Notice2022-05667
Competition and the Intellectual Property System: Seeds and Other Agricultural Inputs
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 17, 2022
Issuing agencies
Agriculture DepartmentAgricultural Marketing Service
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15198-15201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05667]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
[Doc. No. AMS-AMS-22-0025]
Competition and the Intellectual Property System: Seeds and Other
Agricultural Inputs
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; request for public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order
titled ``Promoting Competition in the American Economy,'' which creates
a White House Competition Council and directs Federal agency actions to
enhance fairness and competition across America's economy. Among other
things, the Executive Order directs the Secretary of Agriculture (the
Secretary) to prepare a report on concerns and strategies for ensuring
that the intellectual property (IP) system, while incentivizing
innovation, does not also unnecessarily reduce competition in seed and
other input markets. This notice requests comments and information from
the public to assist the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or the
Department) in preparing the report required by the Executive Order and
advancing policy steps on seeds and other inputs identified in and
developed by the report.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 16, 2022.
ADDRESSES: All written comments in response to this notice should be
posted online at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaina Nian, Agricultural Marketing
Service, at (202) 378-2541; or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c666d65626d2262656d624c797f686d226b637a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92f8f3fbfcf3bcfcfbf3fcd2e7e1f6f3bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14036,
``Promoting Competition in the American Economy'' (86 FR 36987) (E.O.
14036). E.O. 14036 focuses on the need for robust and open competition
in the American economy to secure broad and sustained economic
prosperity, promote the welfare of workers, farmers, small businesses,
startups, and consumers, and prevent the threat that excessive market
concentration poses to basic economic liberties and democratic
accountability. With respect to agriculture, E.O. 14036 states:
Consolidation in the agricultural industry is making it too hard
for small family farms to survive. Farmers are squeezed between
concentrated market power in the agricultural input industries--
seed, fertilizer, feed, and equipment suppliers--and concentrated
market power in the channels for selling agricultural products. As a
result, farmers' share of the value of their agricultural products
has decreased, and poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers,
and other agricultural workers struggle to retain autonomy and to
make sustainable returns.
In relevant part, E.O. 14036 directs, inter alia, that the
Secretary--
to help ensure that the intellectual property system, while
incentivizing innovation, does not also unnecessarily reduce
competition in seed and other input markets beyond that reasonably
contemplated by the Patent Act (see 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq. and 7
U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), in consultation with the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office, submit a report to the Chair of the
White House Competition Council, enumerating and describing any
relevant concerns of the Department of Agriculture and strategies
for addressing those concerns across intellectual property,
antitrust, and other relevant laws.
As part of executing our responsibilities under the E.O. 14036 for
this report on seeds and other inputs, the Department takes note of
wide-ranging concerns from agricultural producers regarding
concentrated market power in the agricultural input industries and
their connections to the intellectual property system. Four companies
account for 85 and 76 percent of corn and soybean seed markets,
controlling key sources for a farmer's planting.\1\ Four companies
account for 90 percent of the global grain trading and processing
market, controlling, among other grain-related markets, a farmer's
means for obtaining livestock feed.\2\ Four companies account for 61
percent of farm machinery markets.\3\ Two companies account for more
than 90 percent of chicken genetics for chicks sold in poultry
markets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2015, the largest four sellers of corn and soybean seed
accounted for 85 and 76 percent of U.S. corn and soybean seed sales,
respectively, up from 60 and 51 percent in 2000. F. Ciliberto, G.
Moshini, and E. Perry, ``Valuing product innovation: Genetically
engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans,'' RAND J. Econ 50
(2019): 615-644.
\2\ In 2012, the largest four firms accounted for 86 and 79
percent of wet corn milling and soybean processing markets,
respectively. Four firms accounted for 61 percent of the world's
farm machinery, up from 46 percent in 1977. J. MacDonald, (2017),
``Consolidation, Concentration, and Competition in the Food
System,'' Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,
Volume 102, Special Issue: ``Agricultural Consolidation: Causes and
the Path Forward'' (September 2017): 85-105, available at <a href="https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/765/2017-Consolidation,%20Concentration,%20and%20Competition%20in%20the%20Food%20System.pdf">https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/765/2017-Consolidation,%20Concentration,%20and%20Competition%20in%20the%20Food%20System.pdf</a>.
\3\ Sophia Murphy, David Burch, and Jennifer Clapp, ``Cereal
Secrets: The world's largest grain traders and global agriculture''
(Oxford, UK: Oxfam, 2012), available at <a href="https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/rr-cereal-secrets-grain-traders-agriculture-30082012-en_4.pdf">https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/rr-cereal-secrets-grain-traders-agriculture-30082012-en_4.pdf</a>.
\4\ Two companies, one acquired in 1985 by one of the world's
largest meat processing firms, control 90 percent of the chicken
breeding market. Dale Weihoff, ``How the Chicken of Tomorrow became
the Chicken of the World'' (Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy, 2013), available at <a href="https://www.iatp.org/blog/201303/how-the-chicken-of-tomorrow-became-the-chicken-of-the-world">https://www.iatp.org/blog/201303/how-the-chicken-of-tomorrow-became-the-chicken-of-the-world</a>; Glenn E.
Bugos, ``Intellectual Property Protection in the American Chicken-
Breeding Industry,'' Business History Review 66 (1992): 127-168,
available at <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3117055">https://www.jstor.org/stable/3117055</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During a series of joint workshops held in 2010 by USDA and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), farmers described their experiences
relating to
[[Page 15199]]
agricultural inputs, intellectual property, and market power--many of
which are still relevant today.\5\ Seed prices have been a central
concern: Rising more than 700 percent between 2000 and 2015 for
genetically modified (GM) seed, and more than 200 percent for non-GM
seed for the same period.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ One farmer described being once ``free to choose from about
a hundred different varieties of non-GMO soybeans . . . [and now]
``forced as a farmer to go to the seed companies, these few seed
companies that are left, to purchase my seed.'' Farmers described
how firms with market power raised technology fees mid-contract for
continued use of seed or product, selectively favored large farmers
through pricing schemes; and for at least one farmer increased the
cost of seed and chemical weed control by 153 percent during his 25
years of farming. Describing the IP system, one farmer stated,
``it's a combination of the utility patents and the consolidation of
the seed industry which has entrapped me as a farmer . . .''. U.S.
Department of Justice. (2010). Farmer Presentation of Issues
[Video], available at <a href="https://youtu.be/YZOiJ_CZnoU?t=2605">https://youtu.be/YZOiJ_CZnoU?t=2605</a>; U.S.
Department of Justice. (2010), Public Workshops Exploring
Competition Issues in Agriculture [Workshop transcript], available
at <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2010/12/20/iowa-agworkshop-transcript.pdf">https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2010/12/20/iowa-agworkshop-transcript.pdf</a>.
\6\ USDA Crop and Seed Price Index from NASS; Crop-specific seed
prices from USDA NASS for 1990-2015 (after which NASS discontinued
its seed price series) and extended over 2016-2020 using USDA ERS
Cost-of-Production estimates. Note, prices have fallen declined
since 2015, with commodity price swings playing a significant
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A healthy IP system plays an important role in facilitating that
research. The introduction of GM seeds have generally been accompanied
by higher productivity.\7\ Moreover, R&D spending and new variety
introductions by the private seed industry has generally grown in
recent decades.\8\ Given that global demand for food is expected to
double in the next 30 years, while public funding for research and
advancements in agriculture, food and nutrition have flatlined or
declined over the past decade, it is important to ensure that private
sector research continues to support innovations in development of seed
genetics, chemical controls, and crop characteristics.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ One study estimated that 44 percent of the value added by
enhanced productivity was retained by farmers, with the rest
captured by seed companies as a return on their investment in R&D.
The result may be is similar in effect to the introduction of hybrid
corn seed in the 1940s and 1950s. F. Ciliberto, G. Moschini, and
E.D. Perry (2019), ``Valuing Product Innovation: Genetically
Engineered Varieties in U.S. Corn and Soybeans,'' RAND Journal of
Economics, 50: 615-644.
\8\ Seed-biotech companies have spent, on average, about 10-15
percent of their seed sales on research and development, which
appears fairly consistent over time. J. Fernandez-Cornejo, (2004),
``The Seed Industry in U.S. Agriculture: An Exploration of Data and
Information on Crop Seed Markets, Regulation, Industry Structure,
and Research and Development,'' Agriculture Information Bulletin,
No. (AIB-786), USDA-ERS; FAO 2019, ``Analysis of Sales and
Profitability with the Seed Sector,'' Independent Report by HIS
Markit (Phillips McDougall) for the Co-Chairs of the Ad-Hoc Open-
Ended Working Group to Enhance the Functioning of the Multilateral
System of FAO's International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture; K. Fuglie, et al. (2011), ``Research
Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing,
Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide,'' Economic
Research Report 130, USDA-ERS.
\9\ G.L. Mehaffy, (2012), ``Challenge and change,'' Educause
Review, 47(5), 25-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet there are also developments in the research landscape that
should raise concerns. For example, small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs), which have historically served as primary sources of
innovation, face barriers to entry.\10\ Some segments, such as organic
seeds, also remain underserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ It is not yet clear whether the recent growth in venture
capital financing in food and agriculture will yield new innovations
and new competitors, or whether incumbent firms will establish
``kill zones'' similar to what has occurred in the technology
sector--acquisitions of start-ups that threaten the dominant
players. On similar practices in other sectors, see M. Jarsulic,
``Antitrust Enforcement for the 21st Century,'' (2019), The
Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. 64 Issue 4, available at <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003603X19877008">https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003603X19877008</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeds and their corollary pesticide products are not the only
agricultural inputs where control over intellectual property may
intersect with concerns around concentration and competition. The IP
system is relevant to control over animal genetics in livestock and
poultry, farm machinery and precision technology and data, and more.
USDA is interested in all relevant comments on the topics noted
above. We are particularly interested in what effects various forms of
IP, such as patents, have on small to mid-sized seed businesses and
plant breeding programs. Other important input markets include those
for equipment; fertilizer; feed; pest control; chemical management
agents; animal breeding and genetics; storage and transportation;
hatcheries; or pre-farm markets, including farm input derivatives,
processing, trading, and financing.
We are further interested in comments addressing the role of fair
and competitive markets in promoting local and regional food systems,
creating new market opportunities (including for value-added
agriculture and value-added products), advancing efforts to transform
the food system, meeting the needs of the agricultural workforce,
supporting and promoting consumers' nutrition security, particularly
for low-income populations, and supporting the needs of underserved and
small to mid-sized producers and processors.
II. Written Comments
USDA encourages commenters, when addressing the elements below, to
clearly indicate the question their comments are responding to by
repeating the text of the question before their response. This would
assist USDA in more easily reviewing and summarizing the comments
received in response to these specific comment areas. In addition, USDA
welcomes commenters to refer to, with appropriate explanation, any
views set forth in recently or previously submitted comments, such as
those to E.O. 14017 ``America's Supply Chains'' (No. AMS-TM-21-0034)
(86 FR 20652).
For its report on competition in the intellectual property system,
including for seeds and other inputs, USDA is particularly interested
in comments and information directed to how to achieve the policy goals
listed in E.O. 14036 of ensuring that the intellectual property system,
while incentivizing innovation, does not also unnecessarily reduce
competition in seed and other input markets beyond that reasonably
contemplated by the Patent Act (see 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq. and 7 U.S.C.
2321 et seq.) and the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) (7 U.S.C.
2321 et seq.), and of otherwise supporting the policy objectives of
fair and competitive markets for agricultural and food products.
Our request for comment includes but is not limited to the
following elements. The questions below are meant to stimulate comments
and are not intended to represent particular views of USDA or any other
government agency. Commenters should feel free to respond to those they
feel most relevant to them, or as their time and interests permit.
Comments may overlap or be organized as the commenter feels most
appropriate. Please offer descriptive or quantitative information, as
available and relevant.
Concentration and Market Power in Agricultural Inputs
(1) Please describe challenges, concerns, and any other views
(including relating to any benefits) with market concentration and
market power in the agricultural input industries, including, as
applicable, effects on farmers, competitors and related markets;
pricing; availability; transportation and delivery; quality; research
and innovation; economic growth, labor markets, and inequality issues;
supply chain resiliency; and any other factors.
(2) Please share your views on access, availability, pricing,
quality, and related matters relating to seeds. In particular, are seed
companies offering an adequate variety of types of seeds and traits
that meet your needs as a grower? Are seed
[[Page 15200]]
companies regularly providing new and improved varieties for growers?
Have gains in yield or net returns resulting from use of new varieties
been adequate to compensate farmers for the cost of seeds? Are regional
needs, tribal and underserved communities, climate concerns, and
product-specific needs, such as organic seeds, being appropriately
served by the seed marketplace?
(3) For agricultural inputs other than seeds, please share similar
responses to those solicited for seeds in Question 2, above, relating
to access, availability, pricing, quality and related matters. Please
respond as to whether companies are offering adequate product varieties
to meet producer needs, whether there are new and improved varieties or
products, and whether there are gains in yield or other producer
benefits, including net returns. Are regional needs, tribal and
underserved communities, climate concerns, and product-specific needs,
being appropriately served by the marketplace?
Intellectual Property
(4) Please share your views on whether, and if so how, the existing
IP system--including plant patents, utility patents, and plant variety
protection certificates--appropriately balances the need to incentivize
innovation with the goal of ensuring public access to new and improved
products at reasonable cost. Please explain why or why not, and discuss
in context of seeds or the particular agricultural input of concern. If
you have concerns, please explain the concerns and provide suggestions
on how the IP system can be improved to address those concerns.
(5) For seeds in particular, is the patent side of the plant-
related IP system appropriately reserving its grant of statutory patent
monopolies to inventions that are of significant utility, novelty and
non-obviousness? Do you have concerns about patent quality in the area
of plant-related IP or plant-related technologies? If you have
concerns, please explain.
(6) Does the existing IP system, as relating to seeds and other
agricultural inputs, effectively meet the statutory goal of rewarding
invention through protection from competition for a fixed term? Does it
fairly and effectively promote competition and innovation, or does it
inappropriately suppress competition and innovation? Please explain. If
you believe the IP system inappropriately suppresses competition or
insufficiently rewards innovation, please explain and provide concrete
examples where possible.
(7) Do farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders have sufficient
access to off-protection and generic options? If not, are regulatory
tools, systems, or practices being utilized to inhibit access? For
example, do you believe there is evidence of inappropriate strategies
to extend the life of patents? Please explain and provide examples.
(8) Please share your views on whether and how the different forms
of IP protection for new plant varieties appropriately promote access
to germplasm for the development of new varieties. Please share
specifics where possible and provide suggested improvements to ensure
farmers' and breeders' access to germplasm for variety development.
(9) Please comment on IP enforcement. Do you believe farmers,
breeders and small and medium sized enterprises face challenges
concerning enforcement of their plant related IP rights? If so, please
provide concrete examples. Do you believe farmers, breeders and small
and medium sized enterprises face challenges from other companies
asserting their IP rights against them? If so, please provide specific
examples. Please also offer recommended solutions for mitigating those
challenges.
(10) Are there other ways in which the IP system, including
copyrights and trademarks, may positively or adversely affect choice,
quality, and other aspects of competition in seeds or other
agricultural inputs? For example, what role does IP play, if any, in
farmers' and ranchers' ability to repair and maintain equipment? \11\
Please provide examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to
Congress on Repair Restrictions (May 2021), available at <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions">https://www.ftc.gov/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Practices and Other Competition Matters
(11) What role do contractual or sales practices in seed and other
agricultural input markets play with regard to a farmer's or business's
autonomy, innovation, or ability to compete? How have contractual or
sales practices changed over time? Do some firms' contracts require
farmers to buy inputs from or sell exclusively to one or a few firms?
What impacts do these contractual requirements have on competition?
(12) Is there evidence of contracting or sales practices locking a
farmer into a mode of production and inhibiting them from entering
other farm enterprises? To what extent do requirements or inducements
to buy a main product (e.g., seed) with a second product (e.g., pest
management chemical), bundle, stacked trait, or service impact the
farmer or other agricultural input competitors? For instance, does such
a practice lock a farmer into or out of certain product choices? Please
offer specific recommendations for reforms.
(13) What role do marketing and labeling practices have on
competition in seeds or other agricultural inputs? Do labeling and
naming practices provide sufficient notice that the seed or other
agricultural input in question is protected by IP or not protected?
Please explain.
(14) Please comment on implications, negative or positive, of
mergers in the seed industry and in industries that sell other
agricultural inputs. Have certain mergers changed contracting or sales
practices? Have certain mergers allowed the acquisition of rivals or
technologies or companies that competitor firms rely on? Have mergers
delivered efficiencies? Please offer recommendations for specific
actions where appropriate.
(15) Please comment on the presence of, and any concerns around,
licensing restrictions in seeds or other agricultural inputs. Please
comment on cross-licensing practices, including restrictions or
exclusive cross-licensing permissions, and any related concerns. Do
fees on the same type of license vary and if so under what
circumstances? Do licensees have access to information on comparable
licenses? Are some companies or organizations denied reasonable access
to licenses and on what basis? What further guidance, if any, on
appropriate licensing practices would be helpful? \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Dep't Justice & Federal Trade Comm'n, Antitrust
Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (Jan. 2017),
available at <a href="https://www.justice.gov/atr/IPguidelines/download">https://www.justice.gov/atr/IPguidelines/download</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(16) Please comment on any other concerns relating to competition
matters. For example, do you have concerns relating to manufacturer
restrictions on aftermarket competition, preferential pricing schemes
that may favor one farmer or competitor over another, or contractual
arrangements such as tying or exclusivity arrangements? Do you believe
there is evidence of attempts to fix prices, allocate markets, or to
restrict from where a farmer buys inputs and sells product? Do you
believe there is evidence of agricultural input firms using their
market power to price below cost and run losses to undercut and
eliminate competitor or potentially competing firms? Is monopsony--
where sellers are harmed from market power abuses by buyers--relevant
in these industries and supply chains, and if so
[[Page 15201]]
how? What role, if any, does financing or financial markets play in any
of the issues addressed above? Please provide examples for concerns
raised.
Information Resources
(17) Do you believe farmers, breeders and other stakeholders have
appropriate access to information, education, and support services
around seeds and other agricultural inputs, including information on IP
protection and IP-related risks covering seeds they buy and the
varietal identity of those seeds? If not, what are the most effective
means for improving access to such information? What about other
agricultural inputs?
(18) Do farmers, breeders, and other stakeholders have access to
adequate information on new applications for plant IP, prior to the
award of plant patents, plant variety protection certificates or
utility patents to the applicants? Are there improvements that could be
made to information accessibility for applications prior to the
granting of IP protection? What about for other agricultural inputs?
(19) Please comment on any concerns or challenges related to data--
e.g., collection, privacy, accessibility, control, market power, or any
other aspect--as it affects competition in seeds or other agricultural
inputs. To what extent does the expanded application of site-specific
crop management using data from sensors, climate readings, or
mechanical systems in agriculture impact competition and farmers'
access to seeds and other inputs? What mechanisms would safeguard a
farmer's control of data and enhance competition and fair access, while
appropriately promoting the effective use of new technologies and data
analytics? Are there relevant changes to the IP system that would
facilitate innovation, competition, and fair access to data? Please
comment on any benefits and opportunities for farmers relating to data
and consolidation, as appropriate.
Additional Matters
(20) Please share any information relevant to regional needs,
tribal and underserved communities, climate concerns, and product-
specific matters, such as organic seeds, in relation to any of the
concerns raised above.
(21) Please comment on any international policy or risk
implications related to any of the above matters. Do one or more of the
currently available IP forms of protecting plant-related technologies
have particular challenges or benefits in the international context in
terms of ensuring fair competition and providing farmers access to
improved varieties, and quality, affordable seeds? What about for other
agricultural inputs?
Policy, Programs, and Solutions
(22) Please comment on the strengths, weaknesses, effectiveness,
and gaps in current USDA policies and programs to facilitate access to
affordable seeds and other agricultural inputs for farmers, plant
breeders, ranchers, and other stakeholders. Are information services,
grow out services, and access to seed varietals that are not subject to
IP protections sufficiently available? Do farmers, plant breeders,
ranchers, and other stakeholders have sufficient voice within relevant
agency decision-making, and if not, how could it be improved? How could
labeling practices be improved? Please suggest actionable steps that
USDA could take to help address any identified concerns.
(23) How could the IP system be improved to address any concerns
highlighted?
(24) How could Federal or state antitrust enforcement better
address any concerns highlighted?
(25) What other policy changes, tools, investments, or programs
could USDA or other agencies deploy to enhance the competitiveness of
seeds and other agricultural input markets in relation to any of the
concerns highlighted by your responses to the aforementioned questions?
III. Requirements for Written Comments
The <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> by entering docket number AMS-AMS-22-0025 in the
search field on the home page. All filers should name their files using
the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. Anonymous
comments are also accepted. Communications from agencies of the United
States Government will not be made available for public inspection.
Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly
identify the business confidential portion at the time of submission,
file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific
legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential version of the
submission. The nonconfidential version of the submission will be
placed in the public file on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments
submitted electronically containing business confidential information,
the file name of the business confidential version should begin with
the characters ``BC.'' Any page containing business confidential
information must be clearly marked ``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' on the top
of that page. The non-confidential version must be clearly marked
``PUBLIC.'' The file name of the nonconfidential version should begin
with the character ``P.'' The ``BC'' and ``P'' should be followed by
the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or rebuttal
comments. If a public hearing is held in support of this supply chain
assessment, a separate Federal Register notice will be published
providing the date and information about the hearing.
Melissa R. Bailey,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-05667 Filed 3-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 17, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.