15198 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices 

1 In 2015, the largest four sellers of corn and 

soybean seed accounted for 85 and 76 percent of 

U.S. corn and soybean seed sales, respectively, up 

from 60 and 51 percent in 2000. F. Ciliberto, G. 

Moshini, and E. Perry, ‘‘Valuing product 

innovation: Genetically engineered varieties in US 

corn and soybeans,’’ RAND J. Econ 50 (2019): 615– 

644. 

2 In 2012, the largest four firms accounted for 86 

and 79 percent of wet corn milling and soybean 

processing markets, respectively. Four firms 

accounted for 61 percent of the world’s farm 

machinery, up from 46 percent in 1977. J. 

MacDonald, (2017), ‘‘Consolidation, Concentration, 

and Competition in the Food System,’’ Economic 

Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 

Volume 102, Special Issue: ‘‘Agricultural 

Consolidation: Causes and the Path Forward’’ 

(September 2017): 85–105, available at https://

www.kansascityfed.org/documents/765/2017-

Consolidation,%20Concentration,%20and

%20Competition%20in%20the%20Food

%20System.pdf. 

3Sophia Murphy, David Burch, and Jennifer 

Clapp, ‘‘Cereal Secrets: The world’s largest grain 

traders and global agriculture’’ (Oxford, UK: Oxfam, 

2012), available at https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fspublic/file_attachments/rr-cereal-secrets-graintraders-agriculture-30082012-en_4.pdf. 

4Two companies, one acquired in 1985 by one of 

the world’s largest meat processing firms, control 90 

percent of the chicken breeding market. Dale 

Weihoff, ‘‘How the Chicken of Tomorrow became 

the Chicken of the World’’ (Institute for Agriculture 

and Trade Policy, 2013), available at https://

www.iatp.org/blog/201303/how-the-chicken-oftomorrow-became-the-chicken-of-the-world; Glenn 

E. Bugos, ‘‘Intellectual Property Protection in the 

American Chicken-Breeding Industry,’’ Business 

History Review 66 (1992): 127–168, available at 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3117055. 

version of the submission. The 

nonconfidential version of the 

submission will be placed in the public 

file on www.regulations.gov. For 

comments submitted electronically 

containing business confidential 

information, the file name of the 

business confidential version should 

begin with the characters ‘‘BC.’’ Any 

page containing business confidential 

information must be clearly marked 

‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ on the 

top of that page. The non-confidential 

version must be clearly marked 

‘‘PUBLIC.’’ The file name of the 

nonconfidential version should begin 

with the character ‘‘P.’’ The ‘‘BC’’ and 

‘‘P’’ should be followed by the name of 

the person or entity submitting the 

comments or rebuttal comments. If a 

public hearing is held in support of this 

supply chain assessment, a separate 

Federal Register notice will be 

published providing the date and 

information about the hearing. 

Melissa R. Bailey, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05669 Filed 3–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

[Doc. No. AMS–AMS–22–0025] 

Competition and the Intellectual 

Property System: Seeds and Other 

Agricultural Inputs 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice; request for public 

comments. 

SUMMARY: On July 9, 2021, President 

Biden issued an Executive Order titled 

‘‘Promoting Competition in the 

American Economy,’’ which creates a 

White House Competition Council and 

directs Federal agency actions to 

enhance fairness and competition across 

America’s economy. Among other 

things, the Executive Order directs the 

Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) 

to prepare a report on concerns and 

strategies for ensuring that the 

intellectual property (IP) system, while 

incentivizing innovation, does not also 

unnecessarily reduce competition in 

seed and other input markets. This 

notice requests comments and 

information from the public to assist the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA 

or the Department) in preparing the 

report required by the Executive Order 

and advancing policy steps on seeds 

and other inputs identified in and 

developed by the report. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

May 16, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: All written comments in 

response to this notice should be posted 

online at www.regulations.gov. 

Comments received will be posted 

without change, including any personal 

information provided. All comments 

should reference the docket number 

AMS–AMS–22–0025, the date of 

submission, and the page number of this 

issue of the Federal Register. Comments 

may also be sent to Jaina Nian, 

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 

Room 2055–S, STOP 0201, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–0201. Comments will be 

made available for public inspection at 

the above address during regular 

business hours or via the internet at 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaina Nian, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, at (202) 378–2541; or by email 

at jaina.nian@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 9, 2021, President Biden 

issued Executive Order 14036, 

‘‘Promoting Competition in the 

American Economy’’ (86 FR 36987) 

(E.O. 14036). E.O. 14036 focuses on the 

need for robust and open competition in 

the American economy to secure broad 

and sustained economic prosperity, 

promote the welfare of workers, farmers, 

small businesses, startups, and 

consumers, and prevent the threat that 

excessive market concentration poses to 

basic economic liberties and democratic 

accountability. With respect to 

agriculture, E.O. 14036 states: 

Consolidation in the agricultural industry 

is making it too hard for small family farms 

to survive. Farmers are squeezed between 

concentrated market power in the 

agricultural input industries—seed, fertilizer, 

feed, and equipment suppliers—and 

concentrated market power in the channels 

for selling agricultural products. As a result, 

farmers’ share of the value of their 

agricultural products has decreased, and 

poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers, 

and other agricultural workers struggle to 

retain autonomy and to make sustainable 

returns. 

In relevant part, E.O. 14036 directs, 

inter alia, that the Secretary— 

to help ensure that the intellectual property 

system, while incentivizing innovation, does 

not also unnecessarily reduce competition in 

seed and other input markets beyond that 

reasonably contemplated by the Patent Act 

(see 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq. and 7 U.S.C. 2321 

et seq.), in consultation with the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, submit a report 

to the Chair of the White House Competition 

Council, enumerating and describing any 

relevant concerns of the Department of 

Agriculture and strategies for addressing 

those concerns across intellectual property, 

antitrust, and other relevant laws. 

As part of executing our 

responsibilities under the E.O. 14036 for 

this report on seeds and other inputs, 

the Department takes note of wideranging concerns from agricultural 

producers regarding concentrated 

market power in the agricultural input 

industries and their connections to the 

intellectual property system. Four 

companies account for 85 and 76 

percent of corn and soybean seed 

markets, controlling key sources for a 

farmer’s planting.1 Four companies 

account for 90 percent of the global 

grain trading and processing market, 

controlling, among other grain-related 

markets, a farmer’s means for obtaining 

livestock feed.2 Four companies account 

for 61 percent of farm machinery 

markets.3 Two companies account for 

more than 90 percent of chicken 

genetics for chicks sold in poultry 

markets.4

During a series of joint workshops 

held in 2010 by USDA and the 

Department of Justice (DOJ), farmers 

described their experiences relating to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices 15199 

5One farmer described being once ‘‘free to choose 

from about a hundred different varieties of nonGMO soybeans . . . [and now] ‘‘forced as a farmer 

to go to the seed companies, these few seed 

companies that are left, to purchase my seed.’’ 

Farmers described how firms with market power 

raised technology fees mid-contract for continued 

use of seed or product, selectively favored large 

farmers through pricing schemes; and for at least 

one farmer increased the cost of seed and chemical 

weed control by 153 percent during his 25 years of 

farming. Describing the IP system, one farmer 

stated, ‘‘it’s a combination of the utility patents and 

the consolidation of the seed industry which has 

entrapped me as a farmer . . .’’. U.S. Department 

of Justice. (2010). Farmer Presentation of Issues 

[Video], available at https://youtu.be/YZOiJ_

CZnoU?t=2605; U.S. Department of Justice. (2010), 

Public Workshops Exploring Competition Issues in 

Agriculture [Workshop transcript], available at 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/ 

legacy/2010/12/20/iowa-agworkshop-transcript.pdf. 

6USDA Crop and Seed Price Index from NASS; 

Crop-specific seed prices from USDA NASS for 

1990–2015 (after which NASS discontinued its seed 

price series) and extended over 2016–2020 using 

USDA ERS Cost-of-Production estimates. Note, 

prices have fallen declined since 2015, with 

commodity price swings playing a significant 

factor. 

7One study estimated that 44 percent of the value 

added by enhanced productivity was retained by 

farmers, with the rest captured by seed companies 

as a return on their investment in R&D. The result 

may be is similar in effect to the introduction of 

hybrid corn seed in the 1940s and 1950s. F. 

Ciliberto, G. Moschini, and E.D. Perry (2019), 

‘‘Valuing Product Innovation: Genetically 

Engineered Varieties in U.S. Corn and Soybeans,’’ 

RAND Journal of Economics, 50: 615–644. 

8Seed-biotech companies have spent, on average, 

about 10–15 percent of their seed sales on research 

and development, which appears fairly consistent 

over time. J. Fernandez-Cornejo, (2004), ‘‘The Seed 

Industry in U.S. Agriculture: An Exploration of Data 

and Information on Crop Seed Markets, Regulation, 

Industry Structure, and Research and 

Development,’’ Agriculture Information Bulletin, 

No. (AIB–786), USDA–ERS; FAO 2019, ‘‘Analysis of 

Sales and Profitability with the Seed Sector,’’ 

Independent Report by HIS Markit (Phillips 

McDougall) for the Co-Chairs of the Ad-Hoc OpenEnded Working Group to Enhance the Functioning 

of the Multilateral System of FAO’s International 

Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and 

Agriculture; K. Fuglie, et al. (2011), ‘‘Research 

Investments and Market Structure in the Food 

Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel 

Industries Worldwide,’’ Economic Research Report 

130, USDA–ERS. 

9 G.L. Mehaffy, (2012), ‘‘Challenge and change,’’ 

Educause Review, 47(5), 25–42. 10 It is not yet clear whether the recent growth in 

venture capital financing in food and agriculture 

will yield new innovations and new competitors, or 

whether incumbent firms will establish ‘‘kill zones’’ 

similar to what has occurred in the technology 

sector—acquisitions of start-ups that threaten the 

dominant players. On similar practices in other 

sectors, see M. Jarsulic, ‘‘Antitrust Enforcement for 

the 21st Century,’’ (2019), The Antitrust Bulletin, 

Vol. 64 Issue 4, available at https://

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/ 

0003603X19877008. 

agricultural inputs, intellectual 

property, and market power—many of 

which are still relevant today.5 Seed 

prices have been a central concern: 

Rising more than 700 percent between 

2000 and 2015 for genetically modified 

(GM) seed, and more than 200 percent 

for non-GM seed for the same period.6

A healthy IP system plays an 

important role in facilitating that 

research. The introduction of GM seeds 

have generally been accompanied by 

higher productivity.7 Moreover, R&D 

spending and new variety introductions 

by the private seed industry has 

generally grown in recent decades.8

Given that global demand for food is 

expected to double in the next 30 years, 

while public funding for research and 

advancements in agriculture, food and 

nutrition have flatlined or declined over 

the past decade, it is important to 

ensure that private sector research 

continues to support innovations in 

development of seed genetics, chemical 

controls, and crop characteristics.9

Yet there are also developments in the 

research landscape that should raise 

concerns. For example, small and 

medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), 

which have historically served as 

primary sources of innovation, face 

barriers to entry.10 Some segments, such 

as organic seeds, also remain 

underserved. 

Seeds and their corollary pesticide 

products are not the only agricultural 

inputs where control over intellectual 

property may intersect with concerns 

around concentration and competition. 

The IP system is relevant to control over 

animal genetics in livestock and 

poultry, farm machinery and precision 

technology and data, and more. 

USDA is interested in all relevant 

comments on the topics noted above. 

We are particularly interested in what 

effects various forms of IP, such as 

patents, have on small to mid-sized seed 

businesses and plant breeding programs. 

Other important input markets include 

those for equipment; fertilizer; feed; pest 

control; chemical management agents; 

animal breeding and genetics; storage 

and transportation; hatcheries; or prefarm markets, including farm input 

derivatives, processing, trading, and 

financing. 

We are further interested in comments 

addressing the role of fair and 

competitive markets in promoting local 

and regional food systems, creating new 

market opportunities (including for 

value-added agriculture and valueadded products), advancing efforts to 

transform the food system, meeting the 

needs of the agricultural workforce, 

supporting and promoting consumers’ 

nutrition security, particularly for lowincome populations, and supporting the 

needs of underserved and small to midsized producers and processors. 

II. Written Comments 

USDA encourages commenters, when 

addressing the elements below, to 

clearly indicate the question their 

comments are responding to by 

repeating the text of the question before 

their response. This would assist USDA 

in more easily reviewing and 

summarizing the comments received in 

response to these specific comment 

areas. In addition, USDA welcomes 

commenters to refer to, with appropriate 

explanation, any views set forth in 

recently or previously submitted 

comments, such as those to E.O. 14017 

‘‘America’s Supply Chains’’ (No. AMS– 

TM–21–0034) (86 FR 20652). 

For its report on competition in the 

intellectual property system, including 

for seeds and other inputs, USDA is 

particularly interested in comments and 

information directed to how to achieve 

the policy goals listed in E.O. 14036 of 

ensuring that the intellectual property 

system, while incentivizing innovation, 

does not also unnecessarily reduce 

competition in seed and other input 

markets beyond that reasonably 

contemplated by the Patent Act (see 35 

U.S.C. 100 et seq. and 7 U.S.C. 2321 et 

seq.) and the Plant Variety Protection 

Act (PVPA) (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), and 

of otherwise supporting the policy 

objectives of fair and competitive 

markets for agricultural and food 

products. 

Our request for comment includes but 

is not limited to the following elements. 

The questions below are meant to 

stimulate comments and are not 

intended to represent particular views 

of USDA or any other government 

agency. Commenters should feel free to 

respond to those they feel most relevant 

to them, or as their time and interests 

permit. Comments may overlap or be 

organized as the commenter feels most 

appropriate. Please offer descriptive or 

quantitative information, as available 

and relevant. 

Concentration and Market Power in 

Agricultural Inputs 

(1) Please describe challenges, 

concerns, and any other views 

(including relating to any benefits) with 

market concentration and market power 

in the agricultural input industries, 

including, as applicable, effects on 

farmers, competitors and related 

markets; pricing; availability; 

transportation and delivery; quality; 

research and innovation; economic 

growth, labor markets, and inequality 

issues; supply chain resiliency; and any 

other factors. 

(2) Please share your views on access, 

availability, pricing, quality, and related 

matters relating to seeds. In particular, 

are seed companies offering an adequate 

variety of types of seeds and traits that 

meet your needs as a grower? Are seed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
15200 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices 

11See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Nixing the Fix: An 

FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions (May 

2021), available at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/

nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions. 

12See Dep’t Justice & Federal Trade Comm’n, 

Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of 

Intellectual Property (Jan. 2017), available at 

https://www.justice.gov/atr/IPguidelines/download. 

companies regularly providing new and 

improved varieties for growers? Have 

gains in yield or net returns resulting 

from use of new varieties been adequate 

to compensate farmers for the cost of 

seeds? Are regional needs, tribal and 

underserved communities, climate 

concerns, and product-specific needs, 

such as organic seeds, being 

appropriately served by the seed 

marketplace? 

(3) For agricultural inputs other than 

seeds, please share similar responses to 

those solicited for seeds in Question 2, 

above, relating to access, availability, 

pricing, quality and related matters. 

Please respond as to whether companies 

are offering adequate product varieties 

to meet producer needs, whether there 

are new and improved varieties or 

products, and whether there are gains in 

yield or other producer benefits, 

including net returns. Are regional 

needs, tribal and underserved 

communities, climate concerns, and 

product-specific needs, being 

appropriately served by the 

marketplace? 

Intellectual Property 

(4) Please share your views on 

whether, and if so how, the existing IP 

system—including plant patents, utility 

patents, and plant variety protection 

certificates—appropriately balances the 

need to incentivize innovation with the 

goal of ensuring public access to new 

and improved products at reasonable 

cost. Please explain why or why not, 

and discuss in context of seeds or the 

particular agricultural input of concern. 

If you have concerns, please explain the 

concerns and provide suggestions on 

how the IP system can be improved to 

address those concerns. 

(5) For seeds in particular, is the 

patent side of the plant-related IP 

system appropriately reserving its grant 

of statutory patent monopolies to 

inventions that are of significant utility, 

novelty and non-obviousness? Do you 

have concerns about patent quality in 

the area of plant-related IP or plantrelated technologies? If you have 

concerns, please explain. 

(6) Does the existing IP system, as 

relating to seeds and other agricultural 

inputs, effectively meet the statutory 

goal of rewarding invention through 

protection from competition for a fixed 

term? Does it fairly and effectively 

promote competition and innovation, or 

does it inappropriately suppress 

competition and innovation? Please 

explain. If you believe the IP system 

inappropriately suppresses competition 

or insufficiently rewards innovation, 

please explain and provide concrete 

examples where possible. 

(7) Do farmers, ranchers, and other 

stakeholders have sufficient access to 

off-protection and generic options? If 

not, are regulatory tools, systems, or 

practices being utilized to inhibit 

access? For example, do you believe 

there is evidence of inappropriate 

strategies to extend the life of patents? 

Please explain and provide examples. 

(8) Please share your views on 

whether and how the different forms of 

IP protection for new plant varieties 

appropriately promote access to 

germplasm for the development of new 

varieties. Please share specifics where 

possible and provide suggested 

improvements to ensure farmers’ and 

breeders’ access to germplasm for 

variety development. 

(9) Please comment on IP 

enforcement. Do you believe farmers, 

breeders and small and medium sized 

enterprises face challenges concerning 

enforcement of their plant related IP 

rights? If so, please provide concrete 

examples. Do you believe farmers, 

breeders and small and medium sized 

enterprises face challenges from other 

companies asserting their IP rights 

against them? If so, please provide 

specific examples. Please also offer 

recommended solutions for mitigating 

those challenges. 

(10) Are there other ways in which 

the IP system, including copyrights and 

trademarks, may positively or adversely 

affect choice, quality, and other aspects 

of competition in seeds or other 

agricultural inputs? For example, what 

role does IP play, if any, in farmers’ and 

ranchers’ ability to repair and maintain 

equipment? 11 Please provide examples. 

Business Practices and Other 

Competition Matters 

(11) What role do contractual or sales 

practices in seed and other agricultural 

input markets play with regard to a 

farmer’s or business’s autonomy, 

innovation, or ability to compete? How 

have contractual or sales practices 

changed over time? Do some firms’ 

contracts require farmers to buy inputs 

from or sell exclusively to one or a few 

firms? What impacts do these 

contractual requirements have on 

competition? 

(12) Is there evidence of contracting or 

sales practices locking a farmer into a 

mode of production and inhibiting them 

from entering other farm enterprises? To 

what extent do requirements or 

inducements to buy a main product 

(e.g., seed) with a second product (e.g., 

pest management chemical), bundle, 

stacked trait, or service impact the 

farmer or other agricultural input 

competitors? For instance, does such a 

practice lock a farmer into or out of 

certain product choices? Please offer 

specific recommendations for reforms. 

(13) What role do marketing and 

labeling practices have on competition 

in seeds or other agricultural inputs? Do 

labeling and naming practices provide 

sufficient notice that the seed or other 

agricultural input in question is 

protected by IP or not protected? Please 

explain. 

(14) Please comment on implications, 

negative or positive, of mergers in the 

seed industry and in industries that sell 

other agricultural inputs. Have certain 

mergers changed contracting or sales 

practices? Have certain mergers allowed 

the acquisition of rivals or technologies 

or companies that competitor firms rely 

on? Have mergers delivered efficiencies? 

Please offer recommendations for 

specific actions where appropriate. 

(15) Please comment on the presence 

of, and any concerns around, licensing 

restrictions in seeds or other agricultural 

inputs. Please comment on crosslicensing practices, including 

restrictions or exclusive cross-licensing 

permissions, and any related concerns. 

Do fees on the same type of license vary 

and if so under what circumstances? Do 

licensees have access to information on 

comparable licenses? Are some 

companies or organizations denied 

reasonable access to licenses and on 

what basis? What further guidance, if 

any, on appropriate licensing practices 

would be helpful? 12

(16) Please comment on any other 

concerns relating to competition 

matters. For example, do you have 

concerns relating to manufacturer 

restrictions on aftermarket competition, 

preferential pricing schemes that may 

favor one farmer or competitor over 

another, or contractual arrangements 

such as tying or exclusivity 

arrangements? Do you believe there is 

evidence of attempts to fix prices, 

allocate markets, or to restrict from 

where a farmer buys inputs and sells 

product? Do you believe there is 

evidence of agricultural input firms 

using their market power to price below 

cost and run losses to undercut and 

eliminate competitor or potentially 

competing firms? Is monopsony—where 

sellers are harmed from market power 

abuses by buyers—relevant in these 

industries and supply chains, and if so 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices 15201 

how? What role, if any, does financing 

or financial markets play in any of the 

issues addressed above? Please provide 

examples for concerns raised. 

Information Resources 

(17) Do you believe farmers, breeders 

and other stakeholders have appropriate 

access to information, education, and 

support services around seeds and other 

agricultural inputs, including 

information on IP protection and IPrelated risks covering seeds they buy 

and the varietal identity of those seeds? 

If not, what are the most effective means 

for improving access to such 

information? What about other 

agricultural inputs? 

(18) Do farmers, breeders, and other 

stakeholders have access to adequate 

information on new applications for 

plant IP, prior to the award of plant 

patents, plant variety protection 

certificates or utility patents to the 

applicants? Are there improvements 

that could be made to information 

accessibility for applications prior to the 

granting of IP protection? What about 

for other agricultural inputs? 

(19) Please comment on any concerns 

or challenges related to data—e.g., 

collection, privacy, accessibility, 

control, market power, or any other 

aspect—as it affects competition in 

seeds or other agricultural inputs. To 

what extent does the expanded 

application of site-specific crop 

management using data from sensors, 

climate readings, or mechanical systems 

in agriculture impact competition and 

farmers’ access to seeds and other 

inputs? What mechanisms would 

safeguard a farmer’s control of data and 

enhance competition and fair access, 

while appropriately promoting the 

effective use of new technologies and 

data analytics? Are there relevant 

changes to the IP system that would 

facilitate innovation, competition, and 

fair access to data? Please comment on 

any benefits and opportunities for 

farmers relating to data and 

consolidation, as appropriate. 

Additional Matters 

(20) Please share any information 

relevant to regional needs, tribal and 

underserved communities, climate 

concerns, and product-specific matters, 

such as organic seeds, in relation to any 

of the concerns raised above. 

(21) Please comment on any 

international policy or risk implications 

related to any of the above matters. Do 

one or more of the currently available IP 

forms of protecting plant-related 

technologies have particular challenges 

or benefits in the international context 

in terms of ensuring fair competition 

and providing farmers access to 

improved varieties, and quality, 

affordable seeds? What about for other 

agricultural inputs? 

Policy, Programs, and Solutions 

(22) Please comment on the strengths, 

weaknesses, effectiveness, and gaps in 

current USDA policies and programs to 

facilitate access to affordable seeds and 

other agricultural inputs for farmers, 

plant breeders, ranchers, and other 

stakeholders. Are information services, 

grow out services, and access to seed 

varietals that are not subject to IP 

protections sufficiently available? Do 

farmers, plant breeders, ranchers, and 

other stakeholders have sufficient voice 

within relevant agency decision-making, 

and if not, how could it be improved? 

How could labeling practices be 

improved? Please suggest actionable 

steps that USDA could take to help 

address any identified concerns. 

(23) How could the IP system be 

improved to address any concerns 

highlighted? 

(24) How could Federal or state 

antitrust enforcement better address any 

concerns highlighted? 

(25) What other policy changes, tools, 

investments, or programs could USDA 

or other agencies deploy to enhance the 

competitiveness of seeds and other 

agricultural input markets in relation to 

any of the concerns highlighted by your 

responses to the aforementioned 

questions? 

III. Requirements for Written 

Comments 

The www.regulations.gov website 

allows users to provide comments by 

filling in a ‘‘Type Comment’’ field or by 

attaching a document using an ‘‘Upload 

File’’ field. USDA prefers that comments 

be provided in an attached document. 

USDA prefers submissions in Microsoft 

Word (.doc files) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf 

files). If the submission is in an 

application format other than Microsoft 

Word or Adobe Acrobat, please indicate 

the name of the application in the 

‘‘Type Comment’’ field. Please do not 

attach separate cover letters to 

electronic submissions; rather, include 

any information that might appear in a 

cover letter within the comments. 

Similarly, to the extent possible, please 

include any exhibits, annexes, or other 

attachments in the same file, so that the 

submission consists of one file instead 

of multiple files. Comments (both public 

comments and non-confidential 

versions of comments containing 

business confidential information) will 

be placed in the docket and open to 

public inspection. Comments may be 

viewed on http://www.regulations.gov 

by entering docket number AMS–AMS– 

22–0025 in the search field on the home 

page. All filers should name their files 

using the name of the person or entity 

submitting the comments. Anonymous 

comments are also accepted. 

Communications from agencies of the 

United States Government will not be 

made available for public inspection. 

Anyone submitting business 

confidential information should clearly 

identify the business confidential 

portion at the time of submission, file a 

statement justifying nondisclosure and 

referring to the specific legal authority 

claimed, and provide a non-confidential 

version of the submission. The 

nonconfidential version of the 

submission will be placed in the public 

file on www.regulations.gov. For 

comments submitted electronically 

containing business confidential 

information, the file name of the 

business confidential version should 

begin with the characters ‘‘BC.’’ Any 

page containing business confidential 

information must be clearly marked 

‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ on the 

top of that page. The non-confidential 

version must be clearly marked 

‘‘PUBLIC.’’ The file name of the 

nonconfidential version should begin 

with the character ‘‘P.’’ The ‘‘BC’’ and 

‘‘P’’ should be followed by the name of 

the person or entity submitting the 

comments or rebuttal comments. If a 

public hearing is held in support of this 

supply chain assessment, a separate 

Federal Register notice will be 

published providing the date and 

information about the hearing. 

Melissa R. Bailey, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05667 Filed 3–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Notice of Public Meeting of the 

Connecticut Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Commission on Civil Rights. 

ACTION: Announcement of meeting. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, 

pursuant to the provisions of the rules 

and regulations of the U.S. Commission 

on Civil Rights (Commission), and the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), that the Connecticut Advisory 

Committee to the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights will hold a fourth briefing 

via web conference or phone call on 

Wednesday, March 30, 2022, at 12:00 

p.m. (ET). The purpose of the web 

conference is for project planning. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES