoBoston’s reputation for exceptional patient care. I would relish using my skills and experience to ensure seamless treatment pathways for your service users. Some of my recent achievements include:

• Streamlined the post-meeting administrative process to ensure swift follow-up on assignments, contributing to a departmental productivity increase of 26% in 2023
• Trained five new hires and identified opportunities to enhance performance and service quality, which supported a 10% increase in patient satisfaction
• Implemented a new patient scheduling system that freed up an average of five appointments per practitioner per week

4. Secretary skills and qualifications

Rather than simply listing key skills on your secretary cover letter, tactically incorporate keywords from the job posting into your paragraphs. Feature examples of you utilizing various administrative skill sets in professional business environments. Below, we’ve gathered a wide range of potential skills you can add to your secretary cover letter:

5. Closing section

The conclusion of your secretary cover letter should feature a call to action (CTA) that encourages the hiring manager to bring you in for an interview. This displays your confidence and genuine enthusiasm for the opportunity. Be sure to thank the hiring manager for their time and consideration in the last sentence of the paragraph.

I look forward to scheduling an interview to tell you more about how my background as a medical secretary can help further enhance patient-care delivery at Miami Cancer Institute. Feel free to contact me via phone or email for any additional questions you may have on my background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Aliya Jackson

Secretary Cover Letter Tips

1. feature your expertise in administrative support.

Secretarial positions require strong organizational and administrative skill sets. As you craft your cover letter, call out these qualifications using specific instances from your work history. In the example below, the candidate demonstrates their ability to manage calendars, correspondence, and documentation for a premier law firm. This helps to convey how their experience can help refine operations for potential employers:

• Provided administrative support to legal teams, drafted correspondence, coordinated client communications, managed calendars, and organized physical and electronic files to support multi-million dollar legal cases
• Maintained client and firm files, coordinated conference room meetings, purchased office supplies, and oversaw invoicing procedures
• Managed attorney calendars, scheduled client appointments, and verified court dates

2. Highlight your communication and client relations skills

As a secretary, you’ll be responsible for fielding inquiries and managing client communications on a daily basis. Hiring managers want to see how you’ve leveraged these skills throughout your career. In the example below, the applicant highlights their background interfacing with patients suffering from debilitating and life-threatening conditions, especially valuable when applying for secretarial positions in health care:

Miami Cancer Institute’s reputation for its comprehensive clinical standards is what excites me about this opportunity. Throughout my career as medical secretary, I’ve communicated with empathy and compassion while interfacing with patients suffering from debilitating and life-threatening health conditions. I can help your team continue to improve the patient experience based on my previous achievements:

3. Align your cover letter with the job description

Tailoring your cover letter towards individual job descriptions is the best way to maximize your chances of landing the interview. In addition to mentioning specifics about the organization’s reputation or culture, convey how your industry knowledge and experience make you a good fit for the role. Below, the candidate emphasizes their background working in the legal field, which sends a clear message they can adapt to the needs of prospective law firms:

Richardson and Stone Legal Associates’ reputation as a leading personal injury firm draws me to apply for this opportunity. During my time with Haden Law Group, I fielded inquiries from potential clients, drafted correspondence, and liaised with clients, defense counsel, and courtrooms. I can support legal operations for your firm based on my career achievements:

Secretary Text-Only Cover Letter Templates and Examples

Aliya Jackson Secretary | [email protected] | (123) 456-7890 | Miami, FL 12345 | LinkedIn

January 1, 2024

Pat Martin Senior Hiring Manager Miami Cancer Institute (987) 654-3210 patmartin@miamicancerinstitute,org

Dear Pat Martin:

Miami Cancer Institute’s reputation for its comprehensive clinical standards is what excites me about this opportunity . Throughout my career as a medical secretary, I’ve communicated with empathy and compassion while interfacing with patients suffering from debilitating and life-threatening health conditions. I can help your team continue to improve the patient experience based on my previous achievements:

• Fielded phone inquiries for new and existing patients, managed appointment scheduling, conducted new patient orientations, and handled electronic medical records
• Managed physician calendars, resolved scheduling conflicts, interfaced with diverse patient populations, and contributed to an organization-wide 92% patient satisfaction score
• Conducted patient scheduling, registration, and data entry for a medical office with over 250 patients, updated health records, and ensured compliance with HIPAA

Allison Rosenberg Secretary | [email protected] | (123) 456-7890 | San Diego, CA 12345 | LinkedIn

Hector Santos Senior Hiring Manager Richardson and Stone Legal Associates (987) 654-3210 [email protected]

Dear Mr. Santos:

I’m reaching out to apply for the secretary position with Richardson and Stone Legal Associates that I found on LinkedIn. As you can see from my resume, I have over five years of secretarial experience in established law firms. My expertise in administrative support and calendar management would be a strong asset to your team in this role.

Richardson and Stone Legal Associates’ reputation as a leading personal injury firm is what draws me to apply for this opportunity. At Haden Law Group, I fielded inquiries from potential clients, drafted correspondence, and liaised with clients, defense counsel, and courtrooms. I can support legal operations for your firm based on my career achievements:

I’d like to set up an interview to discuss how my experience as a secretary and legal assistant can provide value to your law firm. Feel free to contact me via phone or email at your convenience. I appreciate your time and consideration.

Allison Rosenberg

Kevin Morrison Secretary | [email protected] | (123) 456-7890 | Boston, MA 12345 | LinkedIn

Lori Taylor Senior Hiring Manager OrthoBoston (987) 654-3210 [email protected]

Dear Ms. Taylor,

During my time as the secretary for Providence Orthopedics, I overhauled my department’s data gathering protocols to successfully reduce pre-surgical file omissions by 98%. This project significantly improved the availability of crucial medical information and saved over 15 work hours per week. I look forward to leveraging my outstanding organizational skills as the pre-admissions department secretary at OrthoBoston.

As a seasoned administrator with 12 years of experience providing efficient secretarial support in hospitals, I am drawn to OrthoBoston’s reputation for exceptional patient care. I would relish utilizing my skills and experience to ensure seamless treatment pathways for your service users. Some of my recent achievements include:

I look forward to speaking with you further about how my secretarial experience within the health care field can help your organization continue to deliver exceptional patient care. You may contact me via phone or email at your convenience. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kevin Morrison

Secretary Cover Letter FAQs

Why should i submit a secretary cover letter -.

Although most job applications won’t require a cover letter for secretary positions, including one is a great way to showcase your written communication skills and make a strong first impression on the reader. Because most candidates won’t be submitting a cover letter, taking the time to craft a customized document may actually help differentiate you from the competition during the job search.

How do I make my secretary cover letter stand out? -

To maximize the value of your cover letter, provide unique insights into who you are as a professional using more personalized language in comparison to the resume. Convey your story using key examples from your professional history. This will help send a clear message that you have the necessary qualifications for the role and that you’re a good fit for the company’s culture.

How long should my cover letter be? -

In most situations, a concise yet compelling cover letter will be more beneficial to your job application. Limit your cover letter to three or four paragraphs, keeping the reader’s focus on your most notable accomplishments. Secretary job descriptions are often generic, and omitting bland details will only make your document stronger.

Craft a new cover letter in minutes

Get the attention of hiring managers with a cover letter tailored to every job application.

Frank Hackett

Certified Professional Resume Writer (CPRW)

Frank Hackett is a professional resume writer and career consultant with over eight years of experience. As the lead editor at a boutique career consulting firm, Frank developed an innovative approach to resume writing that empowers job seekers to tell their professional stories. His approach involves creating accomplishment-driven documents that balance keyword optimization with personal branding. Frank is a Certified Professional Resume Writer (CPRW) with the Professional Association of Resume Writers and Career Coaches (PAWRCC).

Check Out Related Examples

Executive Assistant Cover Letter Examples and Templates

Medical Receptionist Cover Letter Examples and Templates

Receptionist Cover Letter Examples and Templates

Build a resume to enhance your career.

• Drop “To Whom It May Concern” for These Cover Letter Alternatives Learn More
• How To Describe Your Current Job Responsibilities Learn More
• Top 10 Soft Skills Employers Love Learn More

Essential Guides for Your Job Search

• How to Write a Resume Learn More
• How to Write a Cover Letter Learn More
• Thank You Note Examples Learn More
• Resignation Letter Examples Learn More

• Create a Cover Letter Now
• Create a Resume Now
• My Documents
• Examples of cover letters /

Executive Secretary

Executive Secretary Cover Letter

You have the skills and we have tricks on how to find amazing jobs. Get cover letters for over 900 professions.

• Svitlana Harkusha - Head Career Expert

How to create a good cover letter for an executive secretary: free tips and tricks

If you want to land a job interview, you better craft a proper cover letter. HRs and employers pay a lot of attention to it. Check out an executive secretary cover letter example below to see how we suggest you use the tips and tricks for writing one. Use the experience of applicants who have been in those shoes before you and apply it to your situation.

You have only one chance to make an impression. And it starts with your cover letter. Its visual presentation says a lot to the recruiter. So do your homework and pen out a nice document with the pleasing font, right format, and elegant layout.

Don’t go relaxed on it. If you don’t put forth an effort, it can end for you right there. Don’t go for sloppy work in terms of layout and formatting. Your role as an executive secretary is to pay attention to the details, so demonstrate it right away!

Even if you are an entry-level candidate, don’t be intimidated by a position. Pump up your cover letter with summer practice achievements and intern experience. Do you know the expression ‘fake it until you make it’? That is where you can apply it to yourself in case of insecurities.

Don’t go by the path of beating yourself up and acknowledging your weak sides right on the spot. If you have a degree, mention it. If you had an internship in a well-respected place, remember to put it in. You will not send the recruiter off the track but at least they will see that you are ready to learn.

Carrying out secretarial duties to executives requires you not only to answer phones, pull up documents and coordinate schedules but also to use perfect communication skills. Make sure you mention it in greater detail.

Don’t be afraid to sound personal and reveal yourself as a person with certain characteristics. Probably, it is not the time and place to put a joke in but you can definitely go outside of any generic description and show yourself not only as a specialist but as an individual too.

Sample cover letter for an executive secretary position

The most effective way to digest the tips is to see their practical application. We have used all the important tips of the above units into a single an executive secretary cover letter sample to demonstrate a winning document that can be created in GetCoverLetter editor.

Boris Johnson Executive Secretary 2 Downing Street 8779-250-918 / [email protected] Daniel Kanneman Recruiter “Slow Thinking Co.”

Dear Daniel, My enthusiasm for “Slow Thinking Co.” has been with me for decades, as I have a lot of respect for what the company does and its ethic policy. That is why I would love to have an opportunity to offer my modest skills to you.

As an MBA degree holder, I had a short summer internship at IBM Watson. As an office assistant, I carried out secretarial duties to a number of managers and employees. I learned to arrange appointments and meetings, use a filing system, prepare and distribute correspondence within the office, and other administrative tasks to keep the office run smoothly and the colleagues happy. However, most of all, I pride myself on my avid communication skills. I am able both to keep guests entertained with reasonable amount of small talk and be quiet and unobtrusive with the reticent colleagues.

Enclosed you will find my resume and letter of recommendation. I hope to hear from you soon and prove myself fit the position in person.

Sincerely, Boris.

This example is not commercial and has a demonstrative function only. If you need unique Cover Letter please proceed to our editor.

Do not waste on doubts the time that you can spend on composing your document.

How to save time on creating your cover letter for an executive secretary

Our Get Cover Letter editor will help you make the process easy and fast. How it works:

Fill in a simple questionnaire to provide the needed information about yourself.

Choose the design of your cover letter.

Print, email, or download your cover letter in PDF format.

Why the Get Cover Letter is the best solution

The GetCoverLetter editor is open to any goals of applicants. Whether it be a presentation of a craft professional with a great list of achievements or even an executive secretary without experience. Rest assured, the opportunities are equal for all the candidates.

Our creators will worry about which layout to choose for the executive secretary job application, so you don't have to.

We know how important format is, so we stick to a strong business writing style, so that all can be in your favor with your potential employer.

Our fast and easy online composer makes creating and editing a breeze. You can choose your skill and add personal info in no time.

All the above and other benefits of using our editor are only one click away.

Templates of the best an executive secretary cover letter designs

Any example of the document for an executive secretary has a precise design per the requirements of the company or the general rules of business correspondence. In any case, the selection of templates in our editor will meet any expectations.

Or choose any other template from our template gallery

Overall rating 4.3

Overall rating 4.5

Get Cover Letter customer’s reviews

“Such services as GetCoverLetter are god-sent gifts. I was very pleased with the end result, and let me tell you – the machine does it much better than I would ever do. It is quite weird and intimidating but I still use it every time I need it.”

“In today’s fast-paced time, people simply cannot afford to sit around fumbling with all that job application documentation. I have no patience for that. And I’m happy that I can go online and deal with it in a matter of minutes.”

“I pride myself on being an expert in my field of expertise. But penning out cover letters is something utterly different. An absolute genius came up with this builder. And I’m eternally thankful them for it!”

Frequently Asked Questions

The more unique the knowledge you get, the more space for new questions. Do not be affraid to miss some aspects of creating your excellent cover letter. Here we took into account the most popular doubts to save your time and arm you with basic information.

• What should my an executive secretary cover letter contain? The main purpose of a cover letter is to introduce yourself, mention the job you’re applying for, show that your skills and experience match the needed skills and experience for the job.
• How to properly introduce yourself in a cover letter? Greet the correct person to which your cover is intended for. Introduce yourself with enthusiasm.
• How many pages should my cover letter be? Your cover letter should only be a half a page to one full page. Your cover letter should be divided into three or four short paragraphs.
• Don't focus on yourself too much
• Don't share all the details of every job you've had
• Don't write a novel

You have finished your acquaintance with valuable tips and tricks. Now is the time to create your own perfect cover letter.

Other cover letters from this industry

Here is our simple way of how to write a cover letter. However, don’t limit yourself by your qualifications only. Check out the links below to see applications for other jobs. They may inspire you to add up to your cover letter too.

• Executive Director
• Executive Administrative Assistant
• Senior Executive Assistant

Secretary Cover Letter Example

Cover letter examples, cover letter guidelines, how to format an secretary cover letter, cover letter header, cover letter header examples for secretary, how to make your cover letter header stand out:, cover letter greeting, cover letter greeting examples for secretary, best cover letter greetings:, cover letter introduction, cover letter intro examples for secretary, how to make your cover letter intro stand out:, cover letter body, cover letter body examples for secretary, how to make your cover letter body stand out:, cover letter closing, cover letter closing paragraph examples for secretary, how to close your cover letter in a memorable way:, pair your cover letter with a foundational resume, key cover letter faqs for secretary.

You should start your Secretary cover letter by addressing the hiring manager directly, if their name is available. If not, use a professional greeting like "Dear Hiring Manager". Then, introduce yourself and state the position you're applying for. Make sure to express your enthusiasm for the role and briefly mention how your skills and experience make you a strong candidate. For example, "I am excited to apply for the Secretary position at your company. With my 5 years of experience in administrative roles and exceptional organizational skills, I am confident I can contribute effectively to your team." This sets a positive tone and immediately highlights your suitability for the role.

The best way for Secretaries to end a cover letter is by expressing gratitude for the reader's time and consideration, reiterating their interest in the role, and inviting further discussion. For example, "Thank you for considering my application. I am very interested in the Secretary position and believe my skills and experience make me a strong candidate. I look forward to the possibility of discussing my application with you further." This ending is professional, courteous, and shows enthusiasm for the role. It's also important to end with a formal closing such as "Sincerely" or "Best Regards," followed by your name. Remember, a cover letter is your chance to make a good first impression, so ensure it's well-written, concise, and free of errors.

Secretaries should include the following elements in their cover letter: 1. Contact Information: Your name, address, phone number, and email address should be at the top of the cover letter. If you're sending an email cover letter, this information can be included in your email signature. 2. Salutation: Address the hiring manager directly if you know their name. If not, use a general salutation like "Dear Hiring Manager." 3. Introduction: Start by introducing yourself and stating the position you're applying for. Mention where you found the job posting. 4. Relevant Skills and Experience: Highlight your skills and experiences that are directly relevant to the secretary position. This could include experience in office administration, proficiency in office software, excellent communication skills, and ability to manage multiple tasks or projects at once. 5. Achievements: Mention any achievements or accomplishments from your previous roles that demonstrate your ability to perform the job effectively. For example, if you implemented a new filing system that increased efficiency, or if you were praised for your exceptional customer service skills. 6. Knowledge about the Company: Show that you've done your research about the company and express why you're interested in working there. This shows your enthusiasm and commitment. 7. Closing: In your closing paragraph, thank the hiring manager for considering your application. Express your interest in discussing your qualifications further in an interview. 8. Signature: End with a professional closing like "Sincerely" or "Best regards," followed by your name. Remember, your cover letter should complement your resume, not duplicate it. It's your chance to tell a story about your experiences and skills, and to show your personality. Always proofread your cover letter before sending it to avoid any typos or errors.

Related Cover Letters for Secretary

Related resumes for secretary, try our ai cover letter generator.

Executive Secretary Cover Letter Example

An employer has to go through many cover letters; therefore, he utilizes the ‘Applicant Tracking System’ to find the most relevant cover letter. An Executive Secretary Cover Letter must make use of keywords relevant to the job expectation and are scattered throughout your cover letter.

The Executive Secretary Cover Letter Sample shown below has put together all the necessary information in your reference’s most understandable format.

• Cover Letters
• Office & Administrative

What to Include in a Executive Secretary Cover Letter?

Roles and responsibilities.

An Executive Secretary offers efficient administrative & clerical assistance to the management executives. His role includes the following responsibilities:

• Responding to incoming calls & messages .
• Keeping contact records and details.
• Organizing and scheduling meetings .
• Planning long-term schedules.
• Training newly employed members.
• Maintaining public relations.

Education & Skills

Executive secretary skills:.

• Impressive communication skills to handle incoming calls.
• Excellent decision maker to plan and arrange meetings.
• Outstanding coaching skills to train new hires.
• Practical interpersonal skills to maintain public relations.
• Capable of working under pressure and uphold with deadlines.
• Detail-oriented to record and relay the messages to the concerned person.

Executive Secretary Educational Requirements:

• Graduation in Business Administration (preferred).
• Executive support work experience (preferred).
• Deep understanding of secretarial and administrative fundamentals.
• Working knowledge of bookkeeping and databases.
• Proficiency at MS Office and similar software (required).

Executive Secretary Cover Letter Example (Text Version)

Dear Mr./Ms.,

I am writing this application to show my interest in the Executive Secretary’s available position that has been promoted on Indeed.com. I was thrilled to know the job requirements as they perfectly matched my skill set and professional background. I have been performing the following tasks in the present company:

• Conduct precise research.
• Arrange/Organize meetings & conferences.
• Handle calls, emails, and faxes.
• Operate office equipment.
• Take minutes of meetings/dictation.
• Revise reports & documents thoroughly.
• Create accurate reports and presentations.
• Arrange travel and accommodation, maintain the calendar.

Therefore, I believe I am all set to channel my expertise as Executive Secretary for your esteemed organization. My resume will indicate a brief of my education and employment background. I am looking forward to discussing my value for your organization. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

Sincerely, [Your Name]

Highlight your unique competencies and relevant coursework and your volunteer work to make the best case for your candidacy. Craft a stellar resume pitched with the most substantial outcomes you can bring in conjunction with the opportunity. Our Executive Secretary Resume Sample has covered all the required details that are needed for the particular position.

Customize Executive Secretary Cover Letter

Get hired faster with our free cover letter template designed to land you the perfect position.

Related Office & Administrative Cover Letters

Executive Secretary Cover Letter Examples

A great executive secretary cover letter can help you stand out from the competition when applying for a job. Be sure to tailor your letter to the specific requirements listed in the job description, and highlight your most relevant or exceptional qualifications. The following executive secretary cover letter example can give you some ideas on how to write your own letter.

or download as PDF

Cover Letter Example (Text)

(994) 630-3948

[email protected]

Dear Ms. Harrin,

I am writing to express my keen interest in the Executive Secretary position at McKinsey & Company, as advertised. With a solid background in executive support and over five years of experience at Deloitte Consulting LLP, I am confident in my ability to contribute effectively to your team and support the strategic objectives of your esteemed firm.

Throughout my tenure at Deloitte, I honed my skills in managing complex schedules, coordinating international travel, and facilitating high-level meetings. I have been commended for my ability to anticipate the needs of executives and for my meticulous attention to detail. I understand that in a fast-paced environment such as McKinsey & Company, these attributes are not just valuable—they are essential.

My role as an Executive Secretary has required me to act as the communication nexus for the leadership team, liaising with clients, stakeholders, and staff with professionalism and discretion. I take pride in my ability to handle sensitive information with the utmost confidentiality and have regularly been entrusted with critical company data and decision-making processes.

I have consistently sought to improve office efficiency and have implemented several initiatives that have streamlined administrative processes, reduced costs, and saved time for the executives I have supported. My proficiency with a variety of software platforms, including the Microsoft Office Suite and enterprise communication tools, has allowed me to adapt quickly to new systems and become a resource for colleagues in need of technical assistance.

I am particularly drawn to the opportunity at McKinsey & Company because of your commitment to excellence and the potential for professional growth. I am eager to bring my strong organizational skills, proactive approach, and dedication to a dynamic and influential company such as yours.

Thank you for considering my application. I am looking forward to the possibility of discussing how my experience and skills align with the needs of your team and how I can contribute to the continued success of McKinsey & Company.

Warm regards,

Related Cover Letter Examples

• Press Secretary
• School Secretary
• Administrative Secretary
• Office Secretary
• Unit Secretary

Build my resume

• Build a better resume in minutes
• Resume examples
• 2,000+ examples that work in 2024
• Resume templates
• Free templates for all levels
• Cover letters
• Cover letter generator
• It's like magic, we promise
• Cover letter examples
• Free downloads in Word & Docs

5 Secretary Cover Letter Examples That Worked in 2024 

• Secretary Cover Letter
• Secretary Cover Letters by Role
• Write Your Secretary Cover Letter

Secretaries are pivotal in keeping the wheels of an organization running smoothly. You’re the backbone of daily operations, performing diverse tasks, from managing appointments and coordinating meetings to handling important documents and maintaining efficient communication. 

While you excel at organizational tasks and anticipating the needs of your colleagues, emphasizing the impact of those skills when writing a cover letter and complementary secretary resume can be a little tricky. 

No need to worry, though—we’re here to guide you through the process with our expert-written secretary cover letter examples . Coupled with our cover letter generator , it’s time to get you a new job!

Secretary Cover Letter Example

USE THIS TEMPLATE

Microsoft Word

Google Docs

Block Format

Why this cover letter works

• Here, spotlight the responsibilities handled (cue organizing 281+ meetings), job skills and tools applied (Planning and Google calendar), the quantified impact generated (cue 13% improvement in team productivity), and possibly lessons learned.

Level up your cover letter game

Relax! We’ll do the heavy lifting to write your cover letter in seconds.

 School Secretary Cover Letter Example

• Watch out before sending lopsided cover letters as it can tank your chances of landing your ideal job. Create a mental checklist to ensure you’re sticking to all the key factors that go into building a winning cover letter. Stand out by attaching your recommendation letters to show you’ve got more than the required skills.

Medical Secretary Cover Letter Example

• Take a look at how James’s medical secretary cover letter goes over and beyond the usual by spotlighting accomplishments and skills relevant to the job’s requirements. See how talking about software such as Cerner, Excel, QuickBooks, and Kareo showcases the candidate’s expertise in using top-notch technology.

 Legal Secretary Cover Letter Example

• From there, clearly and concisely detail your professional experiences , emphasizing the skills in legal document preparation and legal research and achievements such as 12% decrease in case errors and a 19% surge in case preparation speed. Then, conclude by underscoring your eagerness to add value to the hiring company.

Administrative Secretary Cover Letter Example

• So, if you received recognition for, let’s say, data entry speed and accuracy, you wouldn’t want to keep that win hidden. Spotlighting it to validate your past success and illustrate your capacity to foster success in the new role.

Related cover letter examples

• Secretary resume
• Virtual assistant
• Office assistant
• Personal assistant
• Executive assistant

How to Craft a Compelling Secretary Cover Letter

To prove that you’re the right fit for the job, your cover letter should reflect your thoroughness and dedication. Start by thoroughly examining the job listing, paying attention to key requirements and responsibilities, and then addressing as many as you can in your cover letter. 

For instance, if the role involves managing appointments and ensuring efficient communication, highlight your impeccable scheduling skills and proficiency in maintaining effective office correspondence. Demonstrating how your qualifications align with the role’s unique demands will grab the employer’s attention and increase your chances of landing the job. 

How to start things the right way

To start your cover letter on the right foot, begin with a personalized greeting that addresses the hiring manager or HR representative by name. Research the company, explore its website, or even make a polite inquiry to find the name. If all else fails, a simple “Dear Hiring Manager” will still get the job done.

Next, show your genuine interest in the company and the role by highlighting how your job skills and dedication align with its needs. Mention your knack for efficient office management and your commitment to keeping your work as effective as possible. 

Let’s take a look at what not to do. This example doesn’t convey why the candidate is the right fit or what they bring to the table, leaving the employer without much reason to keep reading.

I saw that you were looking for a secretary. I want to apply for the job and that is why I am emailing you.

Now check out this next example. It may seem pretty full-on, but that’s exactly what you need. There’s no doubt that this person wants that job and has done the research necessary to land it.

Passionate!

A profound respect for the academic world merged with a compelling mastery of administrative skills like Microsoft Office Suite, transcription, database management, and more, kindles my unwavering motivation to contribute to a more enriched academic experience at Colorado College. The opportunity to employ my keen eye for details and software proficiency in the pursuit of overcoming administrative challenges at a prestigious institution like yours is one I approach with avid interest and anticipation.

How to impress with the body paragraphs

The body paragraphs of your cover letter serve to build upon the compelling opening you’ve crafted. In these two or three paragraphs, you should delve into your professional journey, highlighting your most significant accomplishments.

Discuss achievements like efficiently managing office communications, scheduling, and record-keeping. Share success stories of how you flawlessly organized appointments, maintained impeccable records, and ensured the precision of data and documentation. 

Back up these achievements with quantifiable metrics, such as the number of appointments scheduled daily or how your efficient record-keeping improved data retrieval times and reduced patient or client wait times.

By addressing specific job skills and work experiences requested in the listing, you show that you’re a perfect fit for the role, making your application all the more captivating and convincing.

Show off your impact!

At Dickson Wright, I harnessed my enthusiasm for legal document preparation to create transformative changes. Leveraging an advanced document template system helped streamline the processes by a remarkable 13%.

Closing off with style

The closing paragraph is your last opportunity to reaffirm your alignment with the company’s values and express your enthusiasm for the role. One nifty tactic is to mention something specific from the company’s website or the job description to show you’ve done your research.

Reiterate why you’re the perfect fit for the role by highlighting your relevant qualifications and experience. Mention how you aim to contribute, such as using your extensive experience in maintaining organized office systems to achieve perfect operational efficiency.

Conclude the letter by expressing gratitude, and then sign off respectfully with a simple, “Sincerely, [Your Name].”

Here’s one thing you should never do—it’s not appropriate to mention potential scheduling conflicts in a cover letter, as it detracts from the professionalism and focus of the application.

Don’t do this!

I’m looking forward to working with you. Keep in mind that I can’t work later than 4 pm for personal reasons.

Focus, instead, on selling your passion and skills. Even if you have things to negotiate later, focus on impressing recruiters with a closer like the one below.

A sure success!

Nestled within these thrilling experiences lies my keen potential to invigorate Colorado College with my administrative prowess. I look forward to further dialogue about how my fusion of passion and skills can foster efficient and effective practices within your esteemed institution. Thank you for your valuable time and consideration.

Tailor your tone to match the company’s culture and the job description . If the company is known for its formal atmosphere, maintain a professional tone. If it has a more relaxed culture, you can adopt a slightly informal tone while remaining respectful. Make sure to keep your cover letter free from typos and errors, as a secretary is often expected to edit and write various documents.

You might want to include references from your past workplace, proving your ability to run a successful office. However, if the job description doesn’t require it, it shouldn’t be necessary.

Yes, it’s a good idea to mention any relevant software or technology skills , especially if the job listing specifies certain tools. Highlight your proficiency in applications such as Microsoft Office, Google Workspace, or any industry-specific software that might be relevant to the secretary role.

• Resume Samples
• Resume Examples
• Resume Templates
• Cover Letters
• Writing Objectives
• Interview Tips
• Career Options
• Executive Secretary Cover Letter
• Cover Letter
• Administrative

Executive Secretary Cover Letter Sample

Executive Secretary Resume

Executive Secretary job description

Contact Us : Privacy Policy

Professional Administrative Secretary Cover Letter Examples for 2024

Your administrative secretary cover letter should immediately highlight your organizational skills. Clearly demonstrate your experience in managing schedules and correspondence. Showcase your communication abilities; these are vital for an administrative secretary's success. Detail any relevant software proficiency to convey your technical aptitude, making you a prime candidate.

Cover Letter Guide

Administrative Secretary Cover Letter Sample

Cover Letter Format

Cover Letter Salutation

Cover Letter Introduction

Cover Letter Body

Cover Letter Closing

No Experience Administrative Secretary Cover Letter

Key Takeaways

Crafting a persuasive administrative secretary cover letter can feel overwhelming, especially when you're amid job applications and realize it's a crucial requirement. This cover letter isn't a repeat of your resume; it's your chance to spotlight a signature achievement in a compelling narrative. Steer clear of clichés and maintain professionalism within a concise one-page format. Let's guide you through showcasing your proudest moments without straying into overused expressions, ensuring your application stands out.

• Personalize your administrative secretary cover letter and get inspired by other professionals to tell a compelling story;
• Format and design your administrative secretary cover letter to make an excellent first impression;
• Introduce your best achievement in your administrative secretary cover letter to recruiters;
• How to make sure recruiters get in touch with you, using your administrative secretary cover letter greeting and closing paragraphs.

What is more, did you know that Enhancv's AI can write your cover letter for you? Just upload your administrative secretary resume and get ready to forward your job application in a flash.

If the administrative secretary isn't exactly the one you're looking for we have a plethora of cover letter examples for jobs like this one:

• Administrative Secretary resume guide and example
• Executive Administrative Assistant cover letter example
• Records Manager cover letter example
• Front Office Manager cover letter example
• School Secretary cover letter example
• Executive Assistant to CEO cover letter example
• Medical Office Administrator cover letter example
• Medical Interpreter cover letter example
• Legal Translator cover letter example
• Assistant Front Office Manager cover letter example
• Dental Office Manager cover letter example

Administrative Secretary cover letter example

Peter Connolly

Chicago, IL

+1-(234)-555-1234

[email protected]

• Highlighted Relevant Experience: Reference to previous employment at prestigious companies like IBM, Microsoft, and Google showcases the candidate's experience working in high-caliber professional environments and implies familiarity with industry standards and expectations.
• Demonstration of Impactful Contributions: Citing a specific project that resulted in a 50% increase in document handling efficiency effectively illustrates how the candidate can deliver measurable improvements, emphasizing their capability in project management and process optimization.
• Proactive Problem-Solving Ability: The initiative to redesign document processing workflows demonstrates innovative thinking and a proactive approach to problem-solving—qualities that are highly valued in administrative support roles.
• Call to Action for an Interview: By expressing eagerness to discuss how their skills can benefit the company, the candidate strategically suggests a face-to-face meeting—thus, showing they are serious about the opportunity and ready to delve into specifics of their potential contributions.

What about your administrative secretary cover letter format: organizing and structuring your information

Here is one secret you should know about your administrative secretary cover letter assessment. The Applicant Tracker System (or ATS) won't analyze your cover letter.

You should thus focus on making an excellent impression on recruiters by writing consistent:

• Introduction
• Body paragraphs (and explanation)
• Promise or Call to action
• Signature (that's optional)

Now, let's talk about the design of your administrative secretary cover letter.

Ensure all of your paragraphs are single-spaced and have a one-inch margins on all sides (like in our cover letter templates ).

Also, our cover letter builder automatically takes care of the format and comes along with some of the most popular (and modern) fonts like Volkhov, Chivo, and Bitter.

Speaking of fonts, professionals advise you to keep your administrative secretary cover letter and resume in the same typography and avoid the over-used Arial or Times New Roman.

When wondering whether you should submit your administrative secretary cover letter in Doc or PDF, select the second, as PDF keeps all of your information and design consistent.

The top sections on a administrative secretary cover letter

• Header: The header should include your contact information and the date, as it ensures the recruiter knows how to reach you and frames the timeframe of your application.
• Greeting: A personalized greeting to the hiring manager shows you have done your research and are genuinely interested in the role and the company.
• Introduction: In the introduction, briefly state your enthusiasm for the administrative secretary position and your primary qualifications, setting the tone for why you are a strong candidate.
• Body: The body should highlight your relevant experience, such as managing office schedules, performing administrative tasks, and using specific software, as these are key responsibilities of an administrative secretary.
• Closing: In the closing section, reiterate your interest in the position, invite the recruiter to contact you for an interview, and thank them for considering your application, demonstrating your professionalism and eagerness for the role.

Key qualities recruiters search for in a candidate’s cover letter

• Exceptional organizational skills: to efficiently manage schedules, meetings, and office systems.
• Strong communication skills: for effective correspondence and interaction with colleagues and clients.
• Advanced proficiency with office software: to complete tasks such as word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations efficiently.
• Attention to detail: to ensure accuracy in document preparation, data entry, and scheduling.
• Time management abilities: to prioritize tasks and manage workload in a fast-paced environment.
• Discretion and confidentiality: to handle sensitive information with integrity and professionalism.

Kick off your administrative secretary cover letter: the salutation or greeting

When writing your administrative secretary cover letter, remember that you're not writing for some complex AI or robot, but for actual human beings.

And recruiters, while on the lookout to understand your experience, would enjoy seeing a cover letter that is tailored to the role and addresses them . Personally.

So, if you haven't done so, invest some time in finding out who's the hiring manager for the role you're applying to. A good place to start would be LinkedIn and the corporate website.

Alternatively, you could also get in touch with the company to find out more information about the role and the name of the recruiter.

If you haven't met the hiring manager, yet, your administrative secretary cover letter salutation should be on a last-name basis (e.g. "Dear Mr. Donaldson" or "Dear Ms. Estephan").

A good old, "Dear HR Professional" (or something along those lines) could work as your last resort if you're struggling to find out the recruiter's name.

List of salutations you can use

• Dear Hiring Manager,
• Dear Mrs. Smith,
• Dear Mr. Jones,
• Dear Dr. Johnson,
• Dear Members of the Hiring Committee,
• Dear Director Anderson,

Your administrative secretary cover letter introduction and the value you bring

Moving on from the "Dear Recruiter" to your professional introduction .

Use those first two sentences of your administrative secretary cover letter to present the biggest asset you'd bring to the organization.

Don't go into too much detail about your achievement or the skill set, but instead - go straight for the win.

That is - what is your value as a professional?

Would you be able to build stronger, professional relationships in any type of communication? Or, potentially, integrate seamlessly into the team?

How to select your best achievement for the middle, or the administrative secretary cover letter body

You probably feel exhausted by this point in your application: you've dived into all the details of your success and skills in your administrative secretary resume.

What else can you include in your administrative secretary cover letter body ?

Well, for starters, the next three to six paragraphs should show you further value as a professional. Or, why should recruiters choose you?

Think back on a noteworthy achievement that answers key job requirements and dive deep.

Structure your administrative secretary cover letter middle as you'd a story: following chronological logic and highlighting outcomes, thanks to skills.

At the end of the day, you'd want recruiters to be able to see you as the best candidate for the role and understand more about who you are and what makes your success unique (and valuable to the role).

Final words: writing your administrative secretary cover letter closing paragraph

The final paragraph of your administrative secretary cover letter allows you that one final chance to make a great first impression .

Instead of going straight to the "sincerely yours" ending, you can back up your skills with a promise of:

• how you see yourself growing into the role;
• the unique skills you'd bring to the organization.

Whatever you choose, always be specific (and remember to uphold your promise, once you land the role).

If this option doesn't seem that appealing to you, close off your administrative secretary cover letter with a follow-up request.

You could even provide your availability for interviews so that the recruiters would be able to easily arrange your first meeting.

Administrative Secretary cover letter advice for candidates with no experience

If you're worried about writing your Administrative Secretary cover letter and have no professional experience , we sure have some advice for you.

Turn recruiters' attention to your transferable or relevant skills gained thanks to your life and work experience.

Instead of writing about past jobs, focus on one achievement (whether from your volunteering experience, education, etc.) and the skills it has helped you build.

Alternatively, you could focus your Administrative Secretary cover letter on your career objectives and goals. Always remember to make those relevant to the job you're applying for by detailing how you see yourself growing as part of the company.

Recruiters would be way more impressed with candidates who fit the job profile and can bring about plenty of skills and vision to the table.

Key takeaways

Creating your administrative secretary cover letter should be a personalized experience for the role and the recruiter, where you:

• Format your cover letter using the same ATS-friendly font (e.g. Railway) as you did for your resume;
• Greet recruiters, using their name, and follow up with two sentences to introduce yourself, your interest in the role, and to stand out;
• Map out one key success from your career (or life) that has taught you job-crucial skills;
• Substitute your lack of experience with an achievement from your internships, degrees, or volunteering gigs;
• End with a promise for your potential or your availability for an interview.

Cover letter examples by industry

AI cover letter writer, powered by ChatGPT

Enhancv harnesses the capabilities of ChatGPT to provide a streamlined interface designed specifically focused on composing a compelling cover letter without the hassle of thinking about formatting and wording.

• Content tailored to the job posting you're applying for
• ChatGPT model specifically trained by Enhancv
• Lightning-fast responses

Cover Letter Vs. Resume: Which Should You Use?

128+ resume summary examples & how-to guide for 2024, how to put gpa on your resume, targeted resume: 3-step process to win any recruiter over, star interview questions, how to follow up on a job application.

• Create Resume
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Preferences
• Resume Examples
• Resume Templates
• AI Resume Builder
• Resume Summary Generator
• Resume Formats
• Resume Checker
• Resume Skills
• How to Write a Resume
• Modern Resume Templates
• Simple Resume Templates
• Cover Letter Builder
• Cover Letter Examples
• Cover Letter Templates
• Cover Letter Formats
• How to Write a Cover Letter
• Resume Guides
• Cover Letter Guides
• Job Interview Guides
• Job Interview Questions
• Career Resources
• Meet our customers
• Career resources
• English (UK)
• French (FR)
• German (DE)
• Spanish (ES)
• Swedish (SE)

© 2024 . All rights reserved.

Made with love by people who care.

• Resume Builder
• Resume Templates
• Resume Formats
• Resume Examples
• Cover Letter Builder
• Cover Letter Templates
• Cover Letter Formats
• Cover Letter Examples
• Career Advice
• Interview Questions
• Resume Skills
• Resume Objectives
• Job Description
• Job Responsibilities
• FAQ’s

Office Secretary Cover Letter Example

Writing a cover letter for a position as an office secretary can be an exciting process. With the right preparation and understanding of the job requirements, you can craft an impressive and thoughtful letter that will help you to stand out from the competition and capture the attention of the hiring managers. This guide provides a comprehensive overview of how to write an effective and compelling office secretary cover letter, including tips for crafting the perfect introduction, highlighting your most relevant skills and experiences, and making sure your letter is polished before submitting it. We also include a sample cover letter to give you an example of how to format your own letter. By following these tips, you will be well on your way to writing a professional and impactful cover letter that will help you land an interview.

If you didn’t find what you were looking for, be sure to check out our complete library of cover letter examples .

Start building your dream career today! 

Create your professional cover letter in just 5 minutes with our easy-to-use cover letter builder!

Office Secretary Cover Letter Sample

Dear [Hiring Manager],

I am writing to apply for the Office Secretary position posted on [job board]. As an organized, detail- oriented professional with a strong background in administrative support, I am confident I would be a great addition to your team.

My experience as an Office Secretary includes providing a wide range of administrative duties such as creating and maintaining filing systems, scheduling and organizing meetings, managing calendars, preparing agendas, and coordinating travel arrangements. My excellent interpersonal and communication skills have served me well in dealing with both internal and external customers and suppliers. Additionally, I am highly proficient with Microsoft Office applications, including Word, Excel and PowerPoint.

I am adept at multitasking and prioritize tasks efficiently. I am also organized and meticulous, ensuring that all jobs are completed on time and to the highest standards. As a highly motivated individual, I take initiative and am quick to learn any new procedures or practices.

I am confident that my qualifications and experience make me an ideal candidate for the role. I am certain that I possess the skills and knowledge to be a valuable asset to your company. I would love to have the opportunity to discuss my qualifications further with you. I have enclosed my resume, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

[Your Name]

Create My Cover Letter

Build a profession cover letter in just minutes for free.

Looking to improve your resume? Our resume examples with writing guide and tips offers extensive assistance.

What should a Office Secretary cover letter include?

A cover letter for an office secretary should include several key elements to be effective. It should begin with a polite and professional introduction, introducing yourself and outlining the position you’re applying for.

In the body of the letter, you should detail your relevant experience, focusing on the skills and knowledge you’ve acquired in previous roles. Make sure to include any office assistant or related experience, as well as any other job- related qualifications.

Describe why you’re interested in the role and why you would make an excellent office secretary. Highlight any specialized knowledge or unique qualifications you possess.

Finally, thank the employer for their time and express your enthusiasm for the position. Provide contact information in case they have any further questions or would like to schedule an interview.

Office Secretary Cover Letter Writing Tips

Writing a cover letter as an office secretary can be a daunting task. After all, you’re the one responsible for managing the day- to- day operations of the office, so you want to make sure that your cover letter stands out. Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Make sure your cover letter is tailored to the job you’re applying for. Read the job description carefully and focus on the skills and qualifications they’re looking for.
• Highlight your most relevant experience and skills, such as computer proficiency, administrative experience, filing, and organization.
• Demonstrate that you have the necessary interpersonal and communication skills, such as the ability to work with a variety of people, multitask, and problem solve.
• Be sure to include examples of how you’ve used these skills in past positions.
• Use a professional and concise writing style, and don’t hesitate to ask for help if you need it.
• Proofread your cover letter for errors and typos to make sure that it’s error- free and polished.
• End your cover letter by thanking the employer for their time and expressing your interest in learning more about the position.

Common mistakes to avoid when writing Office Secretary Cover letter

Writing a cover letter for an Office Secretary position is a great opportunity to introduce yourself, showcase your skills and qualifications, and explain why you are the perfect candidate for the role. However, there are some common mistakes that many job seekers make when composing their cover letter which can hurt their chances of landing the job. Here are some common mistakes to avoid when writing an Office Secretary cover letter:

• Avoid using cliches: Using cliches such as “I am a highly motivated individual” or “I am the perfect fit for this position” can make your cover letter sound generic and unoriginal. Instead, focus on specific examples of how you meet the employer’s requirements.
• Don’t overuse exclamation points: Using too many exclamation points can make your cover letter seem overly enthusiastic and insincere.
• Don’t use overly formal language: While cover letters need to be professional, using overly formal language can make your cover letter sound stiff. Instead, try to keep your tone conversational and make sure to use language that is easy for the reader to understand.
• Don’t copy the job description: While it’s important to make sure that you are highlighting the skills that the employer is looking for in their Office Secretary, don’t copy the job description word for word. This can make your cover letter sound robotic and unoriginal.
• Don’t forget to proofread: Before sending in your cover letter, make sure to read through it multiple times. This will help to ensure that there are no mistakes that can damage your chances of getting the job.

Key takeaways

Writing a cover letter for an Office Secretary position is an important step in the job application process. A cover letter can be your first impression with a potential employer, so it is important to include key points that make you a great candidate for the job. Here are some key takeaways for writing an impressive Office Secretary cover letter:

• Focus on the relevant skills and experience you have for the position. Highlight the ways your skills and experience make you the ideal candidate for the Office Secretary job.
• Demonstrate your communication and organizational skills. Office Secretaries are expected to be proficient in both verbal and written communication, as well as possessing strong organizational skills.
• Showcase your ability to multitask. Office Secretaries need to be able to juggle multiple tasks and prioritize their workload.
• Explain why you are passionate about the job. Demonstrate why you are the right person for the job by explaining why you are excited to apply for the Office Secretary position.
• Proofread the cover letter. Grammatical and spelling errors can be a big turn off for employers. Make sure to double check your cover letter for any errors before sending.

Writing an impressive cover letter for an Office Secretary position can help you stand out from other candidates and get noticed by potential employers. By following these key takeaways, you can create an excellent cover letter that will increase your chances of getting the job.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. how do i write a cover letter for an office secretary job with no experience.

Writing a cover letter for an Office Secretary job with no experience can be daunting, but it doesn’t have to be. The key is to focus on relevant skills and qualities you have that will make you a great candidate for the position.

Start your letter with a strong introduction that explains why you are interested in the position. You should also mention any relevant education, training, or certifications you may have.

In the body of your letter, focus on the skills that make you the perfect candidate for the job. This could include things like organization, multitasking, communication, and computer literacy. Describe how your skills and experiences make you a great choice for the role.

Finally, end your letter with a call to action and your contact information. Request an interview and reiterate your interest in the job.

2. How do I write a cover letter for an Office Secretary job experience?

If you have experience as an Office Secretary, you can use your cover letter to highlight your relevant accomplishments and experiences. Start your letter with a strong introduction that expresses your interest in the position.

In the body of your letter, you should focus on describing specific experiences and accomplishments that make you the ideal candidate. This could include things like organizing successful office events, managing complex filing systems, and improving office efficiency.

3. How can I highlight my accomplishments in Office Secretary cover letter?

If you want to highlight your accomplishments in your Office Secretary cover letter, focus on results that you achieved in previous roles. Describe your experiences and skills in terms of tangible results.

In addition to this, be sure to check out our cover letter templates , cover letter formats ,  cover letter examples ,  job description , and  career advice  pages for more helpful tips and advice.

Let us help you build your Cover Letter!

Make your cover letter more organized and attractive with our Cover Letter Builder

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government.

• Legal Status

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Proposed Rule

Fair and competitive livestock and poultry markets.

A Proposed Rule by the Agricultural Marketing Service on 06/28/2024

This document has a comment period that ends in 59 days. (08/27/2024) Submit a formal comment

Thank you for taking the time to create a comment. Your input is important.

Once you have filled in the required fields below you can preview and/or submit your comment to the Agriculture Department for review. All comments are considered public and will be posted online once the Agriculture Department has reviewed them.

You can view alternative ways to comment or you may also comment via Regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/AMS-FTPP-21-0046-0001 .

• What is your comment about?

Note: You can attach your comment as a file and/or attach supporting documents to your comment. Attachment Requirements .

this will NOT be posted on regulations.gov

• Opt to receive email confirmation of submission and tracking number?
• Tell us about yourself! I am... *
• First Name *
• Last Name *
• State Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
• Country Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
• Organization Type * Company Organization Federal State Local Tribal Regional Foreign U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate
• Organization Name *
• You are filing a document into an official docket. Any personal information included in your comment text and/or uploaded attachment(s) may be publicly viewable on the web.
• I read and understand the statement above.
• Preview Comment

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register .

Document Statistics

Enhanced content.

Relevant information about this document from Regulations.gov provides additional context. This information is not part of the official Federal Register document.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, table of contents, i. authority, ii. purpose of this rulemaking, a. unfair practices and prior rulemakings, b. statutory language of the act, c. legislative history of the act, d. court decisions, iii. the proposed rule, a. proposed § 201.308(a) and (b), b. evaluation of potential injury to market participants, c. proposed § 201.308(c) and (d), d. evaluation of potential injury to the market, e. contracts, f. protected parties, iv. severability, v. request for comments, vi. regulatory analysis, a. paperwork reduction act, b. executive orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, c. regulatory impact analysis, regulatory alternatives considered, proposed rule: benefits, proposed rule: costs, direct administrative costs of the proposed rule, direct firm level administrative costs of the proposed rule, direct contract level administrative costs of the proposed rule preferred alternative, direct firm level and contract level administrative costs of the proposed rule preferred alternative, litigation costs—preferred alternative, indirect costs, costs and benefits of the limited scope alternative, d. regulatory flexibility analysis, defining small businesses, direct firm administrative costs of the proposed rule to small businesses, alternative regulation, e. executive order 13175 —consultation and coordination with indian tribal governments, f. executive order 12988 —civil justice reform, g. civil rights impact analysis, h. e-government act, i. unfunded mandates reform act, list of subjects in 9 cfr part 201, part 201—administering the packers and stockyards act, enhanced content - submit public comment.

• Submit a public comment on this document

Enhanced Content - Read Public Comments

1 comment has been received at regulations.gov, across 1 docket.

Agencies review all submissions and may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof). Submitted comments may not be available to be read until the agency has approved them.

Enhanced Content - Sharing

• Email this document to a friend

Enhanced Content - Document Print View

• Print this document

Enhanced Content - Document Tools

These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.

These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself.

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:.

• JSON: Normalized attributes and metadata
• XML: Original full text XML
• MODS: Government Publishing Office metadata

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

Official Content

• View printed version (PDF)

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 06/27/2024 at 8:45 am. It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture.

Proposed rule.

The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA or Department) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposes to amend the regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (the P&S Act or the Act) to clarify the unfair practices that the P&S Act prohibits. The proposed rule would define unfair practices as conduct that harms market participants and conduct that harms the market. Combined, these comprehensively define the contours of “unfair practices” under the P&S Act. The purpose of this proposed rule is to promote fair and competitive markets in the livestock, meats, poultry, and live poultry markets.

Comments must be received by August 27, 2024.

Comments must be submitted through the Federal e-rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov and should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register . AMS strongly prefers comments be submitted electronically. However, written comments may be submitted ( i.e., postmarked) via mail to Docket No. AMS-FTPP-21-0046, S. Brett Offutt, Chief Legal Officer, Packers and Stockyards Division, USDA, AMS, FTPP; Room 2097-S, Mail Stop 3601, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-3601. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of individuals or entities submitting comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above. Parties who wish to comment anonymously may do so by entering “N/A” in the fields that would identify the commenter. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4) , a plain language summary of this proposed rule is available on https://www.regulations.gov in the docket for this rulemaking.

S. Brett Offutt, Chief Legal Officer/Policy Advisor, Packers and Stockyards Division, USDA AMS Fair Trade Practices Program, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250; Phone: (202) 690-4355; or email: [email protected] .

Section 407 of the Act ( 7 U.S.C. 228 ) provides that the Secretary “may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.” The Secretary has delegated the responsibility for administering the P&S Act to AMS. Within AMS, the Packers and Stockyards Division (PSD) of the Fair-Trade Practices Program has responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the Act. The current regulations implementing the Act are found in title 9, part 201, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Based on the authority Congress delegated to the Secretary to administer the P&S Act, AMS is proposing this rule to amend 9 CFR part 201 to specify the practices that are unfair and in violation of the P&S Act.

Prior to this rulemaking, the decisions of USDA's Judicial Officer, [ 1 ] acting for the Secretary, have comprised the bulk of USDA's interpretation of the meaning of “unfair” under the P&S Act, and the Judicial Officer's final decisions have the same force as regulation. [ 2 ] Those decisions make clear that “harm to competition can be proven by showing harm to competitors; . . . the Packers and Stockyards Act does not require that the person harmed be a direct competitor of the person causing the harm, viz., it would be a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act if it were shown that a packer caused harm, which the Packers and Stockyards Act is designed to prevent . . . .”  [ 3 ] Although, the Federal courts have not expressly rejected the Judicial Officer's overall interpretation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, courts have inconsistently applied the Judicial Officer's decisions. As a result, AMS proposes this regulation to provide a clear interpretation and promote consistency and predictability in its application of the law.

Congress enacted the P&S Act, 7 U.S.C. 181 et seq., to promote fairness, reasonableness, and transparency in the livestock, meat, and poultry marketplace by prohibiting practices contrary to these goals. Enacted in 1921 “to comprehensively regulate packers, stockyards, marketing agents and dealers,”  [ 4 ] the Act, among other things, prohibits actions that hinder integrity and competition in the livestock, meat, and poultry markets. Section 202(a) of the Act states that it is unlawful for any packer, swine contractor, or live poultry dealer to “[e]ngage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device.”  [ 5 ]

Congress granted rulemaking and enforcement authority to USDA to ensure that appropriate competitive and fair trade and market protections are afforded to those participating in agricultural activities pertaining to livestock, meat, and poultry. [ 6 ] To date, USDA has largely left these determinations to a case-by-case analysis. Court decisions interpreting this statute, however, have not been consistent with respect to the evidence needed to establish, and the legal standard that applies to, unlawful unfair practices under section 202(a) of the Act, particularly as to whether competitive injury is a requirement and what the term “unfair practice or device” means. This proposed rule, therefore, seeks to clarify what falls under the scope of unfair practice or device.

From the plain language of the text, section 202 of the Act is broader than the antitrust laws and does not necessarily require harm to competition as that term is understood under the antitrust laws. The term “unfair” applies to conduct that harms the market (anticompetitive harm) and conduct that harms market participants (market abuse), similar to section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits both unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices. Based on the text of section 202, legislative history, and both agency and judicial decisions, this proposed rule defines the term unfair. Those definitions draw on longstanding understandings of the term unfair both under the Act as well as the related Federal Trade Commission Act. The proposed rule also clarifies that the statute addresses conduct in its incipiency, does not require proof of actual harm, nor does it require proof of predatory intent.

USDA recognizes that some courts have recently required proof of competitive injury before finding that conduct is unfair. Those courts were not offered an alternative definition for unfair, which this rulemaking would propose. A competitive injury requirement cannot be imposed in a way that abrogates part of a statute. To the degree requiring a “competitive injury” precludes finding conduct is unfair when it satisfies criteria in the proposed rule, such a requirement would unduly limit the reach of section 202(a) and is improper. Moreover, the statute and P&S Act case law make plain that competitive injury under the P&S Act is broader than harm to competition under the antitrust laws. To the extent that “competitive injury” is shorthand for the scope of harm section 202 reaches, competitive injury as understood under the P&S Act should include both harms to the market and harms to market participants as defined in the proposed rule.

Section 202(a) of the Act prohibits any unfair practice or device. The Act does not, however, specify what those practices and devices are, and in section 228(a), Congress has granted to the Secretary the authority to interpret and apply the Act to effectuate its purposes. Under the Act, this authority includes complete supervisory and regulatory power, which includes, inter alia, “the power to prevent packers . . . from engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practices or devices.”  [ 7 ] USDA has consistently viewed the Act as prohibiting both market abuses (unfair trade practices) and competitively unfair conduct or unreasonable acts and practices (including anticompetitive conduct) owing to the adverse impact both have on the fair functioning of the marketplace and the importance of ensuring that producers can obtain the full value of their livestock and poultry despite economic power imbalances. [ 8 ]

The Department has consistently interpreted unfair practices—and thus applied the Act—to protect producer welfare and advance fair-trade practices in the livestock, meat, and poultry industries. The Department's policy on unfair practices has not changed throughout the course of its enforcement of the Act.

In 2010, the Department issued a proposed rule that was never finalized (“2010 proposed rule”). The 2010 proposed rule was broader in scope than this proposed rule. It addressed undue or unreasonable preference or advantage; undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage; criteria related to reasonable notice of a suspension of the delivery of birds under a poultry growing arrangement; when a requirement of additional capital investments over the life of a poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and whether a packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer has provided a reasonable period of time for a grower or a swine producer to remedy a breach of contract that could lead to termination of the growing arrangement or production contract ( 75 FR 35338 ; June 22, 2010). As it relates to the scope of this proposed rulemaking, the preamble to the 2010 proposed rule stated that “Section 202(a) of the P&S Act prohibits `any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice.' ” The preamble also stated that “USDA has consistently taken the position that, in some cases, a violation of section 202(a) or (b) can be proven without proof of predatory intent, competitive injury, or likelihood of injury.”  [ 9 ] But the USDA “always understood that an act or practice's effect on competition can be relevant and, in certain circumstances, even dispositive[.]” The proposed regulation attempted to define competition, and proposed a series of specific violations of the Act including: “Any act that causes competitive injury Start Printed Page 53888 or creates a likelihood of competitive injury.”

The 2010 proposed rule was never finalized due to a series of appropriations riders from fiscal years 2012 through 2015 that prevented the Department from working on rules related to the subjects covered in the 2010 proposed rule.

In 2016, the Department issued an interim final rule that, in relevant part, addressed the scope of section 202(a) and (b) of the P&S Act (“2016 IFR”). The 2016 IFR published what had been issued as the 2010 proposed rule with slight modifications. However, the 2016 IFR reiterated “USDA has consistently taken the position that, in some cases, a violation of section 202(a) or (b) can be proven without proof of predatory intent, competitive injury, or likelihood of competitive injury.” ( 81 FR 92556 , 92567 ; December 20, 2016). The 2016 IFR preamble also stated that “USDA has always understood that an act or practice's effect on competition can be relevant and, in certain circumstances, even dispositive with respect to whether an act or practice violates sections 202(a) and/or (b).” The 2016 IFR did not define competition or describe when harm to competition would not be required.

In 2017, following a change in administration, finalization of the 2016 IFR was delayed, and ultimately withdrawn ( 82 FR 48594 ; October 18, 2017). The 2016 IFR was withdrawn on the grounds that USDA believed that specific rule would not have effectively addressed court decisions in several U.S. Courts of Appeals, that the courts would not have deferred to it, and that the “good cause” justification for dispensing with notice and comment was inadequate. At that time, the Department further determined that “[p]rotracted litigation to both interpret this regulation and defend it serves neither the interests of the livestock and poultry industries nor GIPSA.”  [ 10 ] The 2017 withdrawal did not alter the longstanding position of USDA articulated in the 2010 proposed rule and again in the 2016 IFR. [ 11 ] Nor did the withdrawal announce a policy against regulation in general.

The current proposed rule is less about a judicial debate over competitive injury and instead would establish a more workable standard for USDA to consistently apply in its own administrative hearings and investigations, which in turn would provide a standard that the public can more easily understand. And the current rule is being issued through notice and comment. Thus, AMS does not believe that the same concerns that prompted withdrawal of the 2016 IFR apply to this proposal.

In sum, it has always been USDA's position that it is not necessary in every case to demonstrate competitive injury in order to show a violation of section 202(a). But USDA has also consistently recognized that any act or practice that harms or is likely to harm competition also violates the statute. [ 12 ] This proposed rule provides a basis for the public to understand precisely how USDA would apply the statute to both categories of harms.

The P&S Act's language and structure support USDA's longstanding position on section 202(a) and (b), as well as USDA's position on the Act's legislative history and purposes. Congress drafted section 202(a) to reach a range of unfair practices and devices, such as anticompetitive practices, market abuses, or other distortions of the competitive process. [ 13 ] Congress proscribed “unfair” practices without limitation, using terms like section 202's proscription of “deceptive” and “unjust” conduct commonly understood then and now to encompass more than conduct causing competitive injury. [ 14 ] Congress confirmed this plain meaning by amending the P&S Act to add specific instances of conduct prohibited as unfair that do not involve any inherent likelihood of competitive injury. [ 15 ]

Unlike with other provisions of section 202, Congress chose not to limit section 202(a) and (b) to specific types of competitive injuries identified in other sections of the Act. [ 16 ] While section 202(c) through (f) include provisions that address particular competitive injuries—such as where a practice has the tendency, effect, or purpose of “creating a monopoly” or “restraining commerce”—those limitations are absent from section 202(a) and (b). [ 17 ] This difference confirms that section 202(a) and (b) do not require a showing of competitive injury for such conduct. [ 18 ]

Moreover, Congress has amended the P&S Act to confirm the Department's longstanding view that there are specific instances of conduct that are prohibited as “unfair” that do not involve any inherent likelihood of competitive injury. [ 19 ] In 1976, Congress confirmed that failing to pay, when due, for livestock and meats was an “unfair practice” under the P&S Act, and it did not require any harm to competition to be a violation of section 202(a).

The prevailing interpretation of section 312 of the P&S Act, which uses similar language, further confirms USDA's interpretation of section 202(a). Start Printed Page 53889 Courts have recognized that the proper analysis under this provision depends on “the facts of each case,”  [ 20 ] and that these sections may apply in the absence of competitive injury. [ 21 ]

Furthermore, even with respect to subsections of the Act that do focus on competitive harm, the text of those subsections indicates that competitive harm under the P&S Act goes beyond the types of competitive injuries cognizable under Federal antitrust laws. [ 22 ] For example, section 202(d) through (f) unambiguously apply to market injuries that the antitrust laws often do not reach—such as price manipulation, where a single-firm practice “manipulat[es] or control[s] price” or otherwise restrains trade, irrespective of conspiracy. These prohibitions in the relevant subsections are each embedded within “or” clauses that otherwise cover prohibitions that are squarely about anticompetitive conduct cognizable under Federal antitrust laws. Further, section 202(a) and (b) must cover conduct not covered by section 202(d) through (f) or section 202(a) and (b) would be superfluous. The presence of all of these provisions in the P&S Act shows, at a minimum, the regulatory scheme for fair competition under the P&S Act is broader than competitive injury under the Federal antitrust laws and at least as broad as section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. [ 23 ] And, when compared to antitrust statutes, the P&S Act, like section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), covers incipient threats to competition and potential injuries to market participants. In addition, the P&S Act's remedial purposes prohibit incipient violations of the P&S Act even if the practice has no potential anti-competitive or impact on markets at all. [ 24 ]

In short, section 202(a) covers unfair conduct beyond harm to competition, and where harm to competition is relevant, the P&S Act is broader than the antitrust laws.

The legislative history and purposes of the P&S Act also support USDA's interpretation of section 202(a) with regard to the role of competitive injury. As the Supreme Court has stated, when interpreting a statute, a provision “must take meaning from its historical setting.”  [ 25 ]

The genesis of the P&S Act predates its enactment by several decades. [ 26 ] On May 16, 1888, the U.S. Senate authorized an investigation “to determine whether there exists or has existed any combination . . . on the part of those engaged in buying and shipping meat products, by reason of which the prices of beef and beef cattle have been so controlled or affected as to diminish the price paid the producer without lessening the cost of meat to the consumer.”  [ 27 ] In 1902, a bill of equity was filed by the United States to enjoin the alleged conspiracy as a violation of the antitrust laws. In 1903, an injunction was issued, which was sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court. [ 28 ] The dominance and unfair or unreasonable anticompetitive conduct of the packers continued; on February 7, 1917, President Wilson directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate and report the facts with respect to the packing industry. [ 29 ]

The FTC meat industry investigation found that, in 1916, the Big Five  [ 30 ] (the five largest meatpackers) controlled the processing of 82 percent of cattle, 79 percent of calves, 87 percent of sheep, and 63 percent of swine in the U.S. [ 31 ] The Big Five also controlled an interlocking network of feed mills, stockyards, and transportation infrastructure that supported the industry. As extensively documented in an FTC report, those five packers used their market power to engage in a range of practices to further entrench their dominance of the meat industry. [ 32 ] The FTC report documented a number of complaints by producers that the U.S. Supreme Court summarized in the synopsis of the case upholding the constitutionality of the P&S Act, including excessive charges by stockyards for hay and other facilities, the duplication of commissions by commission men and dealers, and fraudulent reporting of livestock being crippled in transit, in addition to suppression of competition through collusion. [ 33 ]

Following the FTC's report, and before the passage of the signed a consent decree in 1920. [ 34 ] The decree enjoined the packers from pursuing combinations to monopolize the purchase and control the price of livestock and the sale and distribution of meat products, and from being involved in other food sectors. [ 35 ] In this way, the decree sought to break the industry up vertically, underscoring the broad approach of the P&S Act.

After the consent decree, the Senate and House of Representatives held extensive hearings on several bills to address problems related to concentration and market domination in the meat industry, one of which, H.R. 6320, eventually became the P&S Act of 1921. [ 36 ]

The House of Representatives' report on the P&S Act stated, “A careful study of the bill, will . . . convince one that it and existing laws, give the Secretary of Agriculture complete inquisitorial, visitorial, supervisory, and regulatory power over the packers, stockyards and all activities connected therewith; that it is the most comprehensive measure and extends farther than any previous law in the regulation of private business, in time of peace, except possibly the Interstate Commerce Act.”  [ 37 ] The Conference Report on the P&S Act stated that: “Congress intends to exercise, in the bill, the fullest control of the packers and stockyards which the Constitution permits . . .”. [ 38 ]

It was emphasized by Representative Samuel T. Rayburn (later Speaker of the House of Representatives) that although Congress “gave the Federal Trade Start Printed Page 53890 Commission wide powers” to prohibit unfair methods of competition, the authority of the Commission at that time was not as broad as that given to “the Secretary of Agriculture under this bill,” which became the P&S Act. [ 39 ]

Congress subsequently made clear, through further legislative developments, that its goals for the statute extended beyond the prohibition of anticompetitive conduct in the manner of the antitrust laws. For instance, in a 1935 amendment adding live poultry dealers to the coverage of section 202(a) and (b), Congress amended the text to specify that “[t]he handling of the great volume of live poultry . . . is attendant with various unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent practices and devices, resulting in the producers sustaining sundry losses and receiving prices far below the reasonable value of their live poultry . . . ”  [ 40 ] Similarly, the House Committee Report regarding 1958 amendments identified “[t]he primary purpose” of the P&S Act as “assur[ing] fair competition and fair trade practices” and “safeguard[ing] farmers . . . against receiving less than the true market value of their livestock.”  [ 41 ] In accordance with this legislative history, courts and commentators have, over a span exceeding 70 years, recognized that although the purposes of the P&S Act include proscribing anticompetitive conduct, they are not limited solely to conduct that injures competition as understood in the antitrust laws. [ 42 ] Indeed, for these seven decades, USDA has regularly maintained and enforced a wide range of fair trade rules and principles including prompt payment, standardized weights and measures, sufficient bonding and solvency, prohibitions on commercial bribery, and more. These rules and enforcement mandates play important roles in protecting market participants from abuse, and to that end, they proscribe conduct that USDA has also viewed as distorting the competitive process within the livestock, meat, and poultry markets. [ 43 ] To that end, proscribing abuses of market participants is integral to any effort to understand “harm to competition” under the P&S Act itself. [ 44 ]

Nor is the statutory history of the P&S Act monolithic: it was used as a pattern for other laws as well, notably changes to the FTC Act. When Congress passed the FTC Act in 1914, the statute prohibited only unfair methods of competition, which was a then-new term of art with a broad scope. [ 45 ] In 1937, the Supreme Court in FTC v. Raladam Co. gave a narrowing interpretation, holding that the FTC's unfairness authority was limited to conduct causing competitive injury. [ 46 ] Congress disapproved of this interpretation, and in 1938 it passed the Wheeler-Lea Act, [ 47 ] which clarified the expansiveness of the FTC's unfairness authority by specifying that it covers acts or practices that injure consumers, regardless of whether the acts or practices may also injure competition.

Notably, the Wheeler-Lea Act was modeled on the P&S Act, specifically section 202(a)'s prohibition on unfair practices that injure producers. When the FTC proposed the Wheeler-Lea Act, the FTC pointed to the P&S Act as the precedent for its text. [ 48 ] If it were not enough that the FTC succeeded—that it persuaded Congress to pass the Wheeler-Lea Act by relying on the P&S Act as precedent for prohibiting unfair practices without a competitive injury requirement—the 17 years of P&S enforcement prior to the Wheeler-Lea Act are especially telling. During the period from 1921 to 1938, the Secretary frequently found unfairness violations under section 202 that would not have been “unfair methods of competition” under the narrowing gloss the Supreme Court applied in Raladam —and that Congress subsequently rejected by passing the Wheeler-Lea Act.

The design of the P&S Act's text, and the legislative history, thus clearly reflect Congressional intent that the Act's unfairness authority extend beyond unfair methods of competition. [ 49 ] The Act “was framed in language designed to permit the fullest control of packers and stockyards which the Constitution permits, and its coverage was to encompass the complete chain of commerce and give the Secretary of Agriculture complete regulatory power over packers and all activities connected therewith.”  [ 50 ] It was hailed as a “far-reaching measure and extend[ing] further than any previous law into the regulation of private business.”  [ 51 ] If the existing antitrust laws and the consent decree signed by the Big Five packers had been sufficient to protect market participants from unfair practices, Congress would not have passed the P&S Act.

The P&S Act's legislative history demonstrates Congress intended the Act to cover a broader range of conduct than is covered by the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Congress intended to regulate practices that would violate those two antitrust laws and practices that would be unfair under the FTC Act, as well as the “special mischiefs and injuries inherent in livestock and poultry traffic.”  [ 52 ] Particularities in the market structure and operation of the livestock, meat, and poultry industries compelled Congress to create a statute specific to them; to regulate fair trade practices among livestock and poultry producers, stockyards, meat packers, swine contractors, and live poultry dealers; and to ensure equal access to Start Printed Page 53891 markets. [ 53 ] In these industries, a handful of firms owning a small number of capital-intensive slaughter and meat processing plants exercised substantial market power over thousands of producers spread across rural communities. [ 54 ] These conditions continue today and are even more important in light of increased industry concentration. For example, in 2019 the four-firm concentration ratio (the combined market share of the four largest firms in the industry) was as follows: 53% for broiler chickens, 55% for turkeys, 67% for hogs, and 85% for fed cattle. [ 55 ] These concentrated industries procure their poultry and livestock for processing from a large number of unconcentrated farms engaged in livestock and poultry production, including 14,144 farms raising broilers under contract, 47,510 farms that sold hogs and pigs, and 25,783 farms with cattle on feed in 2022. [ 56 ]

Further, as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Act was intended to “assure fair competition and fair trade practices in livestock marketing.”  [ 57 ] “Fair competition” is consistent with the view of the P&S Act as a device for protecting against not only Sherman and Clayton Act violations but also other unfair methods of competition that tend to negatively affect market conditions, embodied for example in the prohibitions in 202(d) and (e) of the Act. [ 58 ] However, “fair trade practices” has a different connotation, going beyond practices that cause (or tend to cause) competitive injury to include practices that harm market participants, specifically producers, as well as other regulated entities and consumers. This term invokes a standard of equitable unfairness, which does not implicate market conditions, competition, efficiency, or consumer welfare. [ 59 ] USDA has long viewed keeping a marketplace free from abusive conduct for participants as part and parcel of maintaining a fair competitive landscape even if the unfair practice is directed at only a few individuals or firms. To the extent that violations of P&S Act section 202(a) require a showing of “harm to competition” under the P&S Act, that would necessarily have to cover both competitively unfair conduct and market abuses.

Courts for decades have made it clear that section 202 of the P&S Act reaches beyond the antitrust laws. [ 60 ] That is consistent with USDA's approach to enforcement since the earliest days of the Act. As discussed extensively in section III.A. below, USDA has enforced the Act to prohibit a wide range of unfair practices that harm individual market participants. [ 61 ]

AMS has observed that rising market concentration and the growth of vertical contracting in the late 1990s and early 2000s—including insufficient USDA enforcement of the Act—led to increased private actions under the P&S Act. [ 62 ] Starting in the 1970s, Congress expanded the Act to authorize private rights of action in Federal court, which could be filed with respect to livestock starting in 1976, and with respect to poultry starting in 1987. [ 63 ] By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Federal courts faced private cases making claims based on alleged unfair practices. In the majority of these cases the Federal courts did not rely upon the opinions of USDA's Judicial Officer, and have come to conflicting conclusions about how to interpret section 202(a) and (b) of the Act. [ 64 ] And indeed, notably commencing in 2005 with the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., a handful of Circuits have held that private litigants could establish conduct is “unfair” in violation of section 202(a) only with evidence that the behavior caused competitive injury as a marketwide harm. [ 65 ] The courts incorporating a competitive injury requirement point to the P&S Act's “antitrust origins,” although those courts also readily acknowledge that the P&S Act is broader than the antitrust laws.

Courts that apply a standard with a competitive-injury component, however, are far from unanimous in their interpretation of the P&S Act's prohibitions, generally, and of competitive injury, specifically. The Start Printed Page 53892 Tenth Circuit has required competitive injury for unfairness but not deception claims, while the Fifth and Sixth Circuit appear to require “competitive injury” even for deception claims. Similarly, although the Tenth Circuit in Been v. O.K. Industries, Inc. adopted the competitive injury requirement, it had previously found violations of section 202 for failure to pay ( Hays Livestock ), market agent's loan to packer, which was a conflict of interest, ( Capitol Livestock ), and failing to disclose a change in grading system ( Excel ). [ 66 ]

Some decisions seemingly apply a higher standard than what the antitrust laws require. In Pickett, after a jury found that Tyson's vertical supply restrictions adversely affected competition by artificially reducing Tyson's purchase price for cattle, the court required the plaintiff to further rebut Tyson's claimed countervailing justifications in order to establish harm to competition. In London v. Fieldale Farms Corp., the court invoked a Sherman Act standard in holding that a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition, [ 67 ] but the case also quoted with approval Armour& Co. v. United States, [ 68 ] which held that a violation of section 5 of the FTC Act—which is broader than the Sherman Act—would be sufficient. As discussed below, section 5 reaches conduct that does not violate the Sherman Act, and liability under section 5 does not depend on demonstrable anticompetitive effects or proof of the defendant's market power. The Act reaches practices “not merely in their fruition, but also in their incipiency” if they “could lead to trade restraints and practices deemed undesirable” and also “conduct which, although not a violation of the letter of the antitrust laws, is close to a violation or is contrary to their spirit.”  [ 69 ] In Been, the court similarly required that the plaintiffs show that the “specific practices have the effect of injuring competition or are likely to do so,” but then it went further, requiring more than courts ordinarily require to prove even a Sherman Act violation. In Been, plaintiffs had to show the practices resulted in both lower prices for producers and higher prices for retail consumers. [ 70 ] Finally, Wheeler v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. held that “an anti-competitive effect is necessary” to prove a violation of section 202(a) of the P&S Act, despite citing with approval Farrow v. U.S. Dep't of Agr., [ 71 ] where the court held that harm to competition merely “can be found” sufficient to demonstrate violation of the P&S Act. Moreover, the courts' varying interpretations of section 202(a)—including those that have required competitive injury—apply inconsistent legal standards to the evidence. Or, as it has been observed: “courts' application of the harm-to-competition test is inconsistent with their own antitrust rules that they claim to be applying.”  [ 72 ] Simply, “harm to competition” fails even its basic function as the judicial stand-in for well-articulated contours of a prohibition on unfair practices.

At the same time, other courts have either explicitly rejected a competitive injury requirement or have found violations without addressing the impact on competition. [ 73 ] Disagreement among the courts over the need for competitive injury and what the term means makes enforcement difficult and has created a legal patchwork in which different rules apply depending on the presiding circuit. The lack of consistent legal standards has adversely affected the Department's ability to maintain fair and competitive livestock and poultry markets and ensure producers can obtain the full value of their products and services. Livestock and poultry industries are inherently interstate activities, with activities, services, and trading regularly occurring across multiple states and in regional and national markets. Much like the FTC's policy statements have defined its national approaches to unfair practices and unfair methods of competition, a workable rule governing how the prohibitions on unfair practices will operate and be enforced is important for providing clarity to market participants and for AMS to effectuate its nationwide statutory obligation to ensure fair and competitive livestock, meat, and poultry markets, and ensure livestock producers and poultry growers can secure the full value for their products and services. [ 74 ]

The cases mentioned above all applied different standards despite all claiming to have derived their standards from the Act and the caselaw. These opinions gave little or no guidance on the practices that would satisfy their standards. Moreover, in the cases adopting a competitive injury requirement, the litigants did not offer an affirmative definition of “unfair” like the criteria in the proposed rule. Those courts never addressed whether “unfair” applies to harms typically treated as unfair practices under the FTC Act.

This ambiguity and inconsistency across judicial interpretations of the statute impedes enforcement of the Act under section 202(a) because to date neither the Department nor the public have had appropriate clarity on the meaning of “unfair” under the P&S Act. Further, to the extent courts have limited application of the P&S Act's protections against unfair practices to anticompetitive or unfair conduct that causes competitive injury, those courts' decisions are contrary to both the legislative text and Congressional intent.

For over a decade, USDA has received repeated calls from the public to address these court decisions which frustrate the purposes of the Act, [ 75 ] although USDA Start Printed Page 53893 also notes that some industry groups have generally opposed changes to the existing regulatory landscape. [ 76 ]

Consistent with Executive Order 14036 , this proposed rule would, however, make those changes. [ 77 ] Specifically, it would provide regulatory clarity in the face of these conflicting interpretations so as to more fully and effectively enforce section 202(a)'s prohibition on unfair practices. To do so, it proposes to establish clearer tests and frameworks with which to apply section 202(a)'s prohibition on unfair practices, provide guidance to those hearing enforcement cases as to what unfairness means, and, in circumstances when competition is relevant, provide a framework for assessing the impact of a practice on the competitive environment. USDA intends with this proposed rule to provide clearer standards for the Department, courts, and private parties to use in understanding what conduct the P&S Act prohibits.

In this proposed rulemaking, AMS proposes separate comprehensive rules intended to protect both market participants and the market from harm. [ 78 ] In the very first docket under the P&S Act in 1922, the Secretary stated: “It is not the purpose of the Act to destroy business, but to require the observance of the public's interests in the conduct of business by conforming to standards laid down in the law.”  [ 79 ] In other words, the Act is broader than an antitrust law; it is a comprehensive regulation of the poultry and livestock industry that enforces norms of fair behavior for the public benefit. Thus, since passage of the Act, the Department has taken the position that section 202(a) could be violated if a challenged practice injures the market to the detriment of the public interest, or if it injures market participants without any specific harm to the market. Often, in the Department's view, a challenged practice could cause both kinds of injuries in unison.

For example, a supply broker was found to have engaged in both an unfair and deceptive practice in agreeing to provide a hidden “kickback” that affords unduly preferential treatment to a powerful retailer at the expense of rival retailers. Indeed, the practice was unfair both in the sense that it specifically injured the rival retailers, who were forced to pay discriminatorily higher broker fees, and in the sense that it harmed competition because the hidden competitive advantage bestowed upon the powerful retailer tampered with the competitive process for procuring supply. [ 80 ] This comprehensive analytical approach, which the Secretary applied in cases as diverse as failure to pay in full  [ 81 ] and price cutting, [ 82 ] never required the Secretary to draw distinctions between unfair conduct that injures producers, unfair conduct that injures competition, or unfair conduct that caused both kinds of injury. But in analyzing these cases the Judicial Officer determined harm to an individual or harm to competition in each separate administrative case rather than a specific “test” or “rule.”

In building the analytical framework for this proposed rule, USDA considered, in addition to the forgoing, the contemporaneous statutory history of section 5 of the FTC Act, which bans both unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices. While Congress never limited the scope of the P&S Act's “unfair practices” to “unfair methods of competition,” the first FTC Act was purportedly so limited. The amendments to the FTC Act in 1938 reflected Congress's intent to make the scope of the FTC Act more aligned with the P&S Act's broader scope.

A standard should be consistent and consistently applied, so this proposed rule would explain the P&S Act in terms more widely understood. USDA has found the framework of the FTC Act and the FTC's policy statements useful in understanding the past century of USDA's administrative and Federal caselaw.

Thus, for this proposed rule, USDA employs an analytical structure similar to that presently used by the FTC and proposes two analyses. First, proposed § 201.308(a) and (b) would protect against injuries to market participants from unfair practices. Second, proposed § 201.308(c) and (d) would protect the market from unfair practices. When the Secretary considers whether an injurious practice rises to the level of an unfair practice, either or both approaches may be relied on.

Although the proposed tests are distinct, in the context of the P&S Act, they are not mutually exclusive. Just as it has always been true that an unfair practice can be simultaneously injurious to individual market participants and to market conditions more generally, an unfair practice under this proposed rule may be unfair to an individual market participant (under proposed Start Printed Page 53894 § 201.308(a)), to markets (under proposed § 201.308(c)), or unfair under each proposed test.

Thus, based on the statutory language, administrative case law, and Federal case law, this proposed regulation clarifies that unfair acts under the P&S Act apply to harms to market participants and harms to the market. The scope of section 202(a) is similar to section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits both unfair and deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of competition. Further, the operative definition of harm to market participants (substantial harm, not reasonably unavoidable, and not outweighed by benefits) is analogous to the codified definition of unfairness under the FTC Act. The operative definition for harm to the market is analogous to the principles the FTC has adopted in that context (collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful or exclusionary method of competition that may negatively affect competitive conditions).

USDA proposes the addition of § 201.308(a) and (b) as a comprehensive rule for unfair practices with respect to market participants.

The proposed test under § 201.308(a) for whether a practice unfairly injures market participants is similar to the FTC's test for consumer protection injuries. Under the FTC Act, an unfair practice is an act or practice that “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”  [ 83 ] Harm to competition is not part of the test. Although section 202(a) of the P&S Act's authority precedes the FTC's 1980 policy statement and subsequent Congressional amendments to the FTC Act, the FTC's current approach offers useful pillars around which to anchor P&S case law that has developed over the years. [ 84 ]

USDA thus proposes under § 201.308(a) that a practice is unfair if the practice (1) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to one or more market participants, which (2) the participant or participants cannot reasonably avoid, and which (3) the regulated entity that has engaged in the act cannot justify by establishing countervailing benefits to the market participant or participants or to competition in the market that outweighs the substantial injury or likelihood of substantial injury. Application of these three elements, when combined, explain the outcome of a great many of the cases brought under the P&S Act, and provide a clear and workable standard for adjudicating many kinds of unfairness claims.

The simplest example that illustrates the principles underlying these proposed provisions is the failure to pay for meat, [ 85 ] live poultry, [ 86 ] or livestock. [ 87 ] First, it causes a substantial injury to the seller or grower. When a seller or grower delivers product to a regulated entity and the entity arbitrarily refuses to pay, the seller or grower loses the value of the product, and they lose the opportunity to use the capital from selling their product to grow more food, invest in their farm, or process more products. Second, they cannot avoid this breach of contract. Instead, they must either engage in costly litigation or settle for less than they are owed. Finally, there is no benefit to the market for the purchaser to fail to pay for the product they received. If this practice is adopted by all purchasers, the sellers become increasingly less efficient as trust fails and less livestock, meat, and poultry is produced. Thus, even if the seller or grower is eventually paid, and suffers no loss of business, the regulated entity's failure to pay when due can still cause substantial, unavoidable market injury. That is, in the aggregate, even a small delay suffered by many producers produces a substantial harm.

Similar principles have guided the Secretary's interpretation for the entire history of the Act. In the 1956 decision in In re: Central California Livestock, Inc. d/b/a Machlin Meat Packing Company, the Judicial Officer held that accord and satisfaction could not be a defense to the failure to pay for livestock because a refusal to abide by contract terms that occurs after the livestock is slaughtered leaves the seller or grower with no other remedy than to sue. If a refusal to pay is not based upon a bona fide dispute, but rather is a deliberate policy of contract noncompliance, then it is “obvious that by the activities in issue the respondent engaged in or used an unfair practice” in violation of section 202(a) of the Act. [ 88 ] And “[n]ot only was it unfair to the sellers but it was unfair competitively with respect to other packers.”  [ 89 ]

Even in 1956 those principles were not a new application of section 202(a). In 1937, USDA Secretary Wallace found that discounting the agreed upon price for a defect (so-called oily hogs) undiscoverable until after slaughter rather than as a condition of the contract was an “unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice” in violation of section 202(a) of the Act. [ 90 ]

Congress drafted the Act to provide every participant in the industry due consideration, and honest, transparent, and equitable treatment. Accordingly, dishonest, hidden, and inequitable practices that injure market participants, like mis-weighing, are unfair because the producer or grower suffers a substantial injury that they cannot avoid. For example, a producer delivers their product for the regulated entity to establish the grade, weight, and payment. The producer's loss of physical control of the animal is Start Printed Page 53895 inherent in a failure-to-pay or a mis-weighing case, illustrating the unavoidability of the injury.

Some elements of the dangers of unavoidable injuries have informed prior rulemaking. For example, when USDA required packers to pay on actual hot weights—the weight before the carcass is cooled to storage temperatures—in 1968, USDA noted that allowing packers to set shrinkage amounts for a projected weight after refrigeration (a cold weight) was an unfair and deceptive practice: “In these instances, the packer decides what shrinkage factor he will use. . . The farmer is not in a position to bargain freely on the basis of a full understanding of the contract terms which are within the control of the packer and can only accept or reject the bid offered by the packer.”  [ 91 ] Market participants are often at the mercy of regulated entities, who often pay based on factors that the livestock seller or poultry grower is unable to personally witness or negotiate, thus making their injury from the use of variable cold weights or shrinkage unavoidable.

Even absent an express rule, the principles maintaining that unjustified practices that produce unavoidable injury violate section 202(a) of the Act have been, and still are, applied in “unfair practices” cases. [ 92 ]

The final factor in the proposed regulation at § 201.308(a) is that the conduct does not violate section 202(a) of the Act if regulated entities prove that countervailing benefits to producers, growers, or to competition outweigh the harm. In practice, the question is whether the regulated entity can show benefits of the alleged unfair conduct outweigh the injury or likely injury.

The proposed rule allows the consideration of not only harm to the market, but also likely harm to Congressional policy goals concerning the structure of agricultural markets over and against possible countervailing benefits to other producers or the market. [ 93 ] Congressional policy goals have included, for example, supporting new, beginning, and military veteran producers. [ 94 ]

Balancing allegedly unfair conduct against countervailing benefits is not a new consideration for the Secretary. For example, when examining the allegedly unfair and discriminatory preferences given to one group of sellers over others in In re: IBP, Inc. (57 Agric. Dec. 1353 (U.S.D.A. July 31, 1998)), the Department considered whether right of first refusal of the contract terms was “worth extra payment” and whether the contract was profitable for both the buyers and the sellers of livestock. Preferences for lengthening extra delivery times justified higher payments (even if higher payment was not proven), and so concluded that the practice was not unduly discriminatory. [ 95 ]

Accordingly, when examining the practice, “actual competition carried on in good faith by normally fair methods not `heretofore regarded as opposed to good morals because characterized by deception, bad faith, fraud, or oppression['] . . . is a fact which must be given substantial weight . . . .”  [ 96 ] Unfair practices under section 202 is not only a matter of unfair market conditions; the intention and results of the unfair acts and practices are relevant. [ 97 ] For example, if a company intends to act to monopolize, even if the intended mechanism would not achieve it, the practice would be unfair. Moreover, some practices have no benefit, even if unintentional: mis-weighing, failing to pay when due for livestock or meats, failure to maintain a bond, and insolvency.

To date, no court has disagreed with the principle that the P&S Act not only reaches practices that directly injure, such as failures to pay and changes to the terms of payment without notice, but also acts that are likely to cause injury. Congress designed the Act to prevent actual monetary loss  [ 98 ] and those practices are “unfair” even though they require no evidentiary showing of completed injury. Even courts that have adopted the competitive injury standard have affirmed that the Act does not require actual harm. The Fifth Circuit stated, the “Act is designed to `. . . prevent potential injury by stopping unlawful practices in their incipiency. Proof of a particular injury is not required.' ”  [ 99 ] Those potential injuries may be any injury the Act was designed to prevent, including financial loss to sellers. [ 100 ]

Therefore, the Department has taken the view that some practices must be stopped before they harm market participants. [ 101 ] For example, a packer operating while insolvent or without a bond can present a great risk of potential harm to the livestock sellers who may find that their livestock is being used to finance a packer's operations. [ 102 ] If the undercapitalized packer fails, even with the rights of a floating trust, livestock sellers are vulnerable to protracted litigation and non-payment. The livestock seller's ability to participate in the market would be imperiled, the magnitude of potential injury would be great, and without prior knowledge of the insolvency, the seller's ability to freely Start Printed Page 53896 exercise decision-making would be undermined.

As another example, an exclusive agreement between packers and livestock dealers not to bid against one another might severely restrict the ability of other livestock sellers to participate in the market, because packers would not accept offers from other livestock dealers or from sellers directly. [ 103 ] The agreement is an unfair practice, among other reasons, because it injures sellers by restricting them from making offers and thus tends to subvert market forces. Proposed § 201.308(a) recognizes that although a specific injury has not occurred, the potential for injury is so great that the Secretary must stop the practice in advance. [ 104 ]

Proposed § 201.308(b) is intended to explain those instances where likely or potential harms to producers rise to violations of the P&S Act, and so this rulemaking sets out factors or criteria that attempt to cover that broad scope. Thus, the Secretary retains the statutory authority to identify and regulate unfair practices or devices in a manner not predicted by this proposed rule, either through subsequent rulemaking or in particular enforcement matters.

First, proposed § 201.308(b)(1) includes consideration of the extent to which the practice may impede or restrict the ability to participate in a market, interfere with the free exercise of decision-making by market participants, tend to subvert the operation of competitive market forces, deny a covered producer the full value of their products or services, or violate traditional doctrines of law or equity.

This is not entirely dissimilar from comment (g) in the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, which noted that unfair practices are not merely a matter of antitrust harms:

Courts continue to evaluate competitive practices against generalized standards of fairness and social utility . . . . An act or practice is likely to be judged unfair only if it substantially interferes with the ability of others to compete on the merits of their products or otherwise conflicts with accepted principles of public policy recognized by statute or common law. [ 105 ]

Thus, proposed § 201.308(b)(1) provides standards to evaluate when a practice under § 201.308(a) is likely to cause a substantial injury.

Second, proposed § 201.308(b)(2) provides a clarification of “substantial injury” by considering the magnitude of a likely injury that the Secretary must halt: an injury may be substantial if it causes significant harm to one market participant or if it imposes a small harm to many market participants. AMS does not propose to eliminate from regulatory oversight those injuries that the Department has deemed in past cases as substantial. A single failure to pay, for even a relatively small amount of money, is sufficiently substantial for USDA to bring administrative action against a regulated entity, and to be a basis for an order of the Secretary to cease and desist. Notably, an injury that does not harm a market participant is not a violation of the Act. [ 106 ]

Third, in proposed § 201.308(b)(3) AMS proposes considering the extent to which the producer would have to take unreasonable steps to avoid injury. An injury is not reasonably avoidable solely because the practice has been disclosed. A market participant is also not required to take unreasonable steps, such as exiting the market or making unreasonable additional investments or efforts, to avoid the harm. The harder it is for market participants to escape the injury, the more likely the harm would be to occur and the more likely that it would not be reasonably avoidable.

Again, returning to failure to pay, it would be unreasonable for a livestock seller to cease selling livestock on the open market to prevent themselves from being victims of a breach of contract or to ask them to accept revised contract terms after delivery of the livestock. To determine otherwise would undermine the regulatory purpose, which is to give the producers of livestock, and the growers of poultry, the opportunity to receive the fair value of their participation in the market. Nor would it benefit consumers to encourage producers to leave the market or accept substandard payment terms that would discourage appropriate market participation.

AMS proposes § 201.308(c) and (d) as a comprehensive rule with respect to markets.

Unfair practices are not only those that injure producers, but also those that may negatively impact competition because they injure or tend to injure competition or competitive market conditions. AMS takes the position in this proposed rulemaking that harmful methods of competition under the P&S Act are similar to the practices that the FTC and the courts have long recognized as either anticompetitive or unfair: collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful or exclusionary methods of competition that may negatively affect competitive conditions.

Congress intended the prohibitions in section 202(a) (and, also, section 312(a)) of the P&S Act to go further than the prohibition in section 5 of the FTC Act against “unfair methods of competition.”  [ 107 ] Not only did the P&S Act address deceptive practices before the FTC Act did so, but it also includes many prohibitions that the FTC Act does not. In that breadth, there has been no real dispute that the P&S Act should prohibit at least as much as the FTC Act itself. [ 108 ] Thus, as the Ninth Circuit explained, “section 202(a) should be read liberally enough to encompass the types of anti-competitive practices properly deemed `unfair' by the Federal Trade Commission.”  [ 109 ] The FTC has long prosecuted collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful or exclusionary actions that tend to negatively affect competitive conditions as unfair methods of competition. [ 110 ] Moreover, USDA has regularly cited FTC precedent in interpreting the P&S Act. [ 111 ] As the Ninth Circuit has noted, “While sec. 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act may have been made broader than antecedent antitrust legislation in order to achieve its Start Printed Page 53897 remedial purpose, it nonetheless incorporates the basic antitrust blueprint of the Sherman Act and other pre-existing antitrust legislation such as the Clayton Act and the [Federal] Trade Commission Act.”  [ 112 ]

Thus, AMS proposes § 201.308(c) to capture at least conduct that would violate the antitrust laws, conduct that would constitute an unfair method of competition under the FTC Act, and conduct that courts or administrative officers have held violates the P&S Act's unfairness prohibition. Practices that do violate the antitrust laws therefore are within the umbra of this rulemaking. So too is “conduct which, although not a violation of the letter of the antitrust laws, is close to a violation or is contrary to their spirit,”  [ 113 ] and practices that “not merely in their fruition, but also in their incipiency . . . could lead to . . . trade restraints and practices deemed undesirable.”

Conduct falls within proposed § 201.308(c) if it harms competition or has the tendency to negatively affect competitive conditions, impairs market participants' ability to compete, or reduces the likelihood of potential or nascent competition, notwithstanding that it may or may not yet have done so. If the practice is analyzed similarly to an antitrust violation, the Secretary will, where appropriate, consider any buyer- or seller-side anticompetitive effect on price (including the price paid to producers), output, quality, choice, innovation, bargaining power in the market for services or products, the imposition or presence of entry barriers, the imposition or presence of information asymmetries, the entrenching or extending of a dominant position, or the distortion of the competitive process, among other anticompetitive or competitively unfair effects. [ 114 ] In some cases, it is not necessary to measure the effect on competitive conditions expressly because the conduct, is a per se violation, or otherwise on its face tends to distort, impair, or frustrate the competitive process, including of price discovery. Moreover, section 202 of the P&S Act prohibits unfair competition in its incipiency, consistent with the FTC Act and the Clayton Act.

Because the courts have been clear that behavior that is likely to harm competition violates the P&S Act, AMS proposes standards with respect to injuries that are likely to harm the market. Like other statutes, such as the FTC Act and the Clayton Act, the P&S Act prohibits competition harms in their incipiency. [ 115 ] The antitrust laws recognize a wide range of harms, which this proposed rule would fully encompass. [ 116 ] Because the Act is intended to protect the market from harm and protect producers and consumers from unfair practices, there does not need to be any proof that any harm to the market has yet occurred: only that the threat the Act is designed to prevent is likely.

Accordingly, AMS proposes standards in § 201.308(d) for the Secretary to consider when examining practices that likely pose a threat to the competitiveness of markets. These standards include (1) the extent to which the practice impedes or restricts the ability to participate in a market; tends to subvert the operation of competitive market forces; interferes with the free exercise of decision-making by market participants; violates traditional doctrines of law or equity; or has indicia of oppressiveness, such as evidence of anticompetitive intent or purpose or absence of an independent legitimate business reason for the conduct; and (2) the extent to which the practice tends to foreclose or impair the opportunities of market participants, reduces competition between rivals, limits choice, distorts or impedes the process of competition, or denies a market participant the full value of their products or services.

Thus, proposed § 201.308(d) addresses harms that are likely to threaten markets, including “acts and practices which, when full blown would violate the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.”  [ 117 ] These include several practices that have been directly found to constitute incipiency violations by the Federal courts or in FTC administrative proceedings, which the FTC details in full in its policy statement regarding the scope of unfair methods of competition under section 5 of the FTC Act. [ 118 ] The Secretary may also consider violations of other laws and equity. Thus, when considering harm to markets, the proposed rule allows the consideration of harm that is cognizable under laws that further policy goals concerning the structure of agricultural markets. [ 119 ] The proposed rule recognizes that regulatory enforcement may take into account policies such as increasing market diversity through new, beginning, and military veteran producers, [ 120 ] and increasing supply chain resiliency including through investing in new and expanded meat and poultry processing. [ 121 ] Moreover, USDA's Start Printed Page 53898 Judicial Officer has explained that section 202(a) of the P&S Act includes within its scope every trade practice which is an “unfair method of competition” under section 5 of the FTC Act or is otherwise prohibited by the Clayton Act or the Robinson-Patman Act. [ 122 ]

Among the factors the Secretary may consider when halting a practice prior to harm occurring are whether the practice offends public policy because it has indicia of oppressiveness, such as evidence of anticompetitive intent or purpose, or absence of an independent legitimate business reason for the conduct.

This factor addresses a particular danger that Congress recognized when it wrote the P&S Act: abuse of the imbalance of power, and the creation of vertical relationships that would stifle competition. Congress expected the Secretary to address the power that the dominant, vertically-integrated packers and stockyards could exert in preventing a distant and less capitalized farmer or rancher from asserting their rights. This is the heart of oppressive conduct and is part of the market structure Congress expected the Secretary to regulate.

Moreover, this proposal extends to horizontal, vertical, and other market relationships because, historically, the Department has found that practices like certain vertical and horizontal information sharing are likely to harm competition, and therefore unfair practices prohibited by the P&S Act. [ 123 ] USDA regulations under the P&S Act (in part to address concerns relating to market agencies as regulated under title III of the Act) have also prohibited certain forms of vertical integration, common or interlocking ownership, financing, or management relationships owing to conflict of interest and impacts on market integrity and market access. [ 124 ]

To be clear, under section 202(a) of the P&S Act, if a practice is taken in good faith by normally fair methods, and not characterized by deception, bad faith, fraud, or oppression, then the practice is less likely to be unfair. [ 125 ] Accordingly, proposed § 201.308(d) provides that the Secretary may assess the extent to which the practice is collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful, or exclusionary and presents incipient threats to competition in determining whether the conduct tends to negatively impact competition by adversely affecting competitive market conditions.

This rulemaking has no particular prohibition with respect to contracts. A breach of contract, however, is unfair under section 202 if it meets the criteria of proposed § 201.308(a) or (c). For decades the Department found, without controversy, that breaches of contract could result in harm to nonbreaching parties to the agreement or to the market or to both under the Act. [ 126 ]

To account for this, under proposed § 201.308(b) and (d) the Secretary may consider traditional doctrines of law and equity in determining whether there is any harm the Act was designed to prevent. Traditional common-law doctrines are fundamentally designed to ensure fairness in the functioning of the marketplace and support the normal and fair operation of market forces. In short, fair enforcement of contract, bans against unconscionable conduct, and prohibitions against deception, make a fair market work. Academics have rightly pointed out that violations of the P&S Act include practices that offend public policy as established “by statutes, the common law, or otherwise—whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness.”  [ 127 ]

The Department's position is that included in this set of practices are breaches of contract that are of regulatory concern. Recently, there are some courts that have claimed that Congress could not have intended breaches of contract to be violations of the P&S Act. [ 128 ] Read to an unlimited extent, that conclusion would be contrary to the plain language of the statute. Congress intended unfair practices to include breaches of contract, not only with the passage of the Act in 1921, but also with the passage of section 409 in 1976 and section 410 in 1987. By specifically prohibiting failures to make prompt payment under contract, Congress included among unfair practices the simplest form of a contractual breach.

As a matter of statutory construction, under section 312(a) of the Act it is unlawful for livestock dealers and market agencies to engage in any “unjust, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device”; section 309 of the Act gives any injured person the right to proceed in an administrative reparation hearing before the Secretary against a market agency or livestock dealer. Breach of contract is the basis for the overwhelming majority of reparations cases, as Congress intended.

USDA concluded that some breaches of contract violated the Act many decades prior to the Congressional passage of section 409; administrative findings that failure to pay was a violation of the Act were some of the earliest administrative decisions. The Department issued its first regulatory prohibition against late payment for livestock in 1964. [ 129 ] As the Department has held with respect to allegations of the breach of the duty of good faith in the operation of contract which led to underpayment:

[A] violation of the payment requirements in 7 U.S.C. 228b-1(a) is also a prohibited “unfair practice” under 7 U.S.C. 192 . . . . The Packers and Stockyards Act contains no requirement that injury to competition or likelihood of injury to competition must be shown in order to prove a violation of 7 U.S.C. 228b-1(a) ; however, 7 U.S.C. 228b-1(b) specifically provides that a violation of 7 U.S.C. 228b-1(a) shall be considered an “unfair practice” under the Packers and Stockyards Act. Thus, a violation of 7 U.S.C. 228b-1(a) is a prohibited “unfair practice” under 7 U.S.C. 192 without regard to whether injury to competition or likelihood of injury to competition is shown. [ 130 ]

This rulemaking is not intended to change the Department's position on the Act's remedial purposes to protect market participants from unfair and deceptive practices. In general, refusal to honor contracts drives honest businesses from competition because competitors cannot compete in a market where the buyer with greater capital can capture the supply without paying for it, modify contract terms after delivery, or delay payment indefinitely to extract concessions from sellers. These proposed regulations, therefore, match USDA's ability to order packers and Start Printed Page 53899 swine contractors to cease these breaches of contract and penalize packers and swine contractors to deter these behaviors and to protect the public from these harms. [ 131 ]

To be clear, this proposal would not make every commercial dispute into a P&S Act matter. Rather, this regulation proposes a specific framework under which claims—including ones involving a breach of contract—of unfair practices under the P&S Act would be analyzed.

This proposed rule does not limit its protection against unfair conduct by regulated entities to enumerated individuals, like producers or consumers, because the Act protects anyone that suffers a violation of the P&S Act. Section 202(a) of the Act bans unfair practices in the entire market for livestock, meats, meat food products, livestock products in unmanufactured form, and live poultry. Further, P&S Act section 308(a) holds all regulated entities liable for any consequential damages to the persons injured: “[i]f any person subject to this chapter violates any of the provisions of this chapter . . . he shall be liable to the person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of such violation.”  [ 132 ]

The Secretary has brought administrative cases under section 202(a) based on the full spectrum of market behaviors that have injured its participants. This has included practices that injured livestock sellers, livestock dealers, market agencies, stockyards, live poultry dealers, packers, retailers, and consumers. [ 133 ]

Thus, this proposed rule is intended to capture everyone that Congress intended to protect, which includes any person injured by a violation of section 202(a).

This proposed regulation contains four provisions; the inclusion of each is intended to clarify the P&S Act, and thus strengthen the Act's protections against unfair treatment in agricultural markets. The proposed regulation provides guidance to market participants, regulated entities, presiding courts and USDA when determining whether specific conduct is unfair under section 202(a) of the P&S Act. Although each proposed provision serves to further these effects, the benefits this proposed rule seeks to provide would not be negated by the exclusion of one or more of its provisions as finalized.

For example, proposed § 201.308(a), “Unfair practices with respect to market participants,” would still function without proposed § 201.308(c), “Unfair practices with respect to markets,” and vice versa. The clarifying provisions of proposed § 201.308(b) and (d) are also severable. While AMS included all the provisions to clarify the term “unfair” under the Act, the purpose of the regulation is not lost if a court severs a provision of the rule as finalized. The remaining provisions would still function sensibly and inform the interpretation of the Act.

AMS invites comments on this proposed rule. Comments submitted on or before August 27, 2024 will be considered. Comments should reference Docket No. AMS-FTPP-21-0046 and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register . AMS seeks comment on the following subjects:

1. Do the two tests described in this proposed rule appropriately guide enforcement of “unfair practices” under section 202(a) of the P&S Act?

2. What modifications to the proposed rule would be appropriate to meet the goals of the P&S Act?

3. Are the factors described in the proposed rule to contextualize the two tests appropriate? If not, are certain factors more appropriate to one or the other test?

4. What other relevant factors may be considered in addition to or instead of the current factors?

5. Should the Department add regulatory text to define legitimate business justifications? If so, who should bear the burden of proof and what constitutes a cognizable justification?

6. Should the rulemaking consider: (a) whether the method of competition is so facially unfair that business justifications should not be entertained; (b) whether the party claiming a business justification must show that the asserted justification for the method of competition is legally cognizable, non-pretextual, and narrowly tailored to bring about a benefit while limiting the harm to the competitive process and to market participants; or (c) whether the party claiming a justification must show that the claimed benefit occurs in the same market where harm is alleged?

7. Does the proposed rule appropriately define what behavior is “reasonably avoidable”? Should this language be delineated more precisely or more broadly or in other ways, and if so, how?

8. Should AMS provide additional guidance around incipient harms to the market, and if so, should AMS draw from Clayton Act standards, [ 134 ] such as whether the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.”  [ 135 ]

9. What benefits would this proposed rule provide for producers or other persons?

10. What burdens would this proposed rule create for regulated entities?

11. What is your preferred way to measure countervailing benefits?

12. Should some things be categorically excluded from consideration as countervailing benefits, such as cross-market balancing?

13. How would you describe conduct that is oppressive?

14. How would this proposed rule affect competitive conditions in the livestock and poultry industries?

15. Should the proposed rule treat private causes of action differently from violations of section 202(a) of the Act when enforced by the Federal Government, and if so, how?

16. Would this proposed rule have any other effects on the market or market participants? If so, in what ways should they be addressed?

Comments can be submitted by either of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov . Enter AMS-FTPP-21-0046 in the Search field. Select the Documents tab, then Start Printed Page 53900 select the Comment button in the list of documents.

Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. AMS-FTPP-21-0046, S. Brett Offutt, Chief Legal Officer, Packers and Stockyards Division, USDA, AMS, FTPP; Room 2097-S, Mail Stop 3601, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-3601.

Proposed § 201.308 defines how AMS evaluates unfair acts or practices and unfair methods of competition under section 202(a) the P&S Act. Proposed § 201.308 does not impose any information collection or recordkeeping requirements on any regulated entity or member of the public. Accordingly, approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is not required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 .

AMS is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means.

This rulemaking has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been accordingly reviewed by the OMB. As a required part of the regulatory process, AMS prepared an economic analysis of the costs and benefits of proposed § 201.308.

AMS proposes to establish § 201.308 to define how AMS evaluates unfair acts or practices and unfair methods of competition under section 202(a) the P&S Act. The term “unfair” has caused confusion and contention in the industry and in courts, and this rulemaking is intended mitigate both.

Paragraph (a) of proposed § 201.308 defines an unfair act or practice as one that causes or will likely cause substantial injury to a market participant, which the market participant could not reasonably avoid but is not justified by countervailing benefits to market participants or competition. Paragraph (b) includes factors the Secretary of Agriculture may consider in evaluating whether an unfair act or practice is likely to cause substantial injury. Factors include the extent to which an act or practice impedes or restricts the ability to participate in the market, the extent to which an act or practice subverts competitive market forces, the size of any potential injury, and the extent to which the act or practice interferes with free decision making.

Paragraph (c) of proposed § 201.308 defines an unfair practice with respect to markets as a practice that is collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful, or exclusionary method of competition that may negatively affect competitive conditions.

AMS intends for proposed § 201.308 to be consistent with the way USDA has interpreted section 202(a) of the Act for decades. The preamble for this rulemaking explains how USDA has defined “unfair” in past actions and how those actions are consistent with the interpretation of “unfair” in proposed § 201.308. Concerning USDA's interpretation and enforcement of “unfair” in section 202(a) of the Act, AMS does not expect proposed § 201.308 to change USDA's position on enforcement of section 202(a).

Proposed § 201.308 is made of two parts. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed § 201.308 concern unfair practices with respect to market participants. Paragraphs (c) and (d) concern unfair practices with respect to markets. The two parts have some similarities, and some overlapping protections. Neither part requires that proof of completed or market wide harm to competition to find a violation of the Act. This is consistent with USDA's longstanding interpretation and enforcement of the Act, but it is not consistent with all Federal court decisions.

Proposed § 201.308 addresses unfairness. Unfairness is not an economic term, and it is not among the market failures that OMB has defined in Circular A-4. Some of the factors in proposed § 201.308 are intended to limit the exercise market power. But proposed § 201.308 also regulates practices unrelated to market power.

Exercise of market power has long been a problem in the meat packing industry. From the 1880s to 1920, a series of investigations found the largest meat packers controlling prices through a variety of methods. Those findings were much of the reason that Congress passed the Act in 1921. [ 136 ]

Market power in livestock, meat, and poultry markets has not gone away. Academic and government sponsored research has consistently found that meat packers have some measure of market power, especially as livestock buyers. Livestock and poultry markets are characterized by atomistic livestock producers and poultry growers numbering in the tens of thousands that deal with a much smaller number of downstream packers and poultry processors that may possess some oligopsonistic characteristics. Table 1 below lists four-firm concentration ratios for fed cattle, hogs, chickens, and turkeys for 2010 through 2019. The concentration ratios were relatively stable over this period. The fed cattle industry has been the most concentrated with four firms controlling between 83 and 85 percent for the entire period.

The nature of livestock production compounds the market power problems. When livestock, are ready for slaughter, whether they are cattle, hogs, or lambs, they must go to the packer within a few weeks, or the quality starts to decrease. As the quality of the livestock fades, producers pay the costs of continuing to feed livestock while the value decreases. As a result, livestock producers are relatively determined sellers who have a limited capacity to wait for market conditions to change.

Market power in livestock, meat, and poultry markets is a continuing problem that USDA has regulated through the Act since the 1920s. USDA has consistently established the rules and regulations necessary to maintain fair and competitive markets, including protecting producers from marketplace abuses and injuries they could not avoid. One example is § 201.70, which requires packers to conduct their livestock buying operations independently and in competition with other packers. [ 137 ] Proposed § 201.308 is another step in the ongoing regulation of competition in the livestock, meat, and poultry markets. Proposed § 201.308 is designed to mitigate market power and the implications of market power especially on producers. It would also address fair trade practices in the marketplace generally. Unlike many of the regulations under the Act, proposed § 201.308 does not place any specific requirements on packers, live poultry dealers, or swine contractors.

Instead, it is a method of evaluating acts, practices, and methods of competition to determine if they are violations of the Act. Proposed § 201.308 would be a new regulation, and USDA has not articulated the factors in proposed § 201.308 in enforcing violations of the Act in the past.

USDA has asserted that a violation of the Federal antitrust laws may also violate the Packers and Stockyards Act but that the Packers and Stockyards Act's prohibition on unfair practices incorporates trade practices beyond those covered by the Federal antitrust laws. AMS expects that proposed § 201.308 will improve its enforcement of the Act and make livestock, meat, and poultry markets more competitive.

Executive Order 12866 requires an assessment of costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible regulatory alternatives and an explanation of why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the potential alternatives. Including proposed § 201.308, AMS considered four regulatory alternatives. The first alternative that AMS considered is to maintain the status quo and not propose the new rule. The second alternative that AMS considered is to propose § 201.308 as presented in this rulemaking. This second alternative is AMS's preferred alternative as will be explained below.

The third alternative that AMS considered is limiting the scope of proposed § 201.308 to contain only paragraphs (a) and (b) that concern unfair acts and practices of the currently proposed § 201.308. In other words, this limited scope alternative would limit the scope of the proposed regulation by eliminating paragraphs (c) and (d) which prohibit unfair practices with respect to markets.

AMS considered a fourth alternative of issuing a statement of general policy rather than a new regulation, but AMS chose to propose a regulation because it expects that a regulation will be more effective. Proceeding by regulation also affords all market participants an opportunity to give input on the proposed regulation. AMS did not estimate costs and benefits for a statement of general policy, but AMS estimated costs and benefits for proposed § 201.308 and for the limited scope alternative.

The proposed rule and the limited scope alternative have some similarities but proposed § 201.308 is more comprehensive. It would restrict unfair practices with respect to markets and individual market participants while the limited scope alternative would only restrict unfair practices with respect to market participants.

For either proposed § 201.308 or the limited scope alternative, AMS was not able to estimate indirect costs or indirect benefits that might accrue from the proposed rule. AMS was able to estimate direct costs associated with proposed § 201.308 and the limited scope alternative. Those costs are largely comprised of regulated entities reviewing their own practices for compliance with the new regulation. The cost of reviewing practices is expected to be similar whether regulated entities review for compliance with proposed § 201.308 or the limited scope alternative. AMS does not expect that regulated packers, live poultry dealers, or swine contracts will need to make costly immediate changes in their current practices as a result of the proposed rule's implementation because the proposed rule serves as a framework for agency analysis and enforcement to address problematic practices as they may arise, rather than as a mandate to ameliorate specifically identified practices at present.

With similar direct costs and uncertain indirect costs, AMS prefers the more comprehensive proposed § 201.308 over the limited scope alternative. It is more consistent with the administration's policy goals and more consistent with policies of other Federal agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission.

AMS expects that proposed § 201.308 will improve its regulation of livestock, meat, and poultry markets, making the markets more competitive and fairer. Applying a quantified dollar value to the improvement would be a difficult task. Because proposed § 201.308 is a method of evaluating acts, practices, and methods of competition, the value of any improvements would depend on many unknown factors.

AMS expects that benefits of proposed § 201.308 would accrue to livestock producers, poultry growers, and consumers. To the extent that predatory practices are prevented, Start Printed Page 53902 smaller packers, live poultry dealers, or swine contractors may benefit. Economic models of market power involve a deadweight loss to society as well transfers from producers, consumers, or both to the firms exerting market power. To the extent that proposed § 201.308 reduces acts, practices, and unfair methods that limit competition, society will benefit from the reduction in the deadweight loss, which is a loss to society due to a misallocation of resources. Livestock producers, poultry growers, consumers, competing packers, or all four might benefit from a reduction in the deadweight loss. Competition models also have a transfer component, in which income is transferred to firms exerting market power.

As an example of potential benefits from improving competition, AMS estimated economic gains in losses for a range of hypothetical changes in market power in cattle and beef markets. Estimated gains are not available for the other livestock, meat, and poultry markets. These values are not estimates of benefits of proposed § 201.308. They are only examples that indicate possible benefits of improving competitive conditions.

Table 2 presents the economic changes in packer market power for cattle associated with changing level of market competition, where baseline price and quantity information are for 2023 and are from USDA's November 2023 edition of World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. [ 138 ] The economic model to estimate the economic impacts is from Hadechek, Ma, and Sexton as are all the model parameters except for the WASDE data. [ 139 ] The model assumes buyer and seller market power parameters falling in the range of 0 to 1. While these are not tied to a particular form of competition, a value of 0.15 would be what the Department of Justice and FTC regard as moderate firm concentration under their joint their 2023 Merger Guidelines and 0.30 would be well into the range that it considers as highly concentrated. [ 140 ] The value of 0.15 corresponds to a Hirschman-Herfindahl index (HHI) of approximately 1,500, and 0.3 corresponds to HHI value of approximately 2,500 to 3,300, which is well above the value of 1,800 that is considered highly concentrated market in the 2023 Merger Guidelines. [ 141 ] While the intent of this proposed rule is to lower incidence of practices that are harmful to competition, one cannot discount the possibility that litigation spurred by the proposed rule could deter entry or cause firms to leave the market and hinder innovative or even practices that make the market more competitive or more efficient.

The analysis in the table below holds seller market power fixed at 0.15 and has output under packer market power parameters of 0.15 in section A and 0.30 in section B. In both sections, results are provided for 1 and 3 percent decreases in the market power parameter for the beef packer. A 3 percent change in market power is likely on the high side given that USDA does not expect that packers, live poultry dealers or swine contractors will make large changes as a result of proposed § 201.308. With the assumed decreases and base levels of market power, production increases, retail prices decrease, and the producers' price of cattle increases with a decrease in market power. With a decrease in market power, gross returns to cattle producers increase and processor variable profits ( i.e., not including fixed costs) decrease. Total market benefits (the producer plus consumer surplus line) increase with a decrease in market power. When the packer market power parameter decreases by 3 percent, deadweight loss decreases $26 million and $54 million when the buyer market power parameter is 0.15 and 0.30, respectively.

To put some perspective of the size of the deadweight loss changes relative to the market value of cattle sold for slaughter, even their largest changes in table 2 are 0.18 percent the size of the forecasted value of cattle production for 2023 from USDA's November 2023 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate. [ 142 ] Note that while the percent change in market power are in the same in parts A and B of the table, the economic impacts are larger in part B as the baseline level of market power is higher in there.

Proposed § 201.208 would apply to all livestock, meat, and poultry industries, including hogs and pork, sheep and lamb, and poultry. Although AMS is only providing an example for cattle and beef markets, AMS would also expect benefits from a more competitive market in each of the livestock, meat, and poultry industries. Sizes of the changes would be different due to differences in size and structure of other livestock, meat, and poultry markets, but potentially much larger than the expected direct costs associated to § 201.308.

AMS is not able to make quantified estimates of indirect costs or benefits associated with proposed § 201.308. However, AMS is able to estimate direct costs associated with proposed § 201.308. AMS expects that packers, swine contractors, and live poultry dealers will incur direct administrative costs of reviewing and learning the proposed rule, assessing any impacts on their business operations, and then reviewing marketing and production contracts to ensure compliance with proposed § 201.308. Direct administrative costs are estimated below for (1) firm level costs to learn and review the proposed rule and assess any impacts on their business operations; and (2) in contract level costs to review production and marketing contracts to ensure compliance with the proposed rule. AMS expects that the firm level and contract level costs are one-time costs to be incurred the first year the rule would be effective and that these costs will not be recurring costs. These estimates do not include any costs or benefits associated with changes in practices resulting from either firm level or contract level reviews.

AMS expects that proposed § 201.308 will prompt packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors to incur one-time costs to first review and learn the rule and then assess any impacts on their business operations. Firm level costs are estimated as the total value of the time required to review and learn the proposed rule and to assess any impacts on their business operations.

AMS expects the direct administrative costs of complying with proposed § 201.308 will be relatively small. Proposed § 201.308 is consistent with long held USDA policy, although the position has not yet been established in regulations. Consequently, AMS expects packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors to make relatively few changes to their business operations and production and marketing contracts.

AMS estimated firm level administrative costs by identifying the regulated entity staff that will be involved in reviewing and learning the proposed rule, assessing any impacts on their business operations, estimating the respective time requirement for each regulated entity profession, and obtaining estimates of hourly costs for each profession. AMS expects most of the time at the firm level will come from meetings with company executives, their assistants, and legal staff to review the proposed rule and assess any impacts on their business operations. At the contract level, most firms maintain their production and marketing contracts in an electronic format and IT staff will be needed to provide access to all contracts in the contract review process. Managers, assistants, and legal staff will then review the contracts to ensure compliance with the proposed rule. Multiplying estimated hours required by estimated hourly costs will yield total costs by profession, which is then summed across professions to obtain total firm level administrative costs.

Firm level and contract level estimates of the amount of time required to review and learn the proposed rule, assess impacts on business operation, and to review contracts were provided by AMS subject matter experts. These experts were auditors and supervisors with many years of experience in AMS's PSD conducting investigations and compliance reviews of regulated entities. AMS used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Start Printed Page 53904 Employment and Wage Statistics, released in May 2022, for the time values in this analysis. [ 143 ] BLS estimated an average hourly wage for an administrative assistant salary in animal slaughtering and processing at $20.64 per hour. The average hourly wage for managers in animal slaughtering and processing is $61.24 per hour. The average hourly wage for IT system managers in animal slaughtering and processing is $66.07 per hour. The average hourly wage for lawyers in food manufacturing is $103.81 per hour. In applying the cost estimates, AMS marked-up the wages by 41.79 percent  [ 144 ] to account for fringe benefits.

For firm level costs, AMS expects that on average, each poultry dealer, beef packer, pork packer, and swine contractor will spend 20 hours of administrative assistant time, 40 hours of management time, 5 hours of IT systems manager time, and 40 hours of legal time to learn the proposed rule and assess any impacts on their business operations.

For firm level costs, AMS estimated the number of regulated entities impacted, that is, the number of live poultry dealers, livestock packers, and swine contractors, from information PSD receives in its required forms. Live poultry dealers are currently required to file form PSD 3002, “Annual Report of Live Poultry Dealers,” OMB control number 0581-0308, with AMS. Ninety live poultry dealers filed annual reports with AMS for their 2021 fiscal year. Livestock packers are currently required to file form PSD 3004, “Annual Report of Packers” OMB control number 0581-0308, with AMS. Among other things, each packer reports the number of head of cattle or calves, hogs, and lamb, sheep, or goats that it processed. Three hundred sixty-five packers that processed cattle or calves, hogs, or lamb, sheep or goats filed reports or were due to file a report with AMS for their fiscal year 2021. Two hundred sixty-one were beef or veal packers, 196 were pork packers, and 139 were lamb, sheep, or goat packers. [ 145 ] The number of beef, pork, and lamb packers do not sum to 365 because many firms slaughtered more than one species of livestock. For instance, 345 packers slaughtered both beef and pork.

AMS estimated that on average, live poultry dealers that are regulated under the proposed rule will require 20 hours of administrative time at $29.27 per hour costing the industry $53,000  [ 146 ] ; 40 hours of management time at $86.83 per hour costing the industry $313,000  [ 147 ] ; 5 hours of IT systems managers' time at $93.68 per hour costing the industry $42,000  [ 148 ] ; and 40 hours of an attorney's time at $147.19 per hour costing the industry $530,000  [ 149 ] for learning and reviewing the proposed rule and assessing any impacts on their business operations. The total cost for poultry dealers to learn and review the proposed rule is estimated to be $937,000. [ 150 ]

AMS utilized similar calculations to estimate the costs to packers and swine contractors, as shown in the table below. The estimated total costs will be $2.72 million  [ 151 ] for beef packers, $8.93 million  [ 152 ] for pork packers and swine contractors, and $1.45 million  [ 153 ] for lamb packers. The cost to pork packers is an expected $2.04 million and $6.88 million to swine contractors. Total firm level costs across all entities totals $13.13 million.

This section estimates the costs associated with reviewing production and marketing contracts to ensure compliance with proposed § 201.308, after learning and reviewing the proposed rule and assessing any business impacts. The total cost to review contracts is estimated by multiplying the number of contracts in each industry by the estimated hours for regulated entity professionals to review the contracts and by the hourly cost of each profession.

AMS estimated that there are 23,047 broiler grower agreements, 8,094 swine production agreements, [ 154 ] 1,960 hog marketing agreements, [ 155 ] and 1,116 feedlot agreements. [ 156 ] AMS does not estimate sheep production or marketing agreements because they are structured differently than contracts for other species and would not need to be reviewed under this proposed rule.

The time requirement by each regulated entity professional to review production and marketing contracts would be less than the time requirement in learning and reviewing the proposed rule assessing any business impacts. AMS estimates that it will take 0.5 hours each for administrative assistants, managers, IT system managers, and attorneys to review the production and marketing contracts in the respective livestock and poultry industries.

The table above shows that the contract level administrative costs of reviewing the contracts are $4.11 million for poultry dealers, [ 157 ] $199,000 for beef packers, [ 158 ] $350,000 for pork packers, [ 159 ] and $1.44 million for swine contractors. [ 160 ] Lamb contracts are structured differently from other species' contracts, are mainly fixed-price contracts, and are not expected to be reviewed under this proposed rule. The total administrative cost of reviewing contracts is $6.11 million. [ 161 ]

Total administrative industry costs are presented in the table above. The description of estimated firm level and contract level administrative costs were presented above. AMS expects that producers will not face any costs from the proposed rule. Firm level costs to learn the proposed rule and assess any impacts on business operations are estimated to be $14.03 million and the contract level costs to review production and marketing contracts are estimated to be $6.11 million, for a total estimated administrative cost of $20.14 million in the proposed rule. AMS expects that the firm level and contract level costs which comprise the total administrative industry costs are one-time costs to be incurred the first year the proposed rule would be effective and that these costs will not be recurring costs.

AMS believes that proposed § 201.308 may possibly reduce litigation due to the clarity provided by the proposed rule as to the unfair practices with respect to market participants and markets that violate the Act. However, the proposed rule possibly increases litigation to the extent that AMS or producers are better able to identify unfair practices and thus may be more likely to seek relief in courts. AMS is uncertain as to which of these offsetting effects will dominate and to what extent. Therefore, AMS does not estimate litigation costs in this analysis.

AMS is unable to quantify any costs or benefits that would arise from changing business practices due to proposed § 201.308. If AMS's enforcement of proposed § 201.308 has the effect of improving competitive conditions in the markets, then the changing market conditions would likely result in a reduction in welfare for packers and live poultry dealers and an increase for producers and consumers. These would be costs to packers and live poultry dealers, and would be offset by gains for consumers, growers, and producers.

Changing competitive conditions could have production efficiency effects, which may or may not be larger than market power effects, [ 162 ] e.g., decreasing market power could result in more smaller packers with higher production costs per unit. Hence, a full accounting of net benefits would involve analysis of demand and supply changes.

The alternative is the same as the preferred alternative, with the exception that the alternative would limit the scope of the proposed rule to § 201.308(a) and (b). Section 201.308(c) and (d) from the preferred alternative would not be part of the limited scope alternative.

Proposed § 201.308(a) protects market participants from the type of unjustified acts or practices that produce unavoidable injury that cannot be justified by countervailing benefits to producers or to competition. Proposed § 201.308(b) provides criteria under which likely injuries must be halted before actual injury occurs.

Proposed § 201.308(a) defines unfair practices as those that injure market participants, while § 201.308(c) defines unfair practices as those that result in harms to the market. Both sections of the preferred alternative define “unfair” from slightly different vantage points. Combining these provisions results in a more comprehensive definition of the term “unfair.”

While AMS believes the inclusion of both provisions fully define the meaning and applicability of the term “unfair” under the Act, AMS considered a regulatory alternative of severing § 201.308(a) and (b) from Start Printed Page 53906 § 201.308(c) and (d) and eliminating § 201.308(c) and (d) as a viable regulatory alternative. A rule of that kind meets many of the policy goals for this rulemaking. What this regulatory alternative does not do is to define unfair practices as those that result in harm to the market. Thus, this regulatory alternative provides is less comprehensive compared to the preferred alternative.

In terms of the costs of complying with the limited scope alternative, the costs are similar, but slightly smaller than the preferred alternative. AMS expects that regulated entities will still need to spend time understanding the limited scope alternative, its impacts on its business operations, and will still need to review all contracts to ensure compliance with the proposed rule. Given the amount of overlap in defining the term “unfair” in the preferred alternative, AMS expects that regulated entities will need to spend 90 percent of the time to review the limited scope alternative, assess the impact of its businesses, and review contracts for compliance with the alternative rule.

AMS expects that under the limited scope alternative live poultry dealers, packers and swine contractors expend 90 percent of the time in firm level administrative costs in learning and reviewing the alternative rule and assessing any impacts on their business operations, and 90 percent of the time in reviewing contracts. The time requirement for administrative assistants is expected to be 18 hours, 36 hours for managers, 4.5 hours for IT systems support and 36 hours for attorneys. The time requirement of reviewing production and marketing contracts is expected to be 0.45 hours for each profession. It is expected that the respective regulated entities reviewing the rule and assessing business impacts will be the same as in the preferred alternative, and their respective hourly compensation will remain the same as in the preferred alternative. The number of live poultry dealers, packers and swine contractors will also remain the same as in the preferred alternative.

The estimated firm level costs will be $0.84 million for poultry dealers, [ 163 ] $2.45 million for beef packers, [ 164 ] and $8.03 million for pork packers and swine contractors, [ 165 ] and $1.30 million for lamb packers. [ 166 ] The firm level cost for pork packers is $1.84 million and $6.20 million for swine contractors. Total firm level costs across all entities total $12.63 million. [ 167 ]

The contract level administrative costs are also presented in the table above. AMS estimated that it will cost poultry dealers $3.70 million, [ 168 ] $0.18 million for beef packers, [ 169 ] $1.62 million for pork packers and swine contractors, [ 170 ] and no cost to lamb packers. It is expected that lamb packers will not incur a contract level administrative cost because production and marketing contracts are structured differently, and it is not expected that the contracts will be reviewed. The contract level cost for pork packers is $315,000 and $1.30 million for swine contractors. The total contract level administrative cost is expected to be $5.50 million. [ 171 ]

As shown in the table above, the 10-year PV costs at three percent for the proposed limited scope alternative is expected to be $17.59 million. The total cost to the poultry industry is expected to be $4.55 million, $2.62 million for beef packers, $9.65 million for pork packers and swine contractors, and $1.3 million for the lamb packers. The 10-year PV costs at seven percent for the proposed limited scope alternative is expected to be $16.94 million.

The benefits of the limited scope alternative are similar to the benefits of the preferred alternative, since both alternatives provide a definition of “unfair” acts and practices and may lead to more competitive livestock, meat, and poultry markets. AMS prefers to propose the alternative of § 201.308(a) through (d) because it offers a more comprehensive guide to market participants than the limited scope alternative.

AMS proposes to establish § 201.308 to define how AMS evaluates unfair acts or practices and unfair methods of competition under section 202(a) the Start Printed Page 53907 P&S Act. The term “unfair” has caused confusion and contention in the industry and in courts, and this rulemaking is intended mitigate both.

Proposed § 201.308 is made of four parts. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed § 201.308 concern unfair acts or practices with respect to market participants. Paragraphs (c) and (d) concern unfair practices with respect to markets. Parts of both of these provisions relate to the likely harms the Act was designed to prevent; paragraph (b) helps define paragraph (a), and paragraph (d) helps define paragraph (c). No part, however, requires that proof of harm to competition to find a violation of the Act. This is consistent with USDA's interpretation and enforcement of the Act, but it is not consistent with all Federal court decisions.

Paragraph (a) of proposed § 201.308 defines an unfair act or practice as one that causes or will likely cause substantial injury to a market participant, which the market participant could not reasonably avoid and which the regulated entity that has engaged in the act cannot justify by establishing countervailing benefits to market participants or competition. Paragraph (b) includes factors the Secretary of Agriculture may consider when evaluating whether an unfair act or practice is likely to cause substantial injury. Factors include the extent to which an act or practice impedes or restricts the ability to participate in the market, the extent to which an act or practice subverts competitive market forces, the size any potential injury, and the extent to which the act or practice interferes with free decision making.

Paragraph (c) of proposed § 201.308 defines an unfair practice with respect to markets as a practice that is collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful, or exclusionary and that may negatively affect competitive conditions.

Addressing the exercise of market power is one purpose of proposed § 201.308, although it potentially addresses other issues concerning “unfairness” under the Act as well. Market power has been a problem in the meat packing industry since the invention of refrigerated rail cars enabled Chicago packers to process western livestock and ship the carcasses east at costs lower than eastern packers could achieve. From the 1880s to 1920, a series of investigations found the largest meat packers controlling prices through a variety of methods. Those findings were much of the reason that Congress passed the Act in 1921. [ 172 ]

Market power in livestock, meat, and poultry markets is a continuing problem that USDA has regulated through the Act since the 1920s. USDA has consistently established the rules and regulations necessary to maintain fair and competitive markets, including protecting producers from marketplace abuses and harms they could not avoid. One example is § 201.70, which requires packers to conduct their livestock buying operations independently and in competition with other packers. [ 173 ] Proposed § 201.308 is another step in the ongoing regulation of competition in the livestock, meat, and poultry markets. Proposed § 201.308 is designed to mitigate market power and the implications of market power especially on producers. It would also address fair trade practices in the marketplace generally. Unlike many of the regulations under the Act, proposed § 201.308 does not place any specific requirements on packers, live poultry dealers, or swine contractors.

Instead, it provides a framework for evaluating acts, practices, and methods of competition to determine if they are violations of the Act. Proposed § 201.308 would be a new regulation, and USDA has not articulated the factors in proposed § 201.308 as such in enforcing violations of the Act in the past. However, the preamble to the rulemaking explains that past enforcement actions under the Act have been consistent with the factors in proposed § 201.308.

While proposed § 201.308 is consistent with actions that USDA has taken in the past, it is less clear what different acts or practices may violate proposed § 201.308 that USDA would not have been considered violations without the proposed rule. USDA has asserted that a violation of the Federal antitrust laws may also violate the Packers and Stockyards Act, but that the Packers and Stockyards Act's prohibition on unfair practices incorporates trade practices beyond those covered by the Federal antitrust laws. AMS expects that proposed § 201.308 will improve its enforcement of the Act and make livestock, meat, and poultry markets fairer and more competitive. AMS estimated administrative costs of proposed § 201.308 in two parts, firm level and contract level. In firm level costs, AMS expects that each small packer, swine contractor, and live poultry dealer would need to review and learn the proposed rule and to assess any impacts on their business operations. In contract level costs, AMS expects that small entities would review production and marketing contracts to ensure compliance with the proposed rule.

The SBA defines small businesses by their North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS). [ 174 ] Live poultry dealers, NAICS 311615, are considered small businesses if they have fewer than 1,250 employees. Meat packers, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, and goat packers, NAICS 311611, are small businesses if they have fewer than 1,000 employees. Swine contractors, NAICS 112210, are considered small if their sales are less than $1 million annually.

AMS maintains data on live poultry dealers from the annual reports these firms file with AMS. Currently, 90 live poultry dealers would be subject to the regulation. Fifty-five of the live poultry dealers will be small businesses according to the SBA standard.

Most packers will be small businesses, although large packers are responsible for most meat production. According to the SBA standard, there are 255 small beef packers, 185 small pork packers, and 139 small lamb packers. All lamb packers are considered small.

AMS does not have similar records for swine contractors because they are not required to register with AMS or provide annual reports. Table 24 of the 2022 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census of Agriculture  [ 175 ] indicated that there were Start Printed Page 53908 661 swine contractors in 2022. The Census of Agriculture table has categories for the number of head that swine contractors sold, but not the value of the head sold. AMS expects that the 461 swine contractors that sold 5,000 head of hogs or more were large businesses, and the 194 contractors that sold less than 5,000 head were small businesses.

As shown in the table below, the firm level cost for small poultry dealers is $573,000, [ 176 ] $2.66 million for small beef packers, [ 177 ] $1.93 million for small pork packers, [ 178 ] $1.12 million for small swine contractors, [ 179 ] and $1.45 million for small lamb packers. The total firm level cost for small firms from the proposed rule is $7.73 million. [ 180 ]

AMS estimated the small business contract level costs by estimating small businesses' share (the market share) of all businesses contract level costs. The percent of poultry growing arrangements held by small businesses is 3.2 percent, the percent of production contracts held by small swine contractors is 8.9 percent, the portion of hog marketing agreements with small firms is 11.3 percent, and the percent of cattle feedlot agreements with small businesses is 17.4 percent. Contract level administrative costs are not estimated for lamb packers because these contracts are structured differently than for other species, and lamb packers are not expected to revise contracts under the proposed rule.

Contract level costs for small poultry dealers are $131,000, [ 181 ] $35,000 for small beef packers, [ 182 ] $40,000 for small pork packers, [ 183 ] and $127,000 for small swine contractors. [ 184 ] The total contract level costs for small firms from the proposed rule are $334,000. [ 185 ]

The following table compares the average per entity first-year costs of proposed § 201.308 to the average revenue per establishment for all regulated small businesses. First-year costs are appropriate for a threshold analysis because all expected costs occur in the first year.

Average first-year costs as a percent of revenues are small, ranging from 0.01 percent for beef packers to 2.66 percent for swine contractors. Costs are highest for swine contractors because average revenues for swine contractors are considerably smaller than average revenues for packers and live poultry dealers.

AMS considered an alternative to proposed § 201.308. The alternative would be the same as the preferred alternative, with the exception that the alternative would limit the scope of the rule to § 201.308(a) and (b). Section 201.308(c) and (d) from the proposed rule would not be part of the alternative. AMS expects that the direct costs associated with this limited scope alternative will be similar to the costs associated with the currently proposed Start Printed Page 53909 § 201.308. AMS also expects that regulated packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors would need to review their business practices and their marketing and production contracts with livestock producers as well as their production contracts with live poultry dealers. They might be able to spend a little less time on this review because there would only be about half as much new regulation to learn and comprehend.

AMS still expects that regulated packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors would need still need to spend about 90 percent of the time to review the alternative as they needed to review the proposed regulation. All of the direct administrative costs were due to the time required for regulation packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors to review the regulation. As a consequence, AMS's estimate of the administrative costs for the alternative are 90 percent of the costs for proposed rule. The table below is as summary of expected direct cost associated with this limited scope alternative.

Direct costs associated with the limited scope alternative are not much different than the direct costs associated with proposed § 201.308. Similarly, to the proposed rule, all costs occur in the first year. Also like the proposed rule, costs are not likely significant for packers or live poultry dealers. However, for swine contractors, costs are expected to be more than 2 percent of net sales for the first year the alternative would be effective. For each of the remaining years, cost to swine contractors would not likely be significant.

AMS prefers to propose the alternative of § 201.308(a) through (d) because it offers more comprehensive protection to livestock producers and contract growers than the limited scope alternative. Direct costs to regulated entities would likely be smaller with the limited scope alternative, but they would not be much smaller.

AMS was not able to quantify indirect costs or benefits associated with proposed § 201.308 or with the limited scope alternative. To the extent that either alternative would improve the competitive environment in livestock, meat, or poultry markets, the regulation would likely result in reduced welfare to meat packers, and live poultry dealers and increased welfare to livestock producers and contract growers. Even small improvements in the market could cause benefits that are much larger than the direct costs estimated for either proposed § 201.308 or the limited scope alternative.

The proposed rule may have the effect of reducing deadweight losses. To the extent that packers, live poultry dealers, or swine contractors transfer surpluses to growers and producers due to improved competition caused by proposed § 201.308 or the alternative, AMS will consider the regulation a success.

Small businesses are typically not associated with market power or practices that restrict competition, but in small markets the largest firms can be small businesses. In the lamb industry, for example, the largest packer is a small business.

AMS expects that the direct costs associated with proposed § 201.308 would be significant for a substantial number of swine contractors. AMS was not able to quantify costs associated with changes to the level of competition in the regulated markets, but changes could result in significant costs to substantial numbers of packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors. However, these costs, which are actually transfers in surplus, are the intended purpose of the regulation. AMS acknowledges that individual businesses may have relevant data to supplement our analysis. AMS encourages small stakeholders to submit any relevant comments and data during the comment period.

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult with Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications. This includes regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions. Consultation is required when such policies have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The following is a summary of activity to date.

AMS engaged in a Tribal Consultation in conjunction with a previous proposed rule also under the Act (“Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity Under the Packers and Stockyards Act,” 87 FR 60010 ) on January 19, 2023, in person in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and virtually. AMS received multiple Tribal comments from that Consultation, many of which were specific to and considered in that rulemaking. In that consultation, Tribes raised legal concerns with respect to the jurisdiction of the AMS enforcement of the P&S Act. Tribes commented that the P&S Act does not apply to Tribes and Tribal entities. Those comments raise a legal issue of statutory interpretation, but these concerns are not directly implicated by this proposed rule. Additionally, the proposed rule would provide a framework for AMS analysis of unfair practices and does not mandate specific changes to particularly identified practices. Therefore, other than the legal issue AMS does not find that this rulemaking carries substantial direct Tribal implications.

AMS recognizes and supports the Secretary's desire to incorporate Tribal Start Printed Page 53910 and Indigenous perspectives, remove barriers, and encourage Tribal self-determination principles in USDA programs, including hearing and understanding Tribal views on legal authorities and cost implications as facts and circumstances develop. If a Tribe requests additional consultation, AMS will work with USDA's Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided in accordance with Executive Order 13175 .

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988 —Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect. If adopted, this proposed rule would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rulemaking. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rulemaking.

AMS has considered the potential civil rights implications of this proposed rule on members of protected groups to ensure that no person or group would be adversely or disproportionately at risk or discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital or family status, or protected genetic information. This proposed rule does not contain any requirements related to eligibility, benefits, or services that would have the purpose or effect of excluding, limiting, or otherwise disadvantaging any individual, group, or class of persons on one or more prohibited bases.

In its review, AMS conducted a Civil Rights Impact Analysis, which resulted in a finding that Asian, and Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders could be disproportionately impacted by this proposed rule, insofar as fewer farmers in those groups participate in livestock and poultry production than would be expected by their representation among U.S. farmers in general and, therefore, are less likely to benefit from the enhanced protections provided by this proposed rule. Other impacted farmers, including men, women, Hispanics, Whites, Black/African Americans, and American Indians would not be disproportionately impacted by this proposed rule.

The effects of this proposed regulation would fall on slaughtering packers, swine contractors and live poultry dealers. The primary beneficiaries of proposed § 201.308 would include farmers, feedlot owners, swine production contract growers, and poultry growers. These producers and growers are those most likely harmed by unfair and deceptive practices resulting from the actions or conduct of firms subject to the P&S Act.

Protected groups would see minimal, if any, direct or indirect costs because of the implementation or enforcement of the new regulation. Although the required analysis indicates a disproportionate impact for Asian, and Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, because the new regulation would impact all industry participants equally, no individual or group would likely be adversely impacted.

USDA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act by promoting 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.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4 ) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rulemaking. This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

• Confidential business information
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Surety bonds
• Trade practices

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS proposes to amend 9 CFR part 201 as follows:

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

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

2. Add § 201.308 to read as follows:

(a) Unfair practices with respect to market participants. An act by a regulated entity with respect to one or more market participants is an unfair practice for the purposes of section 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 as amended and supplemented ( 7 U.S.C. 192(a) ) if the act causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to one or more market participants, which the participant or participants cannot reasonably avoid, and which the regulated entity that has engaged in the act cannot justify by establishing countervailing benefits to the market participant or participants or to competition in the market that outweighs the substantial injury or likelihood of substantial injury.

(b) Standards with respect to market participants. When assessing whether a practice under paragraph (a) of this section causes or is likely to cause substantial injury, and therefore the Secretary must halt the practice, the Secretary may consider:

(1) The extent to which the practice may impede or restrict the ability to participate in a market, interfere with the free exercise of decision-making by market participants, tend to subvert the operation of competitive market forces, deny a covered producer the full value of their products or services, or violates traditional doctrines of law or equity.

(2) The potential magnitude of the injury. An injury may be substantial if it causes significant harm to one market participant or if it imposes a small harm to many market participants.

(3) The extent to which the producer would have to take unreasonable steps to avoid injury. An injury is not reasonably avoidable solely because the practice has been disclosed. A market participant is not required to take unreasonable steps, such as exiting the market or making unreasonable additional investments or efforts, to avoid the harm.

(c) Unfair practices with respect to markets. A practice is unfair for the purposes of section 202(a) of the Packers Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented ( 7 U.S.C. 192(a) ) if it is a collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful or exclusionary method of competition that may negatively affect competitive conditions. Start Printed Page 53911

(d) Standards with respect to markets. When assessing whether a practice poses or is likely to pose a threat to markets under paragraph (c) of this section, and therefore the Secretary must halt the practice, the Secretary may consider the following:

(1) The extent to which the practice impedes or restricts the ability to participate in a market, tends to subvert the operation of competitive market forces, interferes with the free exercise of decision-making by market participants, violates traditional doctrines of law or equity, or has indicia of oppressiveness, such as evidence of anticompetitive intent or purpose, or absence of an independent legitimate business reason for the conduct.

(2) The extent to which the practice tends to foreclose or impair the opportunities of market participants, reduces competition between rivals, limits choice, distorts or impedes the process of competition, or denies a market participant the full value of their products or services.

Melissa Bailey,

Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.

1.  The position of Judicial Officer was established pursuant to the Act of April 4, 1940 ( 7 U.S.C. 450c-450g ); Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, 18 FR 3219 (1953), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. at 1490 (1994); and sec. 212(a)(1) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 ( 7 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1) ).

2.   See, e.g., City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 668 F.3d 229, 240 (5th Cir. 2012), aff'd, 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (“It is well-established that agencies can choose to announce new rules through adjudication rather than rulemaking.” ( citing NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 294 (1974))); Mobil Exploration & Producing N. Am., Inc. v. FERC, 881 F.2d 193, 198 (5th Cir.1989); see also Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 207 (1947) (“The scope of our review of an administrative order wherein a new principle is announced and applied is no different from that which pertains to ordinary administrative action.”).

3.   In re: IBP, Inc., 57 Agric. Dec. 1353 (U.S.D.A. July 31, 1998).

4.   Hays Livestock Comm'n Co. v. Maly Livestock Comm'n Co., 498 F.2d 925, 927 (10th Cir. 1974).

5.   7 U.S.C. 192(a) .

6.  See section 407 ( 7 U.S.C. 228(a) ): “The Secretary may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. . .”. Congress understood it was giving the Secretary “the power to prevent packers, stockyards, companies, and all persons in the stockyards from engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practices or devices.” Report of the House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. Rep. No. 77 67th Congress, 1st session at pg. 2 (May 18, 1921). When amending the statute in 1987, this authority with respect to live poultry dealers was explained: “the Packers and Stockyards Administration will retain jurisdiction as the act currently provides. These transactions include things like weighing practices and contract compliance.” 133 Cong. Rec. H9000-02, 133 Cong. Rec. H9000-02, H9002, 1987 WL 850252.

7.  H.R. Rep. no. 67-77 at 2 (1921).

8.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 3, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ . (The report provides the following acknowledgement: “A U.S. Department of Agriculture-Washington Center for Equitable Growth cooperative agreement supported the research and writing of this report. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author and should not be construed to represent any official U.S. Department of Agriculture or U.S. government determination or policy.”).

9.   75 FR 35338 , 35340 (June 22, 2010).

10.  Scope of section 202(a) and (b) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 82 FR 48594 , 48597 (Oct. 18, 2017).

11.   82 FR 48594 , 48596 (Oct. 18, 2017) (“The purpose of the IFR was to clarify that conduct or actions may violate 7 U.S.C. 192(a) and (b) without adversely affecting, or having a likelihood of adversely affecting, competition. This reiterated USDA's longstanding interpretation that not all violations of the P&S Act require a showing of harm or likely harm to competition. Contrary to comments that GIPSA failed to show that USDA's interpretation was longstanding, USDA has adhered to this interpretation of the P&S Act for decades. DOJ has filed amicus briefs with several Federal appellate courts arguing against the need to show the likelihood of competitive harm for all violations of 7 U.S.C. 192(a) and (b) .” (footnotes omitted)).

12.   See id. at 92568.

13.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 3, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ . quoting, inter alia, Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

14.  When the P&S Act was enacted, Webster's New International Dictionary defined “unfair” as “[n]ot fair in act or character; disingenuous; using or involving trick or artifice; dishonest; unjust; inequitable” (2d. definition); “unjust” as “[c]haracterized by injustice; contrary to justice and right; wrongful”; “undue” as “[n]ot right; not lawful or legal; violating legal or equitable rights; improper” (2d. definition); and “unreasonable” as “[n]ot conformable to reason; irrational” or “immoderate; exorbitant.” Webster's New International Dictionary 578, 2237, 2238, 2245, 2248 (1st ed. 1917). This is the same understanding of the terms today.

15.  See sections 409, 410.

16.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 3, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ , quoting, inter alia, Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

17.  More specifically, subsection (c) reaches certain sales that apportion supply “if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly.” Subsection (d) reaches sales and other transfers wherein parties “receive from or for any other person, any article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce. Subsection (e) reaches a course of business or any act with “the purpose or with the effect of manipulating. or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce.”

18.   Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913, 919 (2015), citing Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983): “Congress generally acts intentionally when it uses particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another.”

19.   See, e.g., secs. 409 and 410 of the P&S Act.

20.   Capitol Packing Company v. United States, 350 F.2d 67, 76 (10th Cir. 1965); see also Spencer Livestock Comm'n Co. v. USDA, 1988.

21.   Spencer Livestock Comm'n Co. v. USDA, 841 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir. 1988): section 312 covers “a deceptive practice, whether or not it harmed consumers or competitors.”

22.  In particular see the FTC Act ( 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. ), Sherman Antitrust Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq. ), and the Clayton Antitrust Act ( 15 U.S.C. 12 et seq. ).

23.   See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 9 (Nov. 10, 2022) (discussing competitive injuries cognizable under section 5 of the FTC Act that are not cognizable under the Sherman or Clayton Act); Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1241 (10th Cir. 2007) (Hartz, J. concurring) (“[I]t would be somewhat surprising if `unfair practices' under the PSA had a narrower meaning than `unfair methods of competition' in the FTCA.”).

24.   See, e.g., Bowman v. United States Dep't of Agric., 363 F.2d 81, 85 (5th Cir. 1966) (finding the Department's insolvency standard was not an abuse of discretion because it helps to prevent the unfair practice of late payment).

25.   United States v. Henning, 344 U.S. 66, 72 (1952).

26.  10 N. Harl, Agricultural Law sec. 71.4. (1987), 71-4.

27.  61 Cong. Rec. 2614.

28.   Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905).

29.   Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495 (1922).

30.  The highly concentrated meatpacking industry of the early 20th century was controlled by the industry's “Big Five” operators of Armour, Cudahy, Morris, Swift, and Wilson.

31.  “Annual Report for 1918,” FTC, p. 23, https://www.ftc.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​reports_​annual/​annual-report-1918/​ar1918_​0.pdf .

32.   Id.

33.  Stafford at 501-502.

34.   United States v. Swift & Co., Equity No. 37623 (Sup. Ct. of D.C. 1920); United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106 (1932).

35.  Id. at 399; see, generally, Michael C. Stumo & Douglas J. O'Brien, “Antitrust Unfairness vs. Equitable Unfairness in Farmer/meat Packer Relationships,” 8 Drake J. Agric. L. 91 (2003).

36.  See 10 N. Harl, Agricultural Law sec. 71.2. (1987).

37.  House Report No. 67-77, at 2 (1921).

38.  House Report No. 67-324, at 3 (1921).

39.  61 Cong. Rec. 1806. When the P&S Act was passed, the FTC was authorized to prohibit only unfair methods of competition. Congress later gave the FTC additional authority to police unfair and deceptive acts or practices. See infra notes 53-57.

40.  Public Law 74-272, 49 Stat. 648, 648 (1935).

41.  H.R. Rep. No. 85-1048 (1957), reprinted in 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5212, 5213 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., id. at 5213 (further observing that protection extends to “unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory” practices by “small” companies in addition to “monopolistic practices.”).

42.  See, e.g., Stafford, 258 U.S. at 513-14; Spencer Livestock, 841 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 680 F.2d 277, 280 (2d Cir. 1982); Bruhn's Freezer Meats of Chi., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 438 F.2d 1332, 1336-37 (8th Cir. 1971); Bowman v. USDA, 363 F.2d 81, 85 (5th Cir. 1966); United States v. Donahue Bros., 59 F.2d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 1932).

43.  See, e.g., In re: Central California Livestock, Inc. d/b/a Machlin Meat Packing Company, 15 Agric. Dec. 97, 110 (1956).

44.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

45.   American Airlines, Inc. v. North American Airlines, Inc., 351 U.S. 79, 85 (1956); Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., 344 U.S. 392, 394-95 (1953); Fed. Trade Comm'n v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc., 291 U.S. 304, 310 (1934).

46.   FTC v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 649 (1931). The Supreme Court later relaxed this holding. FTC v. Raladam Co., 316 U.S. 149 (1942). See Luke Herrine, “The Folklore of Unfairness,” 96 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 431, 465-66, 470-71 (2021).

47.  The Wheeler-Lea Act, ch. 49 sec. 2, 52 Stat. 111 (1938); Stephanie W. Kanwit, 1 Fed. Trade Comm'n. sec. 3:5 (2023-2024).

48.  Charles Wesley Dunn, Wheeler-Lea Act: A Statement of its Legislative Record 411, 418 (1938) (testimony of Ewin Davis, Chair, FTC). The FTC did, however, propose an expansion of its authority to include “unfair acts in commerce” in 1919, before the P&S Act was proposed. High Cost of Living as Affected by Trust and Monopolies, Hearings Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 66th Cong., 1st Sess. 25-26 (1919).

49.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

50.   Bruhn's Freezer Meats of Chicago, Inc. v. USDA, 438 F.2d 1332, 1339 (8th Cir. 1971), citing H.R. Rep. No. 67-324 (1921); H.R. Rep. No. 67-77 (1921).

51.  61 Cong. Rec. 1801 (1921), statement of Rep. Haugen; see also Wilson & Co. v. Benson, 286 F.2d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 1961): “The legislative history shows Congress understood the sections of the [Act] under consideration were broader in scope than the antecedent legislation,'” citing 61 Cong. Rec. 1805 (1921).

52.   See Spencer Livestock Comm'n Co. v. USDA, 841 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir. 1988); Armour & Co. v. United States, 402 F.2d 712 (7th Cir. 1968).

53.  Live Poultry Dealers were added to the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1935 by 49 Stat. 648 (August 14, 1935), and most recently modified in 1987 by 101 Stat. 917, Public Law 100-173 (November 23, 1987). Swine Contractors were added by amendment in 2002, 116 Stat. 134, Public Law 107-171 (May 13, 2002).

54.  The imbalance of market power and size between producers, growers, and concentrated processors is discussed in MacDonald, J. M., Dong, X., & Fuglie, K. (2023). Concentration and competition in U.S. agribusiness (Report No. EIB-256). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://doi.org/​10.32747/​2023.8054022.ers .

55.  Industry concentration is discussed in more detail below in the Regulatory Impact Analysis section; additional four-firm concentration data is provided in table 1 of that section.

56.  USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “2022 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data,” issued February 2024, tables 38, 24, and 71.

57.   Spencer Livestock Comm'n Co. v. USDA , 841 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir. 1988), citing H.R. Rep. No. 1048, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1958 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5212, 5213.

58.   7 U.S.C. 192 .

59.   See Michael C. Stumo & Douglas J. O'Brien, “Antitrust Unfairness vs. Equitable Unfairness in Farmer/meat Packer Relationships,” 8 Drake J. Agric. L. 91 (2003); see, also Swift & Co. v. United States , 308 F.2d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1962) (noting that the petitioner claimed that the P&S Act would be violated if its practice was “contrary to good morals because characterized by deception, fraud, had faith or oppression[.]”). See also interpretations of unfair practices in various Federal and State contexts, such as the recent guidance by the U.S. Department of Transportation 85 FR 78707 (2020). Other commentary concurs. See Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth , May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ ; Peter C. Carstensen, “The Packers and Stockyards Act: A History of Failure to Date,” The CPI Antitrust Journal (2) (2010), available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/​assets/​Uploads/​CarstensenAPR-2.pdf ; Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

60.   See, e.g., In re Pilgrim's Pride, 728 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2013): “violations of the PSA are not strictly limited to the traditional antitrust realms of price-fixing conspiracies and monopolization”; Swift & Co. v. US , 393 F.3d 247, 253 (7th Cir. 1968): section 202's prohibitions “are broader and more far-reaching than the Sherman Act or even section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act”; Swift & Co. v. US , 308 F.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1962): section 202 is “broader in scope than antecedent legislation such as [the Sherman Act, section 2 of the Clayton Act, section 5 of the FTC Act, and section 3 of the Interstate Commerce Act]”.

61.  See, e.g., Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022; https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ ; Peter C. Carstensen, “The Packers and Stockyards Act: A History of Failure to Date,” The CPI Antitrust Journal (2) (2010), available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/​assets/​Uploads/​CarstensenAPR-2.pdf ; see also Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

62.  Peter C. Carstensen, “The Packers & Stockyards Act: A History of Failure to Date,” The CPI Antitrust Journal (April 2010), available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/​assets/​Uploads/​CarstensenAPR-2.pdf ; see also, generally, Leonard, Christopher, “The Meat Racket ” (2014); see also, e.g., C. Robert Taylor, “Legal and Economic Issues with the Courts' Rulings in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., a Buyer Power Case,” American Antitrust Institute Working Paper No. 07-08, Feb. 2007, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/​sol3/​papers.cfm?​abstract_​id=​1103635 (last accessed April 2024). See, e.g., IBP, Inc. v. Glickman , 187 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 1999).

63.  Sec. 308, 7 U.S.C. 209 ; Sept. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 1250, Public Law 94-410; Nov. 23, 1987, 101 Stat. 918, Public Law 100-173.

64.  See, generally, John Shively, “Competition Under the Packers and Stockyards Act: What Now?” 15 Drake J. Agric. L. 419 (Fall 2010).

65.   Wheeler v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 591 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2009) ( en banc ); Been v. O.K. Industries, Inc., 495 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2007); London v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 410 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2005); Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 420 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2005).

66.  Even some decisions that have required competitive injury define it more broadly than what might be required to establish antitrust injury. See e.g., Wheeler, 591 F.3d at 370 n.5 (Jones, J., concurring) (regulation needed “to curb practices that resulted in producers receiving far below the reasonable value of their live poultry”); id. at 370 (“the PSA was intended to prevent the abuse of monopoly”); Been, 495 F.3d at 1234 (manipulation of prices constitutes competitive injury).

67.   London v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 410 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2005).

68.   Armour & Co. v. United States, 402 F.2d 712 (7th Cir. 1968).

69.   E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Fed. Trade Comm'n (Ethyl) , 729 F.2d 128, 136-37 (2d Cir. 1984).

70.   Been v. O.K. Industries, Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007). Also, there seems to be no consideration of the fact that price manipulation is an express violation of section 202(d) and 202(e) of the P&S Act.

71.  760 F.2d 211, 214 (8th Cir. 1985).

72.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

73.  See, e.g., M & M Poultry v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., No. 2:15-CV-32, 2015 WL 13841400, at *8 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 26, 2015); Triple R Ranch, LLC v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 456 F. Supp. 3d 775, 778 (N.D.W. Va. 2019); Hedrick v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc., 466 F. Supp. 1025, 1031 (E.D. Pa. 1978).

74.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022; https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

75.  See, e.g., Farm Action et al., “Letter to Bruce Summers,” April 5, 2022, available at https://farmaction.us/​wp-content/​uploads/​2022/​04/​Letter-re-Unfair-Practices-in-Violation-of-the-Packers-and-Stockyards-Act.pdf and https://farmaction.us/​2022/​04/​07/​dear-usda-issue-the-packers-and-stockyards-rules-now/​ (last accessed April 2024); Sarah Carden, “The Fall of Antitrust, the Rise of Corporate Power: Impacts of Market Concentration on Farmers and Ranchers,” Farm Action, March 2022, available at https://farmaction.us/​wp-content/​uploads/​2022/​04/​P-S-Act-Report-for-ABA-Farm-Action.pdf ; Hon. Keith Ellison, et al., “Letter to Hon. Tom Vilsack,” December 21, 2021, on file at USDA, referenced in Hon. Thomas Vilsack, “Letter to State Attorneys General Ellison, Hill, and Colleagues,” Sept. 26, 2022, available at https://www.usda.gov/​media/​press-releases/​2023/​07/​19/​usda-launches-historic-partnership-bipartisan-state-attorneys and https://www.usda.gov/​media/​press-releases/​2023/​07/​19/​usda-launches-historic-partnership-bipartisan-state-attorneys (last accessed April 2024); Claire Kelloway and Sarah Miller, “Food and Power: Addressing Monopolization in America's Food System,” Open Markets Institute, Sept. 21, 2021 updated version, at 12, available at https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/​publications/​food-power-addressing-monopolization-americas-food-system (last accessed April 2024); see also John Shively, “Competition Under the Packers and Stockyards Act: What Now?” 15 Drake J. Agric. L. 419 (Fall 2010); C. Robert Taylor, “Legal and Economic Issues with the Courts' Rulings in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., a Buyer Power Case,” American Antitrust Institute Working Paper No. 07-08, Feb. 2007, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/​sol3/​papers.cfm?​abstract_​id=​1103635 (last accessed April 2024); United States Department of Justice, United States Department of Agriculture, (May 2010), Public Workshops Exploring Competition in Agriculture, https://www.justice.gov/​archives/​atr/​events/​public-workshops-agriculture-and-antitrust-enforcement-issues-our-21st-century-economy-10 (“As a state regulator, when I enforce my state's unfair or deceptive practices act on behalf of consumers, I don't have to demonstrate that that deceptive act injured every consumer in the state. I only have to demonstrate that one consumer. I think what we do owe our—we owe our producers at least as much as we owe the individual consumers of our respective states and a fair reading of 202(a) shouldn't require the rancher to demonstrate harm to everyone.” “The only way to protect the cash market is to halt the growth of captive supplies and possibly even roll back practice. As it should be, the language of Section 2(a) and (b) of the Packers & Stockyards Act does not require the finding of harm to the industry. . . How is it that if I strong-arm someone out in the hall I could be put in jail, but if a—but to receive just and due compensation for my hard work and efforts, I have to prove that there is an injury to the industry and not just to myself? That's a pretty ridiculous test to overcome.” “Now, I understand the Packers and Stockers Act is being undermined by this proof to harm to competition. When they're cheating all of these farmers out here, they're getting a monetary advantage in the market. . . And that's the excuse that the Federal judges say that we—you know, that we can't have this law enforced”).

76.  See, e.g., North American Meat Institute Issue Statement on President Biden's Executive Order & USDA's Proposed Changes to Packers & Stockyards Rules, July 9, 2021, available at https://www.meatinstitute.org/​press/​north-american-meat-institute-issues-statement-president-bidens-executive-order-usdas (last accessed April 2024).

77.   Executive Order No. 14036 “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” July 2021, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/​briefing-room/​presidential-actions/​2021/​07/​09/​executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/​ .

78.  Although using different terms, this understanding is consistent with the consensus academic literature. See, e.g., Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ ; Peter C. Carstensen, “The Packers and Stockyards Act: A History of Failure to Date,” The CPI Antitrust Journal (2) (2010), available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/​assets/​Uploads/​CarstensenAPR-2.pdf ; Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

79.   Kansas City Live Stock Exchange v. Armour and Company and Fowler Packing Company , Docket No. 1 (August 30, 1922).

80.   Trunz Pork Stores v. Wallace , 70 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1934).

81.   De Jong Packing Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 618 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir. 1980): agreeing that failing to pay for condemned cattle within one business day following sale was an “unfair practice”. The violations in this case occurred in 1972 and 1974. Id. at 1333.

82.   See Wilson & Co. v. Benson , 286 F.2d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 1961).

83.   15 U.S.C. 45(n) .

84.  See Michael Kades, then of Washington Center for Equitable Growth, reaching a similar conclusion in “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 3, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ ; see also, Peter C. Carstensen, “The Packers and Stockyards Act: A History of Failure to Date,” The CPI Antitrust Journal (2) (2010), available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/​assets/​Uploads/​CarstensenAPR-2.pdf ; see also Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

85.  In Re: Rotches Pork Packers, Inc. & David A. Rotches., 46 Agric. Dec. 573, 579 (1987).

86.   In Re: Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc., No. P & S Docket No. D-10-0109, 2010 WL 7088565, at *6 (U.S.D.A. July 20, 2010), aff'd Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 475 F. App'x 438, 444 (3d Cir. 2012).

87.  Courts that examine the history of the P&S Act often overlook that failure to pay in full was an “unfair practice” under the Act for many decades before Congress clarified that delay of a single payment for livestock was an unfair “practice” under the P&S Act in 1976. For example, in In re: Eastern Meats, Inc., 21 Agric. Dec. 134, 141, (1962), the Judicial Officer found “without a doubt” failing to timely pay the full amount agreed for a single shipment of meat was “an unfair and deceptive practice and device” and cited administrative cases. And, in In Re: Mid-W. Veal Distributors, d/b/a Nagle Packing Co., & Milton Nagle, 43 Agric. Dec. 1124, 1138 (U.S.D.A. July 13, 1984) USDA's Judicial Officer noted it had been held consistently in cases arising under both title II and title III of the P&S Act that failure to pay, when due, for livestock constitutes a violation of sections 202(a) and 312(a) of the P&S Act., citing In re Rosenthal, 36 Agric. Dec. 210 (1976); In re San Jose Valley Veal, Inc., 34 Agric. Dec. 966 (1975); In re Sebastopal Meat Company, Inc., 28 Agric. Dec. 435, (1969), aff'd, 440 F.2d 983 (9th Cir. 1971); In re Nolan E. Poovey, Jr., 27 Agric. Dec. 1512 (1968); In re Joe Doctorman & Son, Inc., 28 Agric. Dec. 840 (1969); In re S.M. Jamison, 28 Agric. Dec. 581 (1969); In re Neil Harlan, 25 Agric. Dec. 5 (1966); In re Royce Lehman Moore, 26 Agric. Dec. 230 (1967); In re Augustin Brothers Co, 27 Agric. Dec. 350 (1968); In re R.J. & C.W. Fletcher, Inc., 23 Agric. Dec. 1400 (1964); In re Rosenthal Packing Co., 19 Agric. Dec. 971 (1960); In re Harry Thomas, 35 Agric. Dec. 490 (1976).

88.  In re: Central California Livestock, Inc. d/b/a Machlin Meat Packing Company, 15 Agric. Dec. 97, 110 (1956).

89.  Id.

90.   Secretary of Agriculture v. Scala Packing Company, Inc., Bureau of Animal Industry Docket No. 581 (January 7, 1937).

91.  Purchase of Livestock by Packers on a Carcass Grade, Carcass Weight, or Carcass Grade and Weight Basis, 33 FR 2760 , 2761 (Feb. 9, 1968).

92.   E.g. In Re: Excel Corp., No. P. & S. Docket No. 99-0010, 2003 WL 205562, at *31 (U.S.D.A. Jan. 30, 2003) (finding that producers were likely injured by Respondent's failure to notify hog producers of its undetectable change in lean formula, and regardless, the practice impeded competition); In Re: Stull Meats, Inc., 49 Agric. Dec. 309, 329 (U.S.D.A. Feb. 15, 1990) (finding in a commercial bribery case that “the type of violations alleged and proven in this case are not only unfair to the firm being overcharged for its purchases . . . but also to the competitors . . . who are not in a position to gain entry . . . unless they are willing to make the same illegal inducements to its agent”); c.f. In Re: Cedar Vale Sale Barn, Inc., Doyle Hawkins & Jerry Mullins., 52 Agric. Dec. 546, 554 (1993) (check kiting poses a great risk to the sellers of livestock); In Re: Great Am. Veal, Inc. A Corp., & Thomas Burke, an Individual, 48 Agric. Dec. 183, 198 (U.S.D.A. Jan. 19, 1989) (holding that dissipating the statutory trust “enacted to protect livestock sellers” was unfair).

93.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 4, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

94.  See, e.g., “How to Start a Farm: Beginning Farmers and Ranchers,” available at https://www.farmers.gov/​your-business/​beginning-farmers (last accessed April 2024); Congressional Research Service, “Farm Bill Primer: Beginning and Underserved Producers,” May 2022, available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/​product/​pdf/​IF/​IF12096/​2 .

95.  The Judicial Officer also considered the specific right of first refusal a practice that was likely to harm competition in violation of section 202 of the P&S Act. While the 8th Circuit agreed with the legal statements of the Judicial Officer—specifically that the Act prevents likely harm to competition—the court disagreed with the factual conclusions and reversed. IBP, Inc. v. Glickman, 187 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 1999).

96.   Swift & Co. v. Wallace, 105 F.2d 848, 856 (7th Cir. 1939).

97.   See Armour & Co. v. United States, 402 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1968).

98.   See In re: Arizona Livestock Auction, Inc., 55 Agric. Dec. 1121 (U.S.D.A. Nov. 21, 1996) (finding that the purpose of title III of the Act was “to protect the producer or seller from monetary loss”).

99.   Bowman v. United States Dep't of Agric., 363 F.2d 81, 85 (5th Cir. 1966) (finding the Department's insolvency standard was not an abuse of discretion).

100.  Id.

101.   See In Re: Corn State Meat Co., Inc.; Terrance P. (Terry) Prince, Jr. & James L. Wiggs., 45 Agric. Dec. 995, 1023 (U.S.D.A. May 8, 1986); c.f. In Re: Danny Cobb & Crockett Livestock Sales Co., Inc., 48 Agric. Dec. 234, 234 (U.S.D.A. Feb. 13, 1989) (finding bonds protect against incipient violations); In Re: Paul Rodman & David Rodman, 47 Agric. Dec. 885, 903-04 (U.S.D.A. May 27, 1988) (finding there is a duty to prevent all unlawful acts under the P&S Act, including the potential losses from failing to maintain a custodial account).

102.  For an example of how under-capitalization can force producers to finance the operation of a livestock buyer, see Van Wyk v. Bergland, 570 F.2d 701, 704 (8th Cir. 1978).

103.  See 9 CFR 201.70 ; Swift & Co. v. United States, 393 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1968).

104.  A similar analysis would be if a group of packers conspire to force stockyards to sell on the basis of a “subject” sales terms—that is, granting the packer the right to refuse to honor the purchase after a delivery inspection at the packing plant rather than on the basis of an “as is” sales term—then that behavior is likely to interfere with the free exercise of decision making by market participants. See De Jong Packing Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 618 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir. 1980).

105.  Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition section 1 (1995).

106.   See In Re: Arizona Livestock Auction, Inc., 55 Agric. Dec. 1121 (1996) (finding that injury to a cow did not result in any injury the Act was designed to prevent).

107.  61 Cong. Rec. 1805-06.

108.   Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1241 (10th Cir. 2007) (Hartz, J. concurring) (“[I]t would be somewhat surprising if `unfair practices' under the PSA had a narrower meaning than `unfair methods of competition' in the FTCA.”).

109.   Armour and Company v. United States, 402 F.2d 712 (7th Cir. 1968).

110.   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. F.T.C., 729 F.2d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 1984) (citing examples: FTC v. Texaco, Inc., 393 U.S. 223, 89 S.Ct. 429, 21 L.Ed.2d 394 (1968); Atlantic Refining Co. v. FTC, 381 U.S. 357, 85 S.Ct. 1498, 14 L.Ed.2d 443 (1965); FTC v. Brown Shoe Co., 384 U.S. 316, 86 S.Ct. 1501, 16 L.Ed.2d 587 (1966); FTC v. Beech-Nut Packing Co., 257 U.S. 441, 42 S.Ct. 150, 66 L.Ed. 307 (1922), FTC v. National Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 77 S.Ct. 502, 1 L.Ed.2d 438 (1957), FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 68 S.Ct. 793, 92 L.Ed. 1010 (1948), Sugar Institute, Inc. v. United States, 297 U.S. 553, 56 S.Ct. 1629, 80 L.Ed. 859 (1935), FTC v. R.F. Keppel & Bro., Inc., 291 U.S. 304, 54 S.Ct. 423, 78 L.Ed. 814 (1934), FTC v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., 344 U.S. 392, 73 S.Ct. 361, 97 L.Ed. 426 (1953)).

111.   Armour & Co. v. United States, 402 F.2d 712, 722 (7th Cir. 1968); see also In Re: Ozark Cnty. Cattle Co., Inc., et. al., 49 Agric. Dec. 336 (1990); In Re: Corn State Meat Co., Inc.; et. al., 45 Agric. Dec. 995, 1012 (1986).

112.   De Jong Packing Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 618 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1980).

113.   Ethyl, 729 F.2d at 136-37.

114.  See, generally, Merger Guidelines, (2023), U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, https://www.ftc.gov/​system/​files/​ftc_​gov/​pdf/​2023_​merger_​guidelines_​final_​12.18.2023.pdf ; FTC, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 9 (Nov. 10, 2022).

115.   Daniels v. United States, 242 F.2d 39, 42 (7th Cir. 1957) (“It is the duty of a regulatory agency to prevent potential injury by stopping unlawful practices in their incipiency. Proof of a particular injury is not required.”).

116.  See, generally, Merger Guidelines, (2023), U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, https://www.ftc.gov/​system/​files/​ftc_​gov/​pdf/​2023_​merger_​guidelines_​final_​12.18.2023.pdf ; FTC, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 9 (Nov. 10, 2022).

117.   Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., 344 U.S. 392, 394-95 (1953) (noting that “Congress advisedly left the concept [of unfair methods of competition] flexible . . . [and] designed it to supplement and bolster the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act[,] [so as] to stop . . . acts and practices [in their incipiency] which, when full blown, would violate those Acts[,] . . . as well as to condemn as ` “unfair methods of competition” ' existing violations of them”); Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Cement Institute , 333 U.S. 683, 708 (1948) (holding that conduct that falls short of violating the Sherman Act may violate section 5); Fed. Trade Comm'n v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc. , 291 U.S. 304, 310 (1934) (finding that unfair methods of competition not limited to those “which are forbidden at common law or which are likely to grow into violations of the Sherman Act”); c .f. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States , 370 U.S. 294, 346 (1962) (finding section 7 of the Clayton Act also reflects the “mandate of Congress that tendencies toward concentration in industry are to be curbed in their incipiency”).

118.  FTC, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under sec. 5 of the FTC Act, 9 (Nov. 10, 2022). See, e.g., Yamaha Motor Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 657 F.2d 971 (8th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 915 (1982) (side agreements collateral to an anticompetitive joint-venture agreement); In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., 245 F.Supp. 2d 1343, 1369-70 (N.D. Ga. 2017), aff'd sub nom., Siegel v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 714 F. App'x 986 (11th Cir. 2018), and cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 827 (2019) (invitations to collude); The Vons Co., FTC Complaints and Order, 1987-1993 Transfer Binder, Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 23,200 (Aug. 7, 1992) (series of small acquisitions, none of which were illegal individually).

119.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 4, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

120.  See, e.g., “How to Start a Farm: Beginning Farmers and Ranchers,” available at https://www.farmers.gov/​your-business/​beginning-farmers (last accessed April 2024); Congressional Research Service, “Farm Bill Primer: Beginning and Underserved Producers,” May 2022, available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/​product/​pdf/​IF/​IF12096/​2 .

121.  See, e.g., “Agricultural Competition: A Plan in Support of Fair and Competitive Markets,” USDA's Report to the White House Competition Council, May 2022 (last accessed June 2022), available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​media/​USDAPlan_​EO_​COMPETITION.pdf ; “USDA Agri-Food Supply Chain Assessment: Program and Policy Options for Strengthening Resilience,” available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/​supply- chain (last accessed June 2024); “Competition and Meat Supply Chain Investments: Highlighted Comments from the Request for Information (RFI),” available at https://www.usda.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​Competition-RFI-Anecdotes-010322.pdf (last accessed June 2024); FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris Action Plan for a Fairer, More Competitive, and More Resilient Meat and Poultry Supply Chain, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/​briefing-room/​statements-releases/​2022/​01/​03/​fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-action-plan-for-a-fairer-more-competitive-and-more-resilient-meat-and-poultry-supply-chain/​ (last accessed June 2024).

122.   In Re: ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 44 Agric. Dec. 748, 772 (1985); see also Stumo & O'Brien, Antitrust Unfairness, 8 Drake J. Agric. L. at 111.

123.   See 9 CFR 201.69 and 201.70 .

124.   See 9 CFR 201.67 .

125.   C.f. Swift & Co. v. Wallace, 105 F.2d 848, 856 (7th Cir. 1939).

126.   See In re: Central California Livestock, at 110. As explained above, cases like Central California Livestock are typical of the Department's findings with respect to harms to competition.

127.  Stumo & O'Brien, Antitrust Unfairness at 111.

128.   See, e.g., Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1229 (10th Cir. 2007).

129.   29 FR 1796 , Feb. 6, 1964.

130.   In Re: Tyson Farms, Inc., 71 Agric. Dec. 1160, 1164 (2012).

131.  See section 203 of the P&S Act, which grants the Secretary the authority to order respondents to cease and desist and pay civil penalties ( 7 U.S.C. 193 ).

132.   7 U.S.C. 209 .

133.   In re: Larry W. Peterman, d/b/a Meat Masters., 42 Agric. Dec. 1848, 1868 (1983) (injury to individual consumers); In re: ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 44 Agric. Dec. 748, 772 (1985) (injury to competitors, packers and the retailer); In re: Excel Corp., No. P. & S. Docket No. 99-0010., 2003 WL 205562 U.S.D.A. Jan. 30, 2003) (injury to producers); In Re: Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc., No. P & S Docket No. D-10-0109, 2010 WL 7088565 (U.S.D.A. July 20, 2010), aff'd Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 475 F. App'x 438, 444 (3d Cir. 2012) (injury to consumers).

134.   15 U.S.C. 18 .

135.  See, e.g., Phila. Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. at 363 (1963) (Stating that a merger resulting in a market share of 30% still “presents a threat” and causes “undue concentration”). United States v. First Nat'l Bank of Lexington, 376 U.S. 665 (1964) (Stating that “the elimination of significant competition between [merging parties]” violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act: “It [can be] enough that the two . . . compete[ ]. That their competition [is] not insubstantial and that the combination [would] put an end to it”). Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 229-30 (1993) (Stating that “excessive concentration[ ] and the oligopolistic price coordination it portends may be the injury to competition the Act prohibits”). Marine Bancorporation, 418 U.S. at 623-624 (Suggesting that acquisition of “perceived potential competition may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly”).

136.  Azzam, Azzadine and Anderson, Dale. May 1996. “Assessing Competition in Meatpacking, Economic History, Theory, and Evidence.” USDA, GIPSA. https://www.gipsa.usda.gov/​psp/​publication/​con_​tech%20report/​rr96-6.pdf .

137.  Source: 24 FR 3183 , Apr. 24, 1959.

138.  Source: USDA, “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates,” WASDE-642, November 9, 2023.

139.  Hadachek, Jeffrey, Meilin Ma, and Richard J. Sexton. 2023. “Market Structure and Resilience of Food Supply Chains under Extreme Events.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1-24. https://doi.org/​10.1111/​ajae.12393 .

140.  Ibid.

141.  Ibid.

142.  USDA, “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates,” WASDE-642, November 9, 2023.

143.  Estimates are available at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, available https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​special-requests/​oesm22all.zip (accessed 7/14/2023).

144.  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—March 2023, released June 16, 2023, USDL-23-1305, table 1, p. 4. https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​pdf/​ecec.pdf (accessed 7/14/2023).

145.  For brevity, all beef and veal packers will be collectively referred to as beef packers and all lamb, sheep, and goat packers will be collectively referred to as lamb packers.

146.  90 live poultry dealers × $29.27 per hour × 20 hours = $52,686.

147.  90 live poultry dealers × $86.83 per hour × 40 hours = $312,588.

148.  90 live poultry dealers × $93.68 per hour × 5 hours = $42,156.

149.  90 live poultry dealers × $147.19 per hour × 40 hours = $529,884.

150.  Firm level cost for live poultry dealers is the sum of costs across professions: $52,686 (administrative assistants) + $312,588 (managers) + $42,156 (IT system managers) + $529,884 (attorneys).

151.  Firm level cost for beef packers: (261 beef packers × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 20 hours) + (261 beef packers × $86.83 per hour for managers × 40 hours) + (261 beef packers × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 5 hours) + (261 beef packers $147.19 per hour attorney time × 40 hours).

152.  Total firm level cost to pork markets: $2,041,262 (pork packers) + $6,884,051 (swine contractors) = $8,925,312. Firm level cost for pork packers: (196 pork packers × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 20 hours) + (196 pork packers × $86.83 per hour for managers × 40 hours) + (196 pork packers × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 5 hours) + (196 pork packers $147.19 per hour attorney time × 40 hours). Firm level cost for swine contractors: (661 swine contractors × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 20 hours) + (661 swine contractors × $86.83 per hour for managers × 40 hours) + (661 swine contractors × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 5 hours) + (661 swine contractors × $147.19 per hour attorney time × 40 hours).

153.  Firm level cost for lamb packers: (139 lamb packers × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 20 hours) + (139 lamb packers × $86.83 per hour for managers × 40 hours) + (139 lamb packers × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 5 hours) + (139 lamb packers $147.19 per hour attorney time × 40 hours).

154.  USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “2022 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data,” issued February 2024, table 24.

155.  An estimated 10 marketing agreements per pork packing plant × 196 pork packers.

156.  1,829 feedlots over 1,000 head (2022 Census of Agriculture, table 13) × an estimated 61% (the number of feedlots utilizing formula pricing).

157.  Total contract level costs for poultry dealers, $4,113,544 = (23,047 poultry dealer contracts × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 0.50 hours) + (23,047 poultry dealer contracts × $86.83 per hour for managers × 0.50 hours) + (23,047 poultry dealer contracts × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 0.50 hours) + (23,047 poultry dealer contracts × $147.19 per hour attorney time × 0.50 hours).

158.  Total contract level costs for beef packers, $199,134 = (1,116 beef packer contracts × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 0.50 hours) + (1,116 beef packer contracts × $86.83 per hour for managers × 0.50 hours) + (1,116 beef packer contracts × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 0.50 hours) + (1,099 beef packer contracts × $147.19 per hour attorney time × 0.50 hours).

159.  Total contract level costs for pork packers, $349,833 = (1,960 pork packer contracts × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 0.50 hours) + (1,960 pork packer contracts × $86.83 per hour for managers × 0.50 hours) + (1,960 pork packer contracts × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 0.50 hours) + (1,960 pork packer contracts × $147.19 per hour attorney time × 0.50 hours).

160.  Total contract level costs for swine contractor, $1,440,660 = (8,094 swine contractors contracts × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 0.50 hours) + (8,094 swine contractors contracts × $86.83 per hour for managers × 0.50 hours) + (8,094 swine contractors contracts × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 0.50 hours) + (8,094 swine contractors contracts × $147.19 per hour attorney time × 0.50 hours).

161.  Total contract level costs, $6,107,170 = $4,113,544 million for poultry dealers + $199,134 for beef packers + $349,833 for pork packers + $1,440,660 for swine contractors.

162.  U.S. General Accountability Office, “U.S. Agriculture: Retail Food Prices Grew Faster Than the Prices Farmers Received for Agricultural Commodities, but Economic Research Has Not Established That Concentration Has Affected These Trends,” GAO-09-746R, June 2009.

163.  Poultry dealer firm level costs: $47,417 (administrative assistants) + $281,329 (managers) + $37,940 (IT support) + $476,896 (legal).

164.  Beef packer firm level costs: $137,510 (administrative assistants) + $815,855 (managers) + $110,027 (IT support) + $1,382,997 (legal).

165.  Pork packer firm level costs: $103,265 (administrative assistants) + $612,672 (managers) + $82,626 (IT support) + $1,038,573 (legal). Swine contractor firm level costs: $348,254 (administrative assistants) + $2,066,207 (managers) + $278,651 (IT support) + $3,502,533 (legal).

166.  Lamb packer firm level costs: $73,234 (administrative assistants) + $434,497 (managers) + $58,597 (IT support) + $736,539 (legal).

167.  Total firm level costs: $0.84 million (poultry dealers) + $2.45 million (beef packers) + $8.03 million (pork packers and swine contractors) + $1.30 (lamb packers) = $11.82 million (total).

168.  Poultry dealer contract level costs: $303,564 (administrative assistants) + $900,527 (managers) + $971,569 (IT support) + $1,526,530 (legal).

169.  Beef packer contract level costs: $14,695 (administrative assistants) + $43,594 (managers) + $47,033 (IT support) + $73,898 (legal).

170.  Pork packer firm level costs: $25,816 (administrative assistants) + $76,584 (managers) + $82,626 (IT support) + $129,822 (legal). Swine contractor firm level costs: $106,610 (administrative assistants) + $316,261 (managers) + $341,211 (IT support) + $536,110 (legal).

171.  Total contract level costs: $3.70 million (poultry dealers) + $0.18 million (beef packers) + $1.62 million (pork packers and swine contractors) = $5.50 million (total).

172.  Azzam, Azzadine and Anderson, Dale, May 1996, “Assessing Competition in Meatpacking, Economic History, Theory, and Evidence,” USDA, GIPSA, https://www.gipsa.usda.gov/​psp/​publication/​con_​tech%20report/​rr96-6.pdf .

173.  Source: 24 FR 3183 , Apr. 24, 1959.

174.  U.S. Small Business Administration. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Effective August 19, 2019. “The SBA Issues a Final Rule to Adopt NAICS 2017 for Small Business Size (last accessed 8/9/2022).” Available at https://www.sba.gov/​article/​2018/​feb/​27/​sba-issues-final-rule-adopt-naics-2017-small-business-size-standards .

175.  USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “2022 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data,” issued February 2024, table 24.

176.  Firm level cost for poultry growing arrangements with small firms = 3.2 percent × $937,314.

177.  Firm level cost for small beef packers = 17.4 percent × $2,718,211.

178.  Firm level cost for small pork packers = 11.3 percent × $2,041,262.

179.  Firm level cost for small swine contractors = 8.9 percent × $5,988,395.

180.  Total firm level costs across small firms in livestock and poultry industries, $7,738,048 = $572,803 (live poultry dealer) + $2,655,723 (beef packer) + $1,926,701 (pork packer) + $1,135,191 (swine contractors) + $1,447,629 (lamb packer).

181.  Contract level cost for poultry growing arrangements with small firms = 3.2 percent × $4,113,544.

182.  Contract level cost for small beef packers = 17.4 percent × $196,098.

183.  Contract level cost for small pork packers = 11.3 percent × $349,833.

184.  Contract level cost for small swine contractors = 8.9 percent × $1,527,298.

185.  Total contract level costs across small firms in livestock and poultry industries, $334,001 = $131,186 (poultry dealers) + $34,180 (beef packer) + $39,531 (pork packers) + $135,929 (swine contractors).

[ FR Doc. 2024-14042 Filed 6-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information