This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

15191 

Vol. 87, No. 52 

Thursday, March 17, 2022 

1One trading consortium of three production 

firms and one U.S. marketing firm control more 

than one-third of global potash production. Eight 

firms account for just over half of global production 

capacity in phosphate fertilizers. Fertilizer, 

comprising 21 percent of total agricultural input 

sales, is also among the largest agricultural input 

markets in terms of sales, with the largest being 

animal nutrition (40 percent of total sales). 

Fertilizer and crop seed are among the highest input 

costs per price received for farmers. Fuglie, Keith 

O., Paul W. Heisey, John L. King, Carl E. Pray, Kelly 

Day-Rubenstein, David Schimmelpfennig, Sun Ling 

Wang, and Rupa Karmarkar-Deshmukh, (2011), 

‘‘Research Investments and Market Structure in the 

Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel 

Industries Worldwide’’, ERR–130, USDA Economic 

Research Service, available at https://

www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44951/ 

11777_err130_1_.pdf?v=8531.8. 

2Facts and figures aggregated from various other 

primary sources. Kreisle, N., (2020), ‘‘Price Effects 

from the Merger of Agricultural Fertilizer 

Manufacturers Agrium and PotashCorp’’, FTC 

Bureau of Economics Working Paper #345, available 

at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/price-effects-mergeragricultural-fertilizer-manufacturers-agriumpotashcorp. 

3Bekkerman, A., Brester, G., & Ripplinger, D. 

(2020), ‘‘The History, Consolidation, and Future of 

the U.S. Nitrogen Fertilizer Production Industry’’, 

Choices, Quarter 2, available at https://www.choices

magazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/ 

the-history-consolidation-and-future-of-the-usnitrogen-fertilizer-production-industry. 

4For example, one firm (which acquired the 

second biggest North American firm in 2016) in 

Canada accounted for 20 percent of the share of 

global potash mine capacity, followed by other 

firms in Russia (13 percent), Belarus (13 percent), 

and Chinese companies (11 percent).2 China, whose 

government predominates its fertilizer markets, has 

by far the largest fertilizer industry in the world, 

and accounted for 20 percent of total global R&D 

in 2006.1

5The merged company was estimated in 2016 to 

control 60 percent of North American potash 

capacity and 30 percent for nitrogen and phosphate. 

(2016), ‘‘Potash Corp, Agrium talk merger; 

competition scrutiny expected’’, Reuters, available 

at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-agrium-m-apotashcorp/potash-corp-agrium-talk-mergercompetition-scrutiny-expected-idUSKCN1151UT. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

[Doc. No. AMS–AMS–22–0027] 

Access to Fertilizer: Competition and 

Supply Chain Concerns 

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. The Executive 

Order directs the Council and member 

agencies to ‘‘identify and advance any 

additional administrative actions 

necessary’’ to promote competition on 

an ongoing basis. The Secretary of 

Agriculture (the Secretary) takes note of 

wide-ranging concern from agricultural 

producers regarding access to and 

pricing of fertilizer. This notice requests 

comments and information from the 

public to assist the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) in identifying 

relevant difficulties, including 

competition concerns, and potential 

policy solutions for the fertilizer market. 

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–22–0027, 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 explains: 

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. 

Additionally, E.O. 14017 ‘‘America’s 

Supply Chains’’ (No. AMS–TM–21– 

0034) (86 FR 20652) (E.O. 14017) directs 

the Secretary to examine and address 

risks to supply chains. 

As part of USDA’s broad and 

sustained focus on competition and 

supply chain resiliency, the Secretary 

takes note of wide-ranging concerns 

from agricultural producers regarding 

concentrated market power in the 

fertilizer industries. Farmers depend on 

nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium 

(potash) which are key nutrients in 

manufactured fertilizer. A handful of 

fertilizer companies control the 

channels through which farmers obtain 

these nutrients to raise a productive 

crop.1 In turn, these crops may supply 

inputs for other agricultural production 

enterprises, like livestock. 

Two companies supply the vast 

majority of fertilizer potash in North 

America.2 Four companies supply 75 

percent of U.S. nitrogen fertilizers.3

These companies’ possession of scarce 

resources, often in other countries,4 and 

control over critical production, 

transportation, and distribution 

channels raises heightened risks relating 

to concentration and competition.5

Additionally, concentration in the 

fertilizer industry constrains farmers’ 

options for nutrients. In 1984, many 

small and medium-sized firms produced 

nitrogen fertilizer in quantities that met 

or exceeded domestic demand. 

However, as domestic industry 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
15192 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices 

6 In the U.S. the number of companies producing 

phosphoric acid dropped from 12 to 7 due to 

mergers from 2002 to 2008. Three companies 

control 80 percent of the production capacity of 

phosphoric acid in the U.S. Between 1999–2008, 

the number of companies producing muriate of 

potash fell by half, resulting in two companies in 

2008 owning 100 percent of U.S. potash production 

capacity. Wen-Yuan Huang, (2009) ‘‘Factors 

Contributing to the Recent Increase in U.S. 

Fertilizer Prices, 2002–08,’’ Agricultural Resources 

Situation and Outlook AR–33, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, available 

at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/ 

35824/10935_ar33.pdf?v=1826.4. 

7Prior to the 1980s, U.S. nitrogen fertilizer 

production by many small firms met or exceeded 

total domestic demand. However, between 1984 

and 2008, the domestic industry consolidated, with 

larger firms expanding. The number of active 

ammonia-producing plants decreased from 59 to 22. 

In 2018, the four largest U.S. ammonia producers 

account for 75 percent of total U.S. output. 

Similarly, one merger in 2016 led to the combined 

company controlling 60 percent of North American 

potash capacity and 30 percent for nitrogen and 

phosphate. (2016)‘‘Potash Corp, Agrium talk 

merger; competition scrutiny expected,’’ Reuters, 

available at https://www.reuters.com/article/usagrium-m-a-potashcorp/potash-corp-agrium-talkmerger-competition-scrutiny-expectedidUSKCN1151UT. 

8 David Schimmelpfennig & Keith Fuglie, & Paul 

Heisey, (2011), ‘‘Private research and development 

for synthetic fertilizers,’’ 67–74, USDA Economic 

Research Service available at https://

www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44951/ 

11777_err130_1_.pdf?v=3767.6. 

9The shortage of phosphorus, for example, has 

prompted some to term fertilizer a ‘‘geostrategic 

time bomb.’’ Vaccari, David, (2009), ‘‘Phosphorus 

Famine: The Threat to Our Food Supply,’’ 

SCIENTIFIC AM, available at http://www.scientific

american.com/article.cfm?id=phosphorus-alooming-crisis. See also Schmundt, Hilmar, (2010), 

‘‘Essential Element Becoming Scarce: Experts Warn 

of Impending Phosphorus Crisis,’’ DER SPIEGEL 

ONLINE INT’L, available at https://www.spiegel.de/ 

international/world/essential-element-becomingscarce-experts-warn-of-impending-phosphoruscrisis-a-690450.html. 

10For example, in 2019, a substantial reduction 

in Chinese purchases of U.S. soybeans may have 

caused Corn Belt farmers to shift to corn 

production, which is a more nitrogen-intensive 

crop. J. Baffes, & W. Koh, (2019), ’’Fertilizer Market 

Outlook,’’ World Bank Blogs, available at https://

blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/fertilizermarket-outlook-potash-prices-rise-2019-urea-andphosphates-remain. 

11 In 2020, during the early pandemic, relatively 

inexpensive fertilizer relative to crop prices (1.44, 

compared to .96 average from 2001–2021) led to 

strong demand for fertilizers in the U.S., Brazil, and 

China. J. Beghin, L. Nogueira (2021), ’’A Perfect 

Storm in Fertilizer Markets,’’ Department of 

Agricultural Economics at Clayton Yeutter Institute, 

available at https://cap.unl.edu/crops/perfectstorm-fertilizer-markets. 

12For instance, natural gas makes up 80 percent 

of the cost to produce ammonia for nitrogen 

fertilizer. Prices for natural gas are up four to five 

times higher than normal. Elkin, E., Durisin, M. 

(2021), ’’Fertilizer Prices Are Getting More 

Expensive in Europe, Adding to Food-Inflation 

Concerns,’’ Bloomberg Markets, available at https:// 

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-29/ 

european-fertilizer-prices-set-to-surge-amid-energysqueeze?sref=c4HfBhdW. 

13China, for example, a key supplier of urea, 

sulphate, and phosphate, has moved to curb 

fertilizer exports. (2021), ’’China’s Curbs on 

Fertilizer Exports to Worsen Global Price Shock, 

Bloomberg Markets,’’ available at https://

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-19/ 

china-s-curbs-on-fertilizer-exports-to-worsen-globalprice-shock?sref=c4HfBhdW. 

14U.S. and European sanctions against Belarus, 

for instance, have halted its fertilizer shipments. 

Belarus accounts for about 10–12 million tons of 

fertilizer exported, or a fifth of global supply. Elkin, 

E., Skerritt, J., Ribeiro, T., (2022), ’’Fertilizer 

Markets Roiled by Belarus Potash Force Majeure,’’ 

Bloomberg Business, https://www.bloomberg.com/ 

news/articles/2022-02-17/belarus-potash-makerroils-fertilizer-markets-with-forcemajeure?sref=c4HfBhdW. 

15Russia accounts for 15 percent of the global 

trade in nitrogen fertilizers and 17 percent of global 

potash fertilizer exports. Additionally, Russian 

exports of natural gas, which is a key ingredient for 

the production of nitrogen fertilizers, account for 20 

percent of global trade. Ukraine is an important 

supplier of cereal, which requires fertilizer. North 

Africa and the Middle East import over 50 percent 

of cereal needs, wheat, and barley from Ukraine and 

Russia. Glauber, J. & Laborde, D., (2022), ’’How will 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine affect global food 

security?,’’ International Food Policy Research 

Institute, available at https://www.ifpri.org/blog/ 

how-will-russias-invasion-ukraine-affect-globalfood-security. 

16Transportation costs accounted for 22 percent 

of the cost of ammonia shipped from Trinidad and 

Tobago to the U.S. Gulf (and up the Mississippi 

River by barge); and more than 50 percent of the 

cost of ammonia shipped from Russia Togliatti to 

the Gulf. Ammonia must be transported in 

refrigerated vessels or pressurized containers 

(barge). Because of this and increasing rail rates, the 

cost to ship ammonia by rail is 44 percent higher 

than by barge. Increasing freight service costs have 

also contributed to increased costs of fertilizer. 

17 ‘‘Economic Impact of Higher Fertilizer Prices 

on AFPC’s Representative Crop Farms,’’ Joe L. 

Outlaw et al, Agricultural & Food Policy Center, 

Department of Agricultural Economic, Texas A&M 

AgriLife Research Briefing Paper 22–01, January 

2022, available at https://afpc.tamu.edu/research/ 

publications/files/711/BP-22-01-Fertilizer.pdf. 

consolidated through mergers,6 the 

number of U.S. firms declined from 46 

to 13 firms between 1984 and 2008, a 

reduction of 72 percent.7 Research and 

development (R&D) spending in the 

fertilizer industry has remained 

limited—around 0.21 to 0.25 percent of 

net sales.8 Limited R&D is concerning 

given the concentration and depletion of 

elemental reserves, some located in 

politically unstable areas abroad.9

Increasing concentration exposes 

farmers to a range of pricing-related 

risks. Fertilizers, especially nitrogen (N) 

nutrients, are already in the top three 

costs for farmers. Fertilizer costs may 

swing dramatically up because of 

individual or layered world events 10

such as strong global demand for 

agricultural commodities,11 rising 

energy prices,12 export restrictions by 

major global suppliers,13 trade 

sanctions,14 or war as with the recent 

Russian invasion of Ukraine.15 Price 

volatilities may stem from a small 

number of firms controlling the few 

channels for production, 

transportation,16 and distribution, 

which may give them the market power 

to, among other harms, raise costs for 

farmers. In 2021, for instance, the prices 

U.S. farmers paid for fertilizers 

increased over 60 percent. Nitrogen 

fertilizers prices increased 95 percent, 

and potash fertilizers increased over 70 

percent. A recent study finds that feed 

grain farms in 2022 could face an 

increase of cost of $128,000 per farm 

due to higher fertilizer cost.17

As part of executing our 

responsibilities under the E.O. 14036 

and E.O. 14017, USDA seeks 

information to assist us in identifying 

and addressing competition-related 

challenges in the U.S. fertilizer market 

and other obstacles to producers 

accessing affordable, responsibly 

manufactured fertilizer. 

We are further interested in comments 

as to how the matters raised may be 

relevant to promoting fair and 

competitive markets and 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, supporting the 

needs of small to mid-sized and 

underserved producers and processors, 

and advancing environmental 

stewardship. 

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). 

To help USDA identify challenges 

and solutions in the fertilizer market, 

USDA is seeking comments on all 

aspects of the market structure for 

fertilizer as it affects agricultural 

producers. We are particularly 

interested in how fertilizer market 

challenges affect small to mid-sized 

producers. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices 15193 

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. 

(1) Please describe challenges and 

concerns with market concentration and 

power in the fertilizer industries, 

including the extent of control by any 

firms over farmers’ and business’ access 

to fertilizer, pricing, availability, 

transportation and delivery, quality, and 

any other contract terms or other factors. 

Please describe how these challenges 

have developed or evolved over time, 

and any details on geographic or other 

divergences within various regions of 

the United States or between the United 

States and international markets for 

fertilizer. 

(2) Please comment on both long and 

short-term trends in fertilizer prices. 

What role have fertilizer, crop prices, or 

availability of key raw materials and 

manufacturing played in any changes? 

Has price volatility increased and if so, 

what accounts for this increase in 

volatility? Please comment on any 

trends and the relationship of fertilizer 

prices to prices of relevant crops, such 

as corn and soybeans. 

(3) Please share your views on 

whether the existing fertilizer market is 

sufficiently competitive. If you believe it 

is not, how do competition problems 

manifest themselves? For example, is 

there evidence of collusion, market 

manipulation, or other anticompetitive 

practices among competitors, buyers of 

farm products, commodity traders or 

related financial firms to fix or alter 

prices, allocate markets, or restrict from 

where a farmer buys inputs and sells 

product? Is there evidence of private or 

public communications by fertilizer 

companies relating to price, output or 

supply that appear to go beyond those 

necessary to communicate important 

information to customers? 

(4) What effect have these mergers 

had on a merged firm’s market power 

and the ability to squeeze farmers or 

squeeze out competitors? Are there 

indications that firms have made it 

harder for new fertilizer firms to start up 

and grow? Is there evidence that firms 

have controlled or reduced supply to 

keep supply low and prices high? Have 

certain mergers allowed the acquisition 

of technologies or businesses that 

produce, transport, or retail fertilizer 

that competitors rely on, with the effect 

of lessening competition? Is there 

evidence of merged firms using their 

market power to price below cost or run 

losses in certain segments to undercut 

competitors or potential new market 

entrants? 

(5) What role do contractual or sales 

practices in fertilizer play with regard to 

producer access or prices paid to 

fertilizer? Have contractual or sales 

practices changed recently, or over 

time? Has the duration of these 

contracts changed over time and if so, 

how? Do some contracts require farmers 

to buy or use fertilizer from one 

supplier? Is there evidence of fertilizer 

companies preferentially pricing 

products differently for some farmers or 

dealers and not others? To what extent 

and in what ways do buyers of farm 

products influence farmers’ use of 

fertilizer? 

(6) Please describe any requirements 

or inducements to bundle a main 

product (fertilizer) with another product 

or service, and any impacts on 

competition. For instance, does such a 

practice induce a farmer’s lock-in or 

allow the firm offering the main product 

(fertilizer) with the secondary product 

(e.g.,: pest management chemical or 

seed) to exclude competitors from 

offering the second product? What 

impacts do any of the contractual 

requirements listed above or any other 

contractual or sales practices have on 

competition? 

(7) How do transportation and 

delivery affect fertilizer competition and 

access to fertilizer? For instance, the 

U.S. receives imports of fertilizer 

derivatives through the Gulf of Mexico, 

and ships fertilizer product up the 

Mississippi River. To what extent does 

market power by fertilizer or applicable 

firms over these or other key 

transportation channels affect 

competition and farmer’s access to 

fertilizer? What risks relating to supply 

chain, labor or other disruptions are 

most relevant? 

(8) Please comment on the U.S. 

agricultural system’s reliance on foreign 

supply of some fertilizers and global 

supply chain risks that could result 

from trade disruptions. Please comment 

on how the conflict in Ukraine may be 

impacting fertilizer markets. If other 

supply chain or trade disruptions have 

been experienced, please describe the 

effects and challenges in dealing with 

such events. Would greater availability 

of domestic or North American options 

mitigate risks? Would reducing 

dependence on suppliers from any one 

country or region mitigate risks? What 

tools might be deployed to achieve 

those ends? 

(9) Please comment on sustainability, 

climate, and other environmental 

concerns and risks relating to fertilizer 

markets. Have market concentration and 

power exacerbated these challenges and 

risks? Have they facilitated sectoral 

adjustment for climate and 

sustainability purposes? Would shifting 

fertilizer production to countries with 

high standards on labor and 

environmental protection improve 

competition, better manage 

sustainability risks, or otherwise 

improve public interest outcomes? What 

other strategies may exist to raise 

sustainability standards along supply 

chains? 

(10) What obstacles exist to the 

financing and development of new 

fertilizer capacity that would enhance 

the competitiveness of fertilizer 

markets? Would new or expanded 

domestic manufacturing, mining, 

processing, or alternative fertilizer 

production capacity help promote 

access to and affordability of fertilizer 

for agricultural producers? Are there 

existing ‘‘shovel ready’’ manufacturing, 

mining, or other processes that could or 

should be adjusted to facilitate new 

fertilizer production? Are there other 

potential new entrants in the near or 

medium-term? How might USDA best 

support investment in new fertilizer 

capacity in the U.S.? 

(11) How can USDA further support 

more efficient use of fertilizer? Are 

current precision agriculture tools 

effective at reducing fertilizer 

application rates without impacting 

yield? Could sub-field management of 

application rates improve economic 

resiliency of farms? Are there tools that 

USDA could support to facilitate better 

application rates, timing, and 

appropriate use of existing fertilizer 

sources? How could risk management 

tools such as crop insurance help with 

yield gaps from reduced nitrogen 

application rates, for example? How 

could USDA’s working lands and other 

conservation programs better support 

more target and efficient use of 

fertilizer? How might adverse 

community, labor, and environmental 

costs arising from the production 

fertilizer in certain geographies be better 

factored into USDA grants, loans, or 

regulatory programs? Are there ways 

USDA could support more effective use 

of other fertilizers (e.g.: manure) from 

livestock? Could considering these 

factors improve competition in certain 

markets? Please share your views. 

(12) Are there concerns or challenges 

related to data—e.g., to collection, 

privacy, accessibility, control, 

concentrated market power, or any other 

aspect—as it affects affordability, 

accessibility, and use of more targeted 

application of fertilizer? For instance, to 

what extent does the expanded 

application of targeted site-specific crop 

management using data from sensors, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
15194 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices 

climate readings, or mechanical systems 

in agriculture impact competition and 

farmers’ access to fertilizer or other 

agricultural inputs? Is there evidence of 

firms with market power using 

information obtained regarding farmers’ 

farming practices to adversely affect 

farmers or competitors? Are there ways 

that USDA or other agencies can 

safeguard a farmer’s control of data and 

enhance competition and fair access? 

(13) Please comment on the 

availability and accessibility of market 

information and data for fertilizers. 

Which public or private sources do you 

rely on to receive information on 

fertilizer prices and other related 

markets? Are you able to access timely, 

accurate, and comprehensive 

information on spot prices of fertilizers 

in local, regional, and national markets? 

If not, how can USDA further facilitate 

price reporting information and 

transparency for market participants? 

Beyond price reporting, what other 

market related information would be 

helpful that is currently limited or not 

accessible? 

(14) In what other ways can USDA 

support farmers’ ability to adapt to 

variability in fertilizer costs? How might 

USDA assist small producers in hedging 

or otherwise mitigating sudden, 

unexpected jumps in the spot price of 

fertilizer? How might USDA better 

support modes of production that rely 

less on fertilizer, or support access to 

markets that may pay a premium for 

products relying on less fertilizer? How 

can USDA further facilitate appropriate 

conservation of land, and/or support 

farmers’ flexibility in starting up and 

sustaining other farm enterprises? 

(15) What other tools, investments, or 

programs could USDA or other agencies 

deploy to enhance the competitiveness 

of fertilizer markets? Please suggest any 

other actionable steps that USDA or 

other agencies could take to help 

address any identified concerns. 

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 www.regulations.gov by 

entering docket number AMS–AMS–22– 

0027 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. 2022–05670 Filed 3–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

[Doc. No. AMS–AMS–22–0026] 

Competition in Food Retail and 

Distribution Markets and Access for 

Agricultural Producers and Small and 

Midsized Food Processors 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice; request for public 

comments. 

SUMMARY: On July 9, 2021, President 

Biden issued an Executive Order on 

‘‘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. The Executive 

Order directs the Secretary of 

Agriculture (the Secretary), among other 

things, to submit a report on the effect 

of retail concentration and retailers’ 

practices on the conditions of 

competition in the food industries. This 

notice requests comments and 

information from the public to assist the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

in preparing the report required by the 

Executive Order and advancing policy 

steps to promote competition in the 

food and agricultural markets. 

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–22–0026, 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) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES