Notice2022-05670
Access to Fertilizer: Competition and Supply Chain Concerns
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. 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.
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 15191-15194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <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-22-0027, 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 <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#a3c9c2cacdc28dcdcac2cde3d6d0c7c28dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e18b80888f80cf8f88808fa194928580cf868e97">[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 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 <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44951/11777_err130_1_.pdf?v=8531.8">https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44951/11777_err130_1_.pdf?v=8531.8</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/reports/price-effects-merger-agricultural-fertilizer-manufacturers-agrium-potashcorp">https://www.ftc.gov/reports/price-effects-merger-agricultural-fertilizer-manufacturers-agrium-potashcorp</a>.
\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 <a href="https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/the-history-consolidation-and-future-of-the-us-nitrogen-fertilizer-production-industry">https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/the-history-consolidation-and-future-of-the-us-nitrogen-fertilizer-production-industry</a>.
\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 <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-agrium-m-a-potashcorp/potash-corp-agrium-talk-merger-competition-scrutiny-expected-idUSKCN1151UT">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-agrium-m-a-potashcorp/potash-corp-agrium-talk-merger-competition-scrutiny-expected-idUSKCN1151UT</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/35824/10935_ar33.pdf?v=1826.4">https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/35824/10935_ar33.pdf?v=1826.4</a>.
\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
<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-agrium-m-a-potashcorp/potash-corp-agrium-talk-merger-competition-scrutiny-expected-idUSKCN1151UT">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-agrium-m-a-potashcorp/potash-corp-agrium-talk-merger-competition-scrutiny-expected-idUSKCN1151UT</a>.
\8\ David Schimmelpfennig & Keith Fuglie, & Paul Heisey, (2011),
``Private research and development for synthetic fertilizers,'' 67-
74, USDA Economic Research Service available at <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44951/11777_err130_1_.pdf?v=3767.6">https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44951/11777_err130_1_.pdf?v=3767.6</a>.
\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 <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phosphorus-a-looming-crisis">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phosphorus-a-looming-crisis</a>. See also Schmundt,
Hilmar, (2010), ``Essential Element Becoming Scarce: Experts Warn of
Impending Phosphorus Crisis,'' DER SPIEGEL ONLINE INT'L, available
at <a href="https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/essential-element-becoming-scarce-experts-warn-of-impending-phosphorus-crisis-a-690450.html">https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/essential-element-becoming-scarce-experts-warn-of-impending-phosphorus-crisis-a-690450.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <a href="https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/fertilizer-market-outlook-potash-prices-rise-2019-urea-and-phosphates-remain">https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/fertilizer-market-outlook-potash-prices-rise-2019-urea-and-phosphates-remain</a>.
\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 <a href="https://cap.unl.edu/crops/perfect-storm-fertilizer-markets">https://cap.unl.edu/crops/perfect-storm-fertilizer-markets</a>.
\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
<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-29/european-fertilizer-prices-set-to-surge-amid-energy-squeeze?sref=c4HfBhdW">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-29/european-fertilizer-prices-set-to-surge-amid-energy-squeeze?sref=c4HfBhdW</a>.
\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 <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-19/china-s-curbs-on-fertilizer-exports-to-worsen-global-price-shock?sref=c4HfBhdW">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-19/china-s-curbs-on-fertilizer-exports-to-worsen-global-price-shock?sref=c4HfBhdW</a>.
\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,
<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/belarus-potash-maker-roils-fertilizer-markets-with-force-majeure?sref=c4HfBhdW">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/belarus-potash-maker-roils-fertilizer-markets-with-force-majeure?sref=c4HfBhdW</a>.
\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 <a href="https://www.ifpri.org/blog/how-will-russias-invasion-ukraine-affect-global-food-security">https://www.ifpri.org/blog/how-will-russias-invasion-ukraine-affect-global-food-security</a>.
\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
<a href="https://afpc.tamu.edu/research/publications/files/711/BP-22-01-Fertilizer.pdf">https://afpc.tamu.edu/research/publications/files/711/BP-22-01-Fertilizer.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <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">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <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. 2022-05670 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.