[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15198-15201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05667]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c666d65626d2262656d624c797f686d226b637a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92f8f3fbfcf3bcfcfbf3fcd2e7e1f6f3bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 
wide-ranging 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \3\ Sophia 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/s3fs-public/file_attachments/rr-cereal-secrets-grain-traders-agriculture-30082012-en_4.pdf.
    \4\ Two 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-of-tomorrow-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During a series of joint workshops held in 2010 by USDA and the 
Department of Justice (DOJ), farmers described their experiences 
relating to

[[Page 15199]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ One farmer described being once ``free to choose from about 
a hundred different varieties of non-GMO 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.
    \6\ USDA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ One 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.
    \8\ Seed-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 Open-
Ended 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 pre-farm 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 value-added products), advancing efforts to transform 
the food system, meeting the needs of the agricultural workforce, 
supporting and promoting consumers' nutrition security, particularly 
for low-income populations, and supporting the needs of underserved and 
small to mid-sized 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

[[Page 15200]]

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 plant-related 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 cross-licensing 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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

[[Page 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 IP-related 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>