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
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices 15195 

1Retail Trends, Economic Research Service, 

USDA, available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/ 

topics/food-markets-prices/retailing-wholesaling/ 

retail-trends/ (last accessed March 2022); Lucia 

Foster, John Haltiwanger, Shawn Klimek, C.J. 

Krizan, and Scott Ohlmacher, (2016), ‘‘The 

Evolution of National Retail Chains: How We Got 

Here,’’ Handbook of the Economics of Retailing and 

Distribution, Emek Basker, ed. London, UK: Edward 

Elgar Publishing. 

2See Federal Trade Commission v. Sysco 

Corporation, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D.C.), Memorandum of 

Opiniont (2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/documents/cases/ 

150623syscomemo.pdf; see also, generally, 

‘‘Wholesaling,’’ USDA Economic Research Service, 

available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/foodmarkets-prices/retailing-wholesaling/wholesaling/ 

(last accessed March 2022). 

3Four large meat-packing companies dominate 

over 80 percent of the beef sales market and, yet, 

over the last five years, farmers’ share of the price 

of beef has dropped by more than a quarter—from 

approximately 52 percent to 37 percent—while the 

price of beef for consumers has risen. Four large 

meat-packing companies dominate about 70 percent 

of the pork market, and four large poultry 

integrators make up 54 percent of the poultry 

market, although a pending merger would raise that 

further. Annual Report, Packers and Stockyards 

Division, USDA, available at https://

www.ams.usda.gov/reports/psd-annual-reports (last 

accessed March 2022). 

On monopsony’s effects up the supply chain, 

generally, see Barry Lynn, Cornered (New York: 

Wiley, 2010). 

4Meat and Poultry Supply Chain, USDA, 

available at https://www.usda.gov/meat (last 

accessed March 2022). 

(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 notes: 

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 

the Secretary, among other things— 

to improve farmers’ and smaller food 

processors’ access to retail markets, not later 

than 300 days after the date of this order, in 

consultation with the Chair of the FTC, [to] 

submit a report to the Chair of the White 

House Competition Council, on the effect of 

retail concentration and retailers’ practices 

on the conditions of competition in the food 

industries, including any practices that may 

violate the Federal Trade Commission Act, 

the Robinson-Patman Act (Pub. L. 74–692, 49 

Stat. 1526, 15 U.S.C. 13 et seq.), or other 

relevant laws, and on grants, loans, and other 

support that may enhance access to retail 

markets by local and regional food 

enterprises. 

This notice requests comments and 

information from the public to assist 

USDA in preparing and executing the 

report required by E.O. 14036. To 

facilitate those comments and 

information on access to retail markets, 

we highlight certain questions and 

concerns that are relevant to our efforts. 

Consolidation in food retail and 

related parts of the supply chain, such 

as distribution, present potential risks of 

unfair and anticompetitive practices 

throughout the food supply chain. 

Increases in concentration have been an 

important trend in food retail over the 

last few decades, as the share of singlestore firms or local chains has declined 

from 55 percent in 1977 to 35 percent 

as of 2007, while the concentration ratio 

of the four largest food retailers hit 34 

percent in 2019.1 Food distribution is 

concentrated in certain markets as well, 

with two firms dominating upwards of 

70 percent of the national broadline 

distribution market.2 Additionally, 

insufficient analytic attention has been 

paid to the connections between retail, 

distribution, and processing firms and 

the implications for competition in the 

food and agricultural supply chains. 

The rise in food retail and distribution 

concentration in recent decades 

potentially impacts agricultural 

producers and small, midsized and 

otherwise independent (SME) 

processors—as well as potentially 

ultimately impacting consumers. 

Concentration in food retail and 

distribution may magnify and contribute 

to consolidation among meat and 

poultry processing firms, among other 

food system market participants.3 Such 

firms themselves may consolidate to 

secure leverage against consolidated 

food retail firms, which in turn may 

make it more difficult for SME 

processors to access food retail markets. 

Concerns relating to exclusionary and 

predatory conduct in food retail and 

distribution thus may be particularly 

relevant to the viability of new and 

expanded meat and poultry processing 

facilities and other new food system 

market entrants, which are receiving 

over $1 billion of support under the 

White House Meat and Poultry 

Processing Supply Chain Action Plan.4

USDA will use public comments 

received through this notice to inform 

our policymaking and advocacy to help 

increase fairness and competition in 

food retail and related segments of the 

American food and agricultural markets. 

We are particularly interested in the role 

that rules, regulations, and enforcement 

under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 

1921 and the Robinson-Patman Act of 

1936—both of which were designed to 

regulate discriminatory limits on market 

access—may play in enhancing market 

access for agricultural producers and 

SME processors to retail markets, and 

especially in preventing predatory 

pricing by incumbent market 

participants to exclude new market 

entrants and competitors. 

We are also interested in comments 

addressing the role that grants, loans, 

and other programs and services may 

play to enhance access to retail markets 

by agricultural producers, SME food 

processors, and other local and regional 

food enterprises. The Department is 

particularly interested in the role that 

cooperative or community-owned 

grocery retail and food distribution 

networks have or may play in 

addressing market challenges and in 

better serving producer, worker, 

community, and consumer needs, for 

example in remote locations or 

underserved communities. 

Commenters may further provide 

information relevant to 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, with appropriate 

explanation, to 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) or 

‘‘Investments and Opportunities for 

Meat and Poultry Processing 

Infrastructure’’ (No. AMS–TM–21–0058) 

(86 FR 37728). 

This request for information includes 

but is not limited to the following 

elements. The questions below are 

meant to stimulate comments, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
15196 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices 

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. 

Competition and Impacts 

(1) Are market concentration and 

power, and lack of competition, 

problems in food retail and distribution 

markets? If so, where and in what ways? 

What practices in the food retail and 

distribution markets are most 

concerning from a competition 

standpoint? Are there particular 

practices that exclude or disadvantage 

new market participants or potential 

market participants, unfairly transfer 

risk, or otherwise abuse market power 

or make it harder to compete? Please 

describe specific experiences and 

challenges, if possible. 

(2) How do concentration and size in 

the food retail and distribution markets 

affect the ability of agricultural 

producers and new, SME food 

processors to access the retail 

marketplace? Are agricultural producers 

and SME food processors that serve 

local and regional markets affected 

differently? Are there regional and other 

demographic variations to any of the 

impacts? Please describe specific 

experiences and challenges, if possible. 

(3) How does competition and 

concentration among distributors and 

other parts of the wholesale food market 

relate to food retail concentration and 

competition? How do distribution and 

wholesale food market competition and 

concentration affect access to markets 

for agricultural producers and SME food 

processors? Does buying power of some 

retailers at the wholesale level make it 

difficult for some producers or SME 

processors to access distribution within 

these channels? 

(4) How are SME grocery retailers 

specifically affected by concentration 

and potentially anticompetitive 

practices in food retail markets? What 

about distributors that may serve them? 

Do any of those challenges affect 

agricultural producers and SME food 

processors? Please describe specific 

experiences and challenges, if possible. 

(5) How are smaller food service 

businesses, schools, hospitals, and other 

institutional food buyers affected by 

concentration or potentially 

anticompetitive practices in food 

processing and distribution? What 

effects do concentration and potentially 

anticompetitive conduct have on food 

prices, quality and safety, distribution 

and availability of healthy foods that 

meet nutrition standards, or other needs 

specific to these buyers and food 

providers? 

(6) How are workers, consumers, 

other small businesses, communities, 

and others along the food supply chain 

affected by concentration or potentially 

anticompetitive practices in food retail 

and distribution markets? What effects 

do concentration and potentially 

anticompetitive conduct have on food 

prices, quality and safety; distribution 

and accessibility to healthy foods, and 

food and nutrition security; and worker 

empowerment, equity for underserved 

producers, and environmental 

sustainability? Are challenges with food 

deserts aggravated by concentration or 

competition issues in the food and 

agricultural supply chains? Do impacts 

to any of these concerns vary by region, 

commodity, or by other demographics? 

Business Practices 

(7) Please describe the role that 

exclusive dealing arrangements play in 

the food retail and distribution 

marketplaces. Do they facilitate, inhibit, 

or otherwise affect opportunities in the 

industry for SME processors? How do 

they affect the development of new 

products and the growth, diversity, or 

resilience of the industry? Do they 

facilitate, inhibit, or otherwise affect 

product quality and risk management? 

Do differences in commodity, product, 

or region affect the practices, risks, 

barriers, or outcomes? Are tribal 

businesses and enterprises and 

underserved communities affected 

differently? Does the size, scale, or 

market power generally of the 

companies involved in such an 

arrangement matter for how these 

arrangements affect competition? 

(8) Please describe the role that 

slotting fees, category captains, and 

other preferential access or discounts 

play in retail food markets, including 

but not limited to meat and poultry. Are 

certain segments, such as organic or 

value-added products like grass-fed 

meats, affected differently? What affect 

do such behaviors have on access to the 

retail marketplace? How are preferential 

relationships in the marketplace 

manifested, and do those relationships 

limit new market entrants from 

accessing the marketplace? Do those 

relationships improve risk management 

or otherwise enhance market access in 

certain circumstances? Should any of 

these practices be limited or changed to 

support new market entrants, and if so, 

how? 

(9) If you are a small or mid-sized 

producer, have you had to change any 

business or marketing practices in order 

to effectively navigate required slotting 

fees to gain market access? Have these 

changes negatively impacted the overall 

profits of the products you sell? Do you 

believe that slotting fees are adversely or 

unfairly deployed against small or midsized producers or otherwise affect 

market access and what is the basis for 

your belief? 

(10) Please share any concerns 

relating to predatory pricing by 

incumbent food processors, threats of 

retaliation by incumbent food 

processors against retailers for offering 

new or different products, or other 

practices designed to exclude 

competitors from the marketplace. 

When and where have they occurred? 

Were antitrust enforcement tools able to 

address the challenges in a timely and 

effective manner? If not, why not? 

(11) Please comment on implications, 

negative or positive, of mergers in the 

food retail or distribution sectors. 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 

negatively or positively impacted 

workers? Have mergers delivered 

efficiencies? 

Information and Supply Chain Market 

Structures 

(12) What roles do control and access 

to retail data play in competition and 

access for farmers and SME food 

processors? Are there significant 

imbalances in access to information 

among producers, packers, distributor, 

and retailers, and how do those 

imbalances affect choices and outcomes 

in the market? Describe the role that 

data sharing between food retail 

companies and larger food processors, 

such as packers, plays in the market 

environment, if any. How do any 

differences affect competition and 

market access, and should any of these 

be limited, and if so how? 

(13) Describe the role that retailer 

ownership, including financing, of 

livestock and packing play in supply 

chain competition and access to retail 

for producers and SME processors? Are 

competition concerns, if any, similar in 

other agricultural commodity markets? 

Have these practices reduced or 

eliminated the need for, or competition 

among, certain suppliers to some retail 

firms? Are certain segments, such as 

organic or value-added products like 

grassfed meats, affected differently? 

Should ownership, financing, or other 

forms of vertical integration be 

promoted, limited, or otherwise 

changed, and, if so, how? 

(14) Please discuss how 

transportation—including rail and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices 15197 

5See, e.g., ‘‘USDA Announces Supplemental 

American Rescue Plan Funding Available through 

the Local Agriculture Market Program, Including 

Funding to Expand Farm-to-Institution 

Opportunities,’’ USDA, March 1, 2022, available at 

https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/ 

03/01/usda-announces-supplemental-americanrescue-plan-funding-available. 

6See, e.g., Healthy Food Financing Initiative, 

available at https://www.investinginfood.com/whatwe-do/ (last accessed March 2022). 

7See USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, 

‘‘Commodity Procurement,’’ available at https://

www.ams.usda.gov/commodity-procurement (last 

accessed March 2022). 

8For more information, see ‘‘Food Safety,’’ 

Agricultural Marketing Service, available at https:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/services/local-regional/foodsector/food-safety (last accessed March 2022). 

9See USDA Market News, ‘‘Retail Reports,’’ 

available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/marketnews/retail (last accessed Feb. 2022). 

10See USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, 

‘‘Market Research and Analysis,’’ available at 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/marketresearch (last accessed March 2022). 

ocean shipping—and delivery systems 

may affect competition in food retail 

and distribution. Are certain ownership 

structures, business relationships, or 

business practices of particular concern? 

How do transportation costs, fees, or 

levels of service affect the 

competitiveness of downstream 

businesses? Has concentration in 

transportation industries led to negative 

service outcomes or other potentially 

unfair practices? Have contractual 

arrangements that penalize suppliers, 

including transportation companies, for 

not delivering in sufficient quantities or 

on other particular terms become more 

prevalent? Have they become 

problematic as market power has grown, 

or in certain circumstances? 

(15) Describe the role that label claims 

and labeling standards play in access to 

retail markets for agricultural producers. 

Are public or private resources 

sufficiently available for smaller 

agricultural producers seeking to 

develop or use labels? Do labels 

standards, verification, and enforcement 

appropriately support access to markets 

for agricultural producers and SME 

processors? Are there any instances 

when a larger supplier used, including 

potentially misused, a label to gain 

market access or advantage over smaller 

producers or SME processors? Please 

share concerns and recommendations, if 

any. 

(16) What role, if any, does financing 

or financial markets play any of the 

issues addressed above? 

(17) Are there any other aspects of the 

regulatory environment that affect retail 

market competition and access to retail 

for producers and SME processors? Are 

there specific elements of these 

requirements that could be more 

effectively tailored? What types of 

resources would be helpful to assist 

SMEs with compliance? 

Policy Responses 

(18) How can antitrust and market 

regulation and enforcement, including 

relating to mergers, unfair practices, and 

price discrimination, do more to address 

competition concerns in food retail and 

distribution markets? Should Federal 

and state antitrust enforcers place 

greater emphasis on adverse 

consequences of buyer power? Should 

greater attention be paid to information 

asymmetries and preferential access to 

data? How could USDA utilize its 

regulatory and enforcement authorities 

more effectively? 

(19) How can predatory pricing by 

entrenched market participants be better 

identified and acted upon by relevant 

enforcement authorities? Can laws that 

prohibit discriminatory or preferential 

pricing, such as the Packers and 

Stockyards Act and the RobinsonPatman Act, play a greater role in 

preventing predatory pricing schemes, 

or otherwise promote greater food 

market access for agricultural producers 

and SME processors? Please explain. 

(20) How could other USDA 

programs, services, and authorities be 

further deployed to enhance access to 

retail markets for agricultural producers 

and SME food processors? For 

example— 

• How might grants, loans, and other 

support from USDA enhance access to 

retail markets by local and regional food 

enterprises? 

• How might USDA marketing 

programs enhance access to retail 

markets for agricultural producers and 

SME food processors, including 

programs which facilitate access to a 

variety of markets, support value-added 

production and product diversification; 

increase diversification in distribution 

channels and market development, such 

as food hubs, non-profit and cooperative 

distribution models; and provide 

technical assistance to producers that 

helps access USDA programs and 

improve market readiness? 5

• How might food and nutrition grant 

and loan programs better support 

competition in retail and better access 

for producers and SME processors? 6

• How might government 

procurement processes further support 

agricultural producers and SME 

processors effectively access 

institutional customers, such as schools 

and hospitals? 7

• Are there ways to facilitate easier 

access to food safety compliance 

resources, and other ways to level the 

playing field for SME processors? 8

• What additional information or 

transparency could USDA’s Market 

News Service provide on retail, 

wholesale, or distribution markets, 

through the Livestock Mandatory 

Reporting Act of 1999 or otherwise? 9

Are there information or educational 

tools, services, or access to data that 

could be helpful? 

• What additional market analysis or 

advocacy could USDA do with respect 

to local and regional food systems, 

transportation, or otherwise that could 

support fair and competitive food retail 

and distribution markets? 10

• How else can competition be 

enhanced in food retail, distribution, 

and related areas? Please discuss any 

other relevant matters USDA should 

consider. 

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– 

0026 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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