[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15191-15194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05670]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 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.
 
 ========================================================================
 

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

[[Page 15191]]



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 [email protected].

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

    \1\ One 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \2\ Facts 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-merger-agricultural-fertilizer-manufacturers-agrium-potashcorp.
    \3\ Bekkerman, 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.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/the-history-consolidation-and-future-of-the-us-nitrogen-fertilizer-production-industry.
    \4\ For 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\
    \5\ The 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-a-potashcorp/potash-corp-agrium-talk-merger-competition-scrutiny-expected-idUSKCN1151UT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 15192]]

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

    \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.
    \7\ Prior 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/us-agrium-m-a-potashcorp/potash-corp-agrium-talk-merger-competition-scrutiny-expected-idUSKCN1151UT.
    \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.
    \9\ The 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.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phosphorus-a-looming-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-becoming-scarce-experts-warn-of-impending-phosphorus-crisis-a-690450.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \10\ For 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/fertilizer-market-outlook-potash-prices-rise-2019-urea-and-phosphates-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/perfect-storm-fertilizer-markets.
    \12\ For 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-energy-squeeze?sref=c4HfBhdW.
    \13\ China, 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-global-price-shock?sref=c4HfBhdW.
    \14\ U.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-maker-roils-fertilizer-markets-with-force-majeure?sref=c4HfBhdW.
    \15\ Russia 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-global-food-security.
    \16\ Transportation 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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, 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

[[Page 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,

[[Page 15194]]

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