Competition in Food Retail and Distribution Markets and Access for Agricultural Producers and Small and Midsized Food Processors, 15194-15198 [2022-05669]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15194
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
climate readings, or mechanical systems
in agriculture impact competition and
farmers’ access to fertilizer or other
agricultural inputs? Is there evidence of
firms with market power using
information obtained regarding farmers’
farming practices to adversely affect
farmers or competitors? Are there ways
that USDA or other agencies can
safeguard a farmer’s control of data and
enhance competition and fair access?
(13) Please comment on the
availability and accessibility of market
information and data for fertilizers.
Which public or private sources do you
rely on to receive information on
fertilizer prices and other related
markets? Are you able to access timely,
accurate, and comprehensive
information on spot prices of fertilizers
in local, regional, and national markets?
If not, how can USDA further facilitate
price reporting information and
transparency for market participants?
Beyond price reporting, what other
market related information would be
helpful that is currently limited or not
accessible?
(14) In what other ways can USDA
support farmers’ ability to adapt to
variability in fertilizer costs? How might
USDA assist small producers in hedging
or otherwise mitigating sudden,
unexpected jumps in the spot price of
fertilizer? How might USDA better
support modes of production that rely
less on fertilizer, or support access to
markets that may pay a premium for
products relying on less fertilizer? How
can USDA further facilitate appropriate
conservation of land, and/or support
farmers’ flexibility in starting up and
sustaining other farm enterprises?
(15) What other tools, investments, or
programs could USDA or other agencies
deploy to enhance the competitiveness
of fertilizer markets? Please suggest any
other actionable steps that USDA or
other agencies could take to help
address any identified concerns.
III. Requirements for Written
Comments
The www.regulations.gov website
allows users to provide comments by
filling in a ‘‘Type Comment’’ field or by
attaching a document using an ‘‘Upload
File’’ field. USDA prefers that comments
be provided in an attached document.
USDA prefers submissions in Microsoft
Word (.doc files) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf
files). If the submission is in an
application format other than Microsoft
Word or Adobe Acrobat, please indicate
the name of the application in the
‘‘Type Comment’’ field. Please do not
attach separate cover letters to
electronic submissions; rather, include
any information that might appear in a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Mar 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
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
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
[Doc. No. AMS–AMS–22–0026]
Competition in Food Retail and
Distribution Markets and Access for
Agricultural Producers and Small and
Midsized Food Processors
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice; request for public
comments.
AGENCY:
On July 9, 2021, President
Biden issued an Executive Order on
‘‘Promoting Competition in the
American Economy,’’ which creates a
White House Competition Council and
directs Federal agency actions to
enhance fairness and competition across
America’s economy. The Executive
Order directs the Secretary of
Agriculture (the Secretary), among other
things, to submit a report on the effect
of retail concentration and retailers’
practices on the conditions of
competition in the food industries. This
notice requests comments and
information from the public to assist the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
in preparing the report required by the
Executive Order and advancing policy
steps to promote competition in the
food and agricultural markets.
DATES: Comments must be received by
May 16, 2022.
ADDRESSES: All written comments in
response to this notice should be posted
online at www.regulations.gov.
Comments received will be posted
without change, including any personal
information provided. All comments
should reference the docket number
AMS–AMS–22–0026, the date of
submission, and the page number of this
issue of the Federal Register. Comments
may also be sent to Jaina Nian,
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA,
Room 2055–S, STOP 0201, 1400
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20250–0201. Comments will be
made available for public inspection at
the above address during regular
business hours or via the internet at
www.regulations.gov.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaina Nian, Agricultural Marketing
Service, at (202) 378–2541; or by email
at jaina.nian@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 9, 2021, President Biden
issued Executive Order 14036,
‘‘Promoting Competition in the
American Economy’’ (86 FR 36987)
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM
17MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices
(E.O. 14036). E.O. 14036 focuses on the
need for robust and open competition in
the American economy to secure broad
and sustained economic prosperity,
promote the welfare of workers, farmers,
small businesses, startups, and
consumers, and prevent the threat that
excessive market concentration poses to
basic economic liberties and democratic
accountability. With respect to
agriculture E.O. 14036 notes:
Consolidation in the agricultural industry
is making it too hard for small family farms
to survive. Farmers are squeezed between
concentrated market power in the
agricultural input industries—seed, fertilizer,
feed, and equipment suppliers—and
concentrated market power in the channels
for selling agricultural products. As a result,
farmers’ share of the value of their
agricultural products has decreased, and
poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers,
and other agricultural workers struggle to
retain autonomy and to make sustainable
returns.
In relevant part, E.O. 14036 directs
the Secretary, among other things—
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
to improve farmers’ and smaller food
processors’ access to retail markets, not later
than 300 days after the date of this order, in
consultation with the Chair of the FTC, [to]
submit a report to the Chair of the White
House Competition Council, on the effect of
retail concentration and retailers’ practices
on the conditions of competition in the food
industries, including any practices that may
violate the Federal Trade Commission Act,
the Robinson-Patman Act (Pub. L. 74–692, 49
Stat. 1526, 15 U.S.C. 13 et seq.), or other
relevant laws, and on grants, loans, and other
support that may enhance access to retail
markets by local and regional food
enterprises.
This notice requests comments and
information from the public to assist
USDA in preparing and executing the
report required by E.O. 14036. To
facilitate those comments and
information on access to retail markets,
we highlight certain questions and
concerns that are relevant to our efforts.
Consolidation in food retail and
related parts of the supply chain, such
as distribution, present potential risks of
unfair and anticompetitive practices
throughout the food supply chain.
Increases in concentration have been an
important trend in food retail over the
last few decades, as the share of singlestore firms or local chains has declined
from 55 percent in 1977 to 35 percent
as of 2007, while the concentration ratio
of the four largest food retailers hit 34
percent in 2019.1 Food distribution is
1 Retail Trends, Economic Research Service,
USDA, available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/
topics/food-markets-prices/retailing-wholesaling/
retail-trends/ (last accessed March 2022); Lucia
Foster, John Haltiwanger, Shawn Klimek, C.J.
Krizan, and Scott Ohlmacher, (2016), ‘‘The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Mar 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
concentrated in certain markets as well,
with two firms dominating upwards of
70 percent of the national broadline
distribution market.2 Additionally,
insufficient analytic attention has been
paid to the connections between retail,
distribution, and processing firms and
the implications for competition in the
food and agricultural supply chains.
The rise in food retail and distribution
concentration in recent decades
potentially impacts agricultural
producers and small, midsized and
otherwise independent (SME)
processors—as well as potentially
ultimately impacting consumers.
Concentration in food retail and
distribution may magnify and contribute
to consolidation among meat and
poultry processing firms, among other
food system market participants.3 Such
firms themselves may consolidate to
secure leverage against consolidated
food retail firms, which in turn may
make it more difficult for SME
processors to access food retail markets.
Concerns relating to exclusionary and
predatory conduct in food retail and
distribution thus may be particularly
relevant to the viability of new and
expanded meat and poultry processing
facilities and other new food system
market entrants, which are receiving
over $1 billion of support under the
White House Meat and Poultry
Processing Supply Chain Action Plan.4
USDA will use public comments
received through this notice to inform
our policymaking and advocacy to help
increase fairness and competition in
food retail and related segments of the
Evolution of National Retail Chains: How We Got
Here,’’ Handbook of the Economics of Retailing and
Distribution, Emek Basker, ed. London, UK: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
2 See Federal Trade Commission v. Sysco
Corporation, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D.C.), Memorandum of
Opiniont (2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/
system/files/documents/cases/
150623syscomemo.pdf; see also, generally,
‘‘Wholesaling,’’ USDA Economic Research Service,
available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/foodmarkets-prices/retailing-wholesaling/wholesaling/
(last accessed March 2022).
3 Four large meat-packing companies dominate
over 80 percent of the beef sales market and, yet,
over the last five years, farmers’ share of the price
of beef has dropped by more than a quarter—from
approximately 52 percent to 37 percent—while the
price of beef for consumers has risen. Four large
meat-packing companies dominate about 70 percent
of the pork market, and four large poultry
integrators make up 54 percent of the poultry
market, although a pending merger would raise that
further. Annual Report, Packers and Stockyards
Division, USDA, available at https://
www.ams.usda.gov/reports/psd-annual-reports (last
accessed March 2022).
On monopsony’s effects up the supply chain,
generally, see Barry Lynn, Cornered (New York:
Wiley, 2010).
4 Meat and Poultry Supply Chain, USDA,
available at https://www.usda.gov/meat (last
accessed March 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15195
American food and agricultural markets.
We are particularly interested in the role
that rules, regulations, and enforcement
under the Packers and Stockyards Act of
1921 and the Robinson-Patman Act of
1936—both of which were designed to
regulate discriminatory limits on market
access—may play in enhancing market
access for agricultural producers and
SME processors to retail markets, and
especially in preventing predatory
pricing by incumbent market
participants to exclude new market
entrants and competitors.
We are also interested in comments
addressing the role that grants, loans,
and other programs and services may
play to enhance access to retail markets
by agricultural producers, SME food
processors, and other local and regional
food enterprises. The Department is
particularly interested in the role that
cooperative or community-owned
grocery retail and food distribution
networks have or may play in
addressing market challenges and in
better serving producer, worker,
community, and consumer needs, for
example in remote locations or
underserved communities.
Commenters may further provide
information relevant to promoting local
and regional food systems, creating new
market opportunities (including for
value-added agriculture and valueadded products), advancing efforts to
transform the food system, meeting the
needs of the agricultural workforce,
supporting and promoting consumers’
nutrition security, particularly for lowincome populations, and supporting the
needs of underserved and small to midsized producers and processors.
II. Written Comments
USDA encourages commenters, when
addressing the elements below, to
clearly indicate the question their
comments are responding to by
repeating the text of the question before
their response. This would assist USDA
in more easily reviewing and
summarizing the comments received in
response to these specific comment
areas. In addition, USDA welcomes
commenters to refer, with appropriate
explanation, to any views set forth in
recently or previously submitted
comments, such as those to E.O. 14017
‘‘America’s Supply Chains’’ (No. AMS–
TM–21–0034) (86 FR 20652) or
‘‘Investments and Opportunities for
Meat and Poultry Processing
Infrastructure’’ (No. AMS–TM–21–0058)
(86 FR 37728).
This request for information includes
but is not limited to the following
elements. The questions below are
meant to stimulate comments, and
E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM
17MRN1
15196
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
commenters should feel free to respond
to those they feel most relevant to them,
or as their time and interests permit.
Comments may overlap or be organized
as the commenter feels most
appropriate. Please offer descriptive or
quantitative information, as available
and relevant.
Competition and Impacts
(1) Are market concentration and
power, and lack of competition,
problems in food retail and distribution
markets? If so, where and in what ways?
What practices in the food retail and
distribution markets are most
concerning from a competition
standpoint? Are there particular
practices that exclude or disadvantage
new market participants or potential
market participants, unfairly transfer
risk, or otherwise abuse market power
or make it harder to compete? Please
describe specific experiences and
challenges, if possible.
(2) How do concentration and size in
the food retail and distribution markets
affect the ability of agricultural
producers and new, SME food
processors to access the retail
marketplace? Are agricultural producers
and SME food processors that serve
local and regional markets affected
differently? Are there regional and other
demographic variations to any of the
impacts? Please describe specific
experiences and challenges, if possible.
(3) How does competition and
concentration among distributors and
other parts of the wholesale food market
relate to food retail concentration and
competition? How do distribution and
wholesale food market competition and
concentration affect access to markets
for agricultural producers and SME food
processors? Does buying power of some
retailers at the wholesale level make it
difficult for some producers or SME
processors to access distribution within
these channels?
(4) How are SME grocery retailers
specifically affected by concentration
and potentially anticompetitive
practices in food retail markets? What
about distributors that may serve them?
Do any of those challenges affect
agricultural producers and SME food
processors? Please describe specific
experiences and challenges, if possible.
(5) How are smaller food service
businesses, schools, hospitals, and other
institutional food buyers affected by
concentration or potentially
anticompetitive practices in food
processing and distribution? What
effects do concentration and potentially
anticompetitive conduct have on food
prices, quality and safety, distribution
and availability of healthy foods that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Mar 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
meet nutrition standards, or other needs
specific to these buyers and food
providers?
(6) How are workers, consumers,
other small businesses, communities,
and others along the food supply chain
affected by concentration or potentially
anticompetitive practices in food retail
and distribution markets? What effects
do concentration and potentially
anticompetitive conduct have on food
prices, quality and safety; distribution
and accessibility to healthy foods, and
food and nutrition security; and worker
empowerment, equity for underserved
producers, and environmental
sustainability? Are challenges with food
deserts aggravated by concentration or
competition issues in the food and
agricultural supply chains? Do impacts
to any of these concerns vary by region,
commodity, or by other demographics?
Business Practices
(7) Please describe the role that
exclusive dealing arrangements play in
the food retail and distribution
marketplaces. Do they facilitate, inhibit,
or otherwise affect opportunities in the
industry for SME processors? How do
they affect the development of new
products and the growth, diversity, or
resilience of the industry? Do they
facilitate, inhibit, or otherwise affect
product quality and risk management?
Do differences in commodity, product,
or region affect the practices, risks,
barriers, or outcomes? Are tribal
businesses and enterprises and
underserved communities affected
differently? Does the size, scale, or
market power generally of the
companies involved in such an
arrangement matter for how these
arrangements affect competition?
(8) Please describe the role that
slotting fees, category captains, and
other preferential access or discounts
play in retail food markets, including
but not limited to meat and poultry. Are
certain segments, such as organic or
value-added products like grass-fed
meats, affected differently? What affect
do such behaviors have on access to the
retail marketplace? How are preferential
relationships in the marketplace
manifested, and do those relationships
limit new market entrants from
accessing the marketplace? Do those
relationships improve risk management
or otherwise enhance market access in
certain circumstances? Should any of
these practices be limited or changed to
support new market entrants, and if so,
how?
(9) If you are a small or mid-sized
producer, have you had to change any
business or marketing practices in order
to effectively navigate required slotting
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
fees to gain market access? Have these
changes negatively impacted the overall
profits of the products you sell? Do you
believe that slotting fees are adversely or
unfairly deployed against small or midsized producers or otherwise affect
market access and what is the basis for
your belief?
(10) Please share any concerns
relating to predatory pricing by
incumbent food processors, threats of
retaliation by incumbent food
processors against retailers for offering
new or different products, or other
practices designed to exclude
competitors from the marketplace.
When and where have they occurred?
Were antitrust enforcement tools able to
address the challenges in a timely and
effective manner? If not, why not?
(11) Please comment on implications,
negative or positive, of mergers in the
food retail or distribution sectors. Have
certain mergers changed contracting or
sales practices? Have certain mergers
allowed the acquisition of rivals or
technologies or companies that
competitor firms rely on? Have mergers
negatively or positively impacted
workers? Have mergers delivered
efficiencies?
Information and Supply Chain Market
Structures
(12) What roles do control and access
to retail data play in competition and
access for farmers and SME food
processors? Are there significant
imbalances in access to information
among producers, packers, distributor,
and retailers, and how do those
imbalances affect choices and outcomes
in the market? Describe the role that
data sharing between food retail
companies and larger food processors,
such as packers, plays in the market
environment, if any. How do any
differences affect competition and
market access, and should any of these
be limited, and if so how?
(13) Describe the role that retailer
ownership, including financing, of
livestock and packing play in supply
chain competition and access to retail
for producers and SME processors? Are
competition concerns, if any, similar in
other agricultural commodity markets?
Have these practices reduced or
eliminated the need for, or competition
among, certain suppliers to some retail
firms? Are certain segments, such as
organic or value-added products like
grassfed meats, affected differently?
Should ownership, financing, or other
forms of vertical integration be
promoted, limited, or otherwise
changed, and, if so, how?
(14) Please discuss how
transportation—including rail and
E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM
17MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
ocean shipping—and delivery systems
may affect competition in food retail
and distribution. Are certain ownership
structures, business relationships, or
business practices of particular concern?
How do transportation costs, fees, or
levels of service affect the
competitiveness of downstream
businesses? Has concentration in
transportation industries led to negative
service outcomes or other potentially
unfair practices? Have contractual
arrangements that penalize suppliers,
including transportation companies, for
not delivering in sufficient quantities or
on other particular terms become more
prevalent? Have they become
problematic as market power has grown,
or in certain circumstances?
(15) Describe the role that label claims
and labeling standards play in access to
retail markets for agricultural producers.
Are public or private resources
sufficiently available for smaller
agricultural producers seeking to
develop or use labels? Do labels
standards, verification, and enforcement
appropriately support access to markets
for agricultural producers and SME
processors? Are there any instances
when a larger supplier used, including
potentially misused, a label to gain
market access or advantage over smaller
producers or SME processors? Please
share concerns and recommendations, if
any.
(16) What role, if any, does financing
or financial markets play any of the
issues addressed above?
(17) Are there any other aspects of the
regulatory environment that affect retail
market competition and access to retail
for producers and SME processors? Are
there specific elements of these
requirements that could be more
effectively tailored? What types of
resources would be helpful to assist
SMEs with compliance?
Policy Responses
(18) How can antitrust and market
regulation and enforcement, including
relating to mergers, unfair practices, and
price discrimination, do more to address
competition concerns in food retail and
distribution markets? Should Federal
and state antitrust enforcers place
greater emphasis on adverse
consequences of buyer power? Should
greater attention be paid to information
asymmetries and preferential access to
data? How could USDA utilize its
regulatory and enforcement authorities
more effectively?
(19) How can predatory pricing by
entrenched market participants be better
identified and acted upon by relevant
enforcement authorities? Can laws that
prohibit discriminatory or preferential
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Mar 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
pricing, such as the Packers and
Stockyards Act and the RobinsonPatman Act, play a greater role in
preventing predatory pricing schemes,
or otherwise promote greater food
market access for agricultural producers
and SME processors? Please explain.
(20) How could other USDA
programs, services, and authorities be
further deployed to enhance access to
retail markets for agricultural producers
and SME food processors? For
example—
• How might grants, loans, and other
support from USDA enhance access to
retail markets by local and regional food
enterprises?
• How might USDA marketing
programs enhance access to retail
markets for agricultural producers and
SME food processors, including
programs which facilitate access to a
variety of markets, support value-added
production and product diversification;
increase diversification in distribution
channels and market development, such
as food hubs, non-profit and cooperative
distribution models; and provide
technical assistance to producers that
helps access USDA programs and
improve market readiness? 5
• How might food and nutrition grant
and loan programs better support
competition in retail and better access
for producers and SME processors? 6
• How might government
procurement processes further support
agricultural producers and SME
processors effectively access
institutional customers, such as schools
and hospitals? 7
• Are there ways to facilitate easier
access to food safety compliance
resources, and other ways to level the
playing field for SME processors? 8
• What additional information or
transparency could USDA’s Market
News Service provide on retail,
wholesale, or distribution markets,
through the Livestock Mandatory
5 See, e.g., ‘‘USDA Announces Supplemental
American Rescue Plan Funding Available through
the Local Agriculture Market Program, Including
Funding to Expand Farm-to-Institution
Opportunities,’’ USDA, March 1, 2022, available at
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/
03/01/usda-announces-supplemental-americanrescue-plan-funding-available.
6 See, e.g., Healthy Food Financing Initiative,
available at https://www.investinginfood.com/whatwe-do/ (last accessed March 2022).
7 See USDA Agricultural Marketing Service,
‘‘Commodity Procurement,’’ available at https://
www.ams.usda.gov/commodity-procurement (last
accessed March 2022).
8 For more information, see ‘‘Food Safety,’’
Agricultural Marketing Service, available at https://
www.ams.usda.gov/services/local-regional/foodsector/food-safety (last accessed March 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15197
Reporting Act of 1999 or otherwise? 9
Are there information or educational
tools, services, or access to data that
could be helpful?
• What additional market analysis or
advocacy could USDA do with respect
to local and regional food systems,
transportation, or otherwise that could
support fair and competitive food retail
and distribution markets? 10
• How else can competition be
enhanced in food retail, distribution,
and related areas? Please discuss any
other relevant matters USDA should
consider.
III. Requirements for Written
Comments
The www.regulations.gov website
allows users to provide comments by
filling in a ‘‘Type Comment’’ field or by
attaching a document using an ‘‘Upload
File’’ field. USDA prefers that comments
be provided in an attached document.
USDA prefers submissions in Microsoft
Word (.doc files) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf
files). If the submission is in an
application format other than Microsoft
Word or Adobe Acrobat, please indicate
the name of the application in the
‘‘Type Comment’’ field. Please do not
attach separate cover letters to
electronic submissions; rather, include
any information that might appear in a
cover letter within the comments.
Similarly, to the extent possible, please
include any exhibits, annexes, or other
attachments in the same file, so that the
submission consists of one file instead
of multiple files. Comments (both public
comments and non-confidential
versions of comments containing
business confidential information) will
be placed in the docket and open to
public inspection. Comments may be
viewed on www.regulations.gov by
entering docket number AMS–AMS–22–
0026 in the search field on the home
page. All filers should name their files
using the name of the person or entity
submitting the comments. Anonymous
comments are also accepted.
Communications from agencies of the
United States Government will not be
made available for public inspection.
Anyone submitting business
confidential information should clearly
identify the business confidential
portion at the time of submission, file a
statement justifying nondisclosure and
referring to the specific legal authority
claimed, and provide a non-confidential
9 See USDA Market News, ‘‘Retail Reports,’’
available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/marketnews/retail (last accessed Feb. 2022).
10 See USDA Agricultural Marketing Service,
‘‘Market Research and Analysis,’’ available at
https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/marketresearch (last accessed March 2022).
E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM
17MRN1
15198
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2022 / Notices
version of the submission. The
nonconfidential version of the
submission will be placed in the public
file on www.regulations.gov. For
comments submitted electronically
containing business confidential
information, the file name of the
business confidential version should
begin with the characters ‘‘BC.’’ Any
page containing business confidential
information must be clearly marked
‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ on the
top of that page. The non-confidential
version must be clearly marked
‘‘PUBLIC.’’ The file name of the
nonconfidential version should begin
with the character ‘‘P.’’ The ‘‘BC’’ and
‘‘P’’ should be followed by the name of
the person or entity submitting the
comments or rebuttal comments. If a
public hearing is held in support of this
supply chain assessment, a separate
Federal Register notice will be
published providing the date and
information about the hearing.
Melissa R. Bailey,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2022–05669 Filed 3–16–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
[Doc. No. AMS–AMS–22–0025]
Competition and the Intellectual
Property System: Seeds and Other
Agricultural Inputs
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice; request for public
comments.
AGENCY:
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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Mar 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
and other inputs identified in and
developed by the report.
DATES: Comments must be received by
May 16, 2022.
ADDRESSES: All written comments in
response to this notice should be posted
online at www.regulations.gov.
Comments received will be posted
without change, including any personal
information provided. All comments
should reference the docket number
AMS–AMS–22–0025, the date of
submission, and the page number of this
issue of the Federal Register. Comments
may also be sent to Jaina Nian,
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA,
Room 2055–S, STOP 0201, 1400
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20250–0201. Comments will be
made available for public inspection at
the above address during regular
business hours or via the internet at
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaina Nian, Agricultural Marketing
Service, at (202) 378–2541; or by email
at jaina.nian@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 9, 2021, President Biden
issued Executive Order 14036,
‘‘Promoting Competition in the
American Economy’’ (86 FR 36987)
(E.O. 14036). E.O. 14036 focuses on the
need for robust and open competition in
the American economy to secure broad
and sustained economic prosperity,
promote the welfare of workers, farmers,
small businesses, startups, and
consumers, and prevent the threat that
excessive market concentration poses to
basic economic liberties and democratic
accountability. With respect to
agriculture, E.O. 14036 states:
Consolidation in the agricultural industry
is making it too hard for small family farms
to survive. Farmers are squeezed between
concentrated market power in the
agricultural input industries—seed, fertilizer,
feed, and equipment suppliers—and
concentrated market power in the channels
for selling agricultural products. As a result,
farmers’ share of the value of their
agricultural products has decreased, and
poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers,
and other agricultural workers struggle to
retain autonomy and to make sustainable
returns.
In relevant part, E.O. 14036 directs,
inter alia, that the Secretary—
to help ensure that the intellectual property
system, while incentivizing innovation, does
not also unnecessarily reduce competition in
seed and other input markets beyond that
reasonably contemplated by the Patent Act
(see 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq. and 7 U.S.C. 2321
et seq.), in consultation with the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office, submit a report
to the Chair of the White House Competition
Council, enumerating and describing any
relevant concerns of the Department of
Agriculture and strategies for addressing
those concerns across intellectual property,
antitrust, and other relevant laws.
As part of executing our
responsibilities under the E.O. 14036 for
this report on seeds and other inputs,
the Department takes note of wideranging concerns from agricultural
producers regarding concentrated
market power in the agricultural input
industries and their connections to the
intellectual property system. Four
companies account for 85 and 76
percent of corn and soybean seed
markets, controlling key sources for a
farmer’s planting.1 Four companies
account for 90 percent of the global
grain trading and processing market,
controlling, among other grain-related
markets, a farmer’s means for obtaining
livestock feed.2 Four companies account
for 61 percent of farm machinery
markets.3 Two companies account for
more than 90 percent of chicken
genetics for chicks sold in poultry
markets.4
During a series of joint workshops
held in 2010 by USDA and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), farmers
described their experiences relating to
1 In 2015, the largest four sellers of corn and
soybean seed accounted for 85 and 76 percent of
U.S. corn and soybean seed sales, respectively, up
from 60 and 51 percent in 2000. F. Ciliberto, G.
Moshini, and E. Perry, ‘‘Valuing product
innovation: Genetically engineered varieties in US
corn and soybeans,’’ RAND J. Econ 50 (2019): 615–
644.
2 In 2012, the largest four firms accounted for 86
and 79 percent of wet corn milling and soybean
processing markets, respectively. Four firms
accounted for 61 percent of the world’s farm
machinery, up from 46 percent in 1977. J.
MacDonald, (2017), ‘‘Consolidation, Concentration,
and Competition in the Food System,’’ Economic
Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,
Volume 102, Special Issue: ‘‘Agricultural
Consolidation: Causes and the Path Forward’’
(September 2017): 85–105, available at https://
www.kansascityfed.org/documents/765/2017Consolidation,%20Concentration,%20and
%20Competition%20in%20the%20Food
%20System.pdf.
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 https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fspublic/file_attachments/rr-cereal-secrets-graintraders-agriculture-30082012-en_4.pdf.
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 https://
www.iatp.org/blog/201303/how-the-chicken-oftomorrow-became-the-chicken-of-the-world; Glenn
E. Bugos, ‘‘Intellectual Property Protection in the
American Chicken-Breeding Industry,’’ Business
History Review 66 (1992): 127–168, available at
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3117055.
E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM
17MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15194-15198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05669]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
[Doc. No. AMS-AMS-22-0026]
Competition in Food Retail and Distribution Markets and Access
for Agricultural Producers and Small and Midsized Food Processors
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; request for public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on
``Promoting Competition in the American Economy,'' which creates a
White House Competition Council and directs Federal agency actions to
enhance fairness and competition across America's economy. The
Executive Order directs the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary),
among other things, to submit a report on the effect of retail
concentration and retailers' practices on the conditions of competition
in the food industries. This notice requests comments and information
from the public to assist the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in
preparing the report required by the Executive Order and advancing
policy steps to promote competition in the food and agricultural
markets.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 16, 2022.
ADDRESSES: All written comments in response to this notice should be
posted online at www.regulations.gov. Comments received will be posted
without change, including any personal information provided. All
comments should reference the docket number AMS-AMS-22-0026, the date
of submission, and the page number of this issue of the Federal
Register. Comments may also be sent to Jaina Nian, Agricultural
Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2055-S, STOP 0201, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0201. Comments will be made available
for public inspection at the above address during regular business
hours or via the internet at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaina Nian, Agricultural Marketing
Service, at (202) 378-2541; or by email at [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)
[[Page 15195]]
(E.O. 14036). E.O. 14036 focuses on the need for robust and open
competition in the American economy to secure broad and sustained
economic prosperity, promote the welfare of workers, farmers, small
businesses, startups, and consumers, and prevent the threat that
excessive market concentration poses to basic economic liberties and
democratic accountability. With respect to agriculture E.O. 14036
notes:
Consolidation in the agricultural industry is making it too hard
for small family farms to survive. Farmers are squeezed between
concentrated market power in the agricultural input industries--
seed, fertilizer, feed, and equipment suppliers--and concentrated
market power in the channels for selling agricultural products. As a
result, farmers' share of the value of their agricultural products
has decreased, and poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers,
and other agricultural workers struggle to retain autonomy and to
make sustainable returns.
In relevant part, E.O. 14036 directs the Secretary, among other
things--
to improve farmers' and smaller food processors' access to retail
markets, not later than 300 days after the date of this order, in
consultation with the Chair of the FTC, [to] submit a report to the
Chair of the White House Competition Council, on the effect of
retail concentration and retailers' practices on the conditions of
competition in the food industries, including any practices that may
violate the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Robinson-Patman Act
(Pub. L. 74-692, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U.S.C. 13 et seq.), or other
relevant laws, and on grants, loans, and other support that may
enhance access to retail markets by local and regional food
enterprises.
This notice requests comments and information from the public to
assist USDA in preparing and executing the report required by E.O.
14036. To facilitate those comments and information on access to retail
markets, we highlight certain questions and concerns that are relevant
to our efforts.
Consolidation in food retail and related parts of the supply chain,
such as distribution, present potential risks of unfair and
anticompetitive practices throughout the food supply chain. Increases
in concentration have been an important trend in food retail over the
last few decades, as the share of single-store firms or local chains
has declined from 55 percent in 1977 to 35 percent as of 2007, while
the concentration ratio of the four largest food retailers hit 34
percent in 2019.\1\ Food distribution is concentrated in certain
markets as well, with two firms dominating upwards of 70 percent of the
national broadline distribution market.\2\ Additionally, insufficient
analytic attention has been paid to the connections between retail,
distribution, and processing firms and the implications for competition
in the food and agricultural supply chains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Retail Trends, Economic Research Service, USDA, available at
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-markets-prices/retailing-wholesaling/retail-trends/ (last accessed March 2022); Lucia Foster,
John Haltiwanger, Shawn Klimek, C.J. Krizan, and Scott Ohlmacher,
(2016), ``The Evolution of National Retail Chains: How We Got
Here,'' Handbook of the Economics of Retailing and Distribution,
Emek Basker, ed. London, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
\2\ See Federal Trade Commission v. Sysco Corporation, U.S.
Dist. Ct. (D.C.), Memorandum of Opiniont (2015), available at
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150623syscomemo.pdf; see also, generally, ``Wholesaling,'' USDA
Economic Research Service, available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-markets-prices/retailing-wholesaling/wholesaling/ (last
accessed March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rise in food retail and distribution concentration in recent
decades potentially impacts agricultural producers and small, midsized
and otherwise independent (SME) processors--as well as potentially
ultimately impacting consumers. Concentration in food retail and
distribution may magnify and contribute to consolidation among meat and
poultry processing firms, among other food system market
participants.\3\ Such firms themselves may consolidate to secure
leverage against consolidated food retail firms, which in turn may make
it more difficult for SME processors to access food retail markets.
Concerns relating to exclusionary and predatory conduct in food retail
and distribution thus may be particularly relevant to the viability of
new and expanded meat and poultry processing facilities and other new
food system market entrants, which are receiving over $1 billion of
support under the White House Meat and Poultry Processing Supply Chain
Action Plan.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Four large meat-packing companies dominate over 80 percent
of the beef sales market and, yet, over the last five years,
farmers' share of the price of beef has dropped by more than a
quarter--from approximately 52 percent to 37 percent--while the
price of beef for consumers has risen. Four large meat-packing
companies dominate about 70 percent of the pork market, and four
large poultry integrators make up 54 percent of the poultry market,
although a pending merger would raise that further. Annual Report,
Packers and Stockyards Division, USDA, available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/reports/psd-annual-reports (last accessed March
2022).
On monopsony's effects up the supply chain, generally, see Barry
Lynn, Cornered (New York: Wiley, 2010).
\4\ Meat and Poultry Supply Chain, USDA, available at https://www.usda.gov/meat (last accessed March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA will use public comments received through this notice to
inform our policymaking and advocacy to help increase fairness and
competition in food retail and related segments of the American food
and agricultural markets. We are particularly interested in the role
that rules, regulations, and enforcement under the Packers and
Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936--both of
which were designed to regulate discriminatory limits on market
access--may play in enhancing market access for agricultural producers
and SME processors to retail markets, and especially in preventing
predatory pricing by incumbent market participants to exclude new
market entrants and competitors.
We are also interested in comments addressing the role that grants,
loans, and other programs and services may play to enhance access to
retail markets by agricultural producers, SME food processors, and
other local and regional food enterprises. The Department is
particularly interested in the role that cooperative or community-owned
grocery retail and food distribution networks have or may play in
addressing market challenges and in better serving producer, worker,
community, and consumer needs, for example in remote locations or
underserved communities.
Commenters may further provide information relevant to promoting
local and regional food systems, creating new market opportunities
(including for value-added agriculture and 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, with appropriate explanation, to any
views set forth in recently or previously submitted comments, such as
those to E.O. 14017 ``America's Supply Chains'' (No. AMS-TM-21-0034)
(86 FR 20652) or ``Investments and Opportunities for Meat and Poultry
Processing Infrastructure'' (No. AMS-TM-21-0058) (86 FR 37728).
This request for information includes but is not limited to the
following elements. The questions below are meant to stimulate
comments, and
[[Page 15196]]
commenters should feel free to respond to those they feel most relevant
to them, or as their time and interests permit. Comments may overlap or
be organized as the commenter feels most appropriate. Please offer
descriptive or quantitative information, as available and relevant.
Competition and Impacts
(1) Are market concentration and power, and lack of competition,
problems in food retail and distribution markets? If so, where and in
what ways? What practices in the food retail and distribution markets
are most concerning from a competition standpoint? Are there particular
practices that exclude or disadvantage new market participants or
potential market participants, unfairly transfer risk, or otherwise
abuse market power or make it harder to compete? Please describe
specific experiences and challenges, if possible.
(2) How do concentration and size in the food retail and
distribution markets affect the ability of agricultural producers and
new, SME food processors to access the retail marketplace? Are
agricultural producers and SME food processors that serve local and
regional markets affected differently? Are there regional and other
demographic variations to any of the impacts? Please describe specific
experiences and challenges, if possible.
(3) How does competition and concentration among distributors and
other parts of the wholesale food market relate to food retail
concentration and competition? How do distribution and wholesale food
market competition and concentration affect access to markets for
agricultural producers and SME food processors? Does buying power of
some retailers at the wholesale level make it difficult for some
producers or SME processors to access distribution within these
channels?
(4) How are SME grocery retailers specifically affected by
concentration and potentially anticompetitive practices in food retail
markets? What about distributors that may serve them? Do any of those
challenges affect agricultural producers and SME food processors?
Please describe specific experiences and challenges, if possible.
(5) How are smaller food service businesses, schools, hospitals,
and other institutional food buyers affected by concentration or
potentially anticompetitive practices in food processing and
distribution? What effects do concentration and potentially
anticompetitive conduct have on food prices, quality and safety,
distribution and availability of healthy foods that meet nutrition
standards, or other needs specific to these buyers and food providers?
(6) How are workers, consumers, other small businesses,
communities, and others along the food supply chain affected by
concentration or potentially anticompetitive practices in food retail
and distribution markets? What effects do concentration and potentially
anticompetitive conduct have on food prices, quality and safety;
distribution and accessibility to healthy foods, and food and nutrition
security; and worker empowerment, equity for underserved producers, and
environmental sustainability? Are challenges with food deserts
aggravated by concentration or competition issues in the food and
agricultural supply chains? Do impacts to any of these concerns vary by
region, commodity, or by other demographics?
Business Practices
(7) Please describe the role that exclusive dealing arrangements
play in the food retail and distribution marketplaces. Do they
facilitate, inhibit, or otherwise affect opportunities in the industry
for SME processors? How do they affect the development of new products
and the growth, diversity, or resilience of the industry? Do they
facilitate, inhibit, or otherwise affect product quality and risk
management? Do differences in commodity, product, or region affect the
practices, risks, barriers, or outcomes? Are tribal businesses and
enterprises and underserved communities affected differently? Does the
size, scale, or market power generally of the companies involved in
such an arrangement matter for how these arrangements affect
competition?
(8) Please describe the role that slotting fees, category captains,
and other preferential access or discounts play in retail food markets,
including but not limited to meat and poultry. Are certain segments,
such as organic or value-added products like grass-fed meats, affected
differently? What affect do such behaviors have on access to the retail
marketplace? How are preferential relationships in the marketplace
manifested, and do those relationships limit new market entrants from
accessing the marketplace? Do those relationships improve risk
management or otherwise enhance market access in certain circumstances?
Should any of these practices be limited or changed to support new
market entrants, and if so, how?
(9) If you are a small or mid-sized producer, have you had to
change any business or marketing practices in order to effectively
navigate required slotting fees to gain market access? Have these
changes negatively impacted the overall profits of the products you
sell? Do you believe that slotting fees are adversely or unfairly
deployed against small or mid-sized producers or otherwise affect
market access and what is the basis for your belief?
(10) Please share any concerns relating to predatory pricing by
incumbent food processors, threats of retaliation by incumbent food
processors against retailers for offering new or different products, or
other practices designed to exclude competitors from the marketplace.
When and where have they occurred? Were antitrust enforcement tools
able to address the challenges in a timely and effective manner? If
not, why not?
(11) Please comment on implications, negative or positive, of
mergers in the food retail or distribution sectors. Have certain
mergers changed contracting or sales practices? Have certain mergers
allowed the acquisition of rivals or technologies or companies that
competitor firms rely on? Have mergers negatively or positively
impacted workers? Have mergers delivered efficiencies?
Information and Supply Chain Market Structures
(12) What roles do control and access to retail data play in
competition and access for farmers and SME food processors? Are there
significant imbalances in access to information among producers,
packers, distributor, and retailers, and how do those imbalances affect
choices and outcomes in the market? Describe the role that data sharing
between food retail companies and larger food processors, such as
packers, plays in the market environment, if any. How do any
differences affect competition and market access, and should any of
these be limited, and if so how?
(13) Describe the role that retailer ownership, including
financing, of livestock and packing play in supply chain competition
and access to retail for producers and SME processors? Are competition
concerns, if any, similar in other agricultural commodity markets? Have
these practices reduced or eliminated the need for, or competition
among, certain suppliers to some retail firms? Are certain segments,
such as organic or value-added products like grassfed meats, affected
differently? Should ownership, financing, or other forms of vertical
integration be promoted, limited, or otherwise changed, and, if so,
how?
(14) Please discuss how transportation--including rail and
[[Page 15197]]
ocean shipping--and delivery systems may affect competition in food
retail and distribution. Are certain ownership structures, business
relationships, or business practices of particular concern? How do
transportation costs, fees, or levels of service affect the
competitiveness of downstream businesses? Has concentration in
transportation industries led to negative service outcomes or other
potentially unfair practices? Have contractual arrangements that
penalize suppliers, including transportation companies, for not
delivering in sufficient quantities or on other particular terms become
more prevalent? Have they become problematic as market power has grown,
or in certain circumstances?
(15) Describe the role that label claims and labeling standards
play in access to retail markets for agricultural producers. Are public
or private resources sufficiently available for smaller agricultural
producers seeking to develop or use labels? Do labels standards,
verification, and enforcement appropriately support access to markets
for agricultural producers and SME processors? Are there any instances
when a larger supplier used, including potentially misused, a label to
gain market access or advantage over smaller producers or SME
processors? Please share concerns and recommendations, if any.
(16) What role, if any, does financing or financial markets play
any of the issues addressed above?
(17) Are there any other aspects of the regulatory environment that
affect retail market competition and access to retail for producers and
SME processors? Are there specific elements of these requirements that
could be more effectively tailored? What types of resources would be
helpful to assist SMEs with compliance?
Policy Responses
(18) How can antitrust and market regulation and enforcement,
including relating to mergers, unfair practices, and price
discrimination, do more to address competition concerns in food retail
and distribution markets? Should Federal and state antitrust enforcers
place greater emphasis on adverse consequences of buyer power? Should
greater attention be paid to information asymmetries and preferential
access to data? How could USDA utilize its regulatory and enforcement
authorities more effectively?
(19) How can predatory pricing by entrenched market participants be
better identified and acted upon by relevant enforcement authorities?
Can laws that prohibit discriminatory or preferential pricing, such as
the Packers and Stockyards Act and the Robinson-Patman Act, play a
greater role in preventing predatory pricing schemes, or otherwise
promote greater food market access for agricultural producers and SME
processors? Please explain.
(20) How could other USDA programs, services, and authorities be
further deployed to enhance access to retail markets for agricultural
producers and SME food processors? For example--
How might grants, loans, and other support from USDA
enhance access to retail markets by local and regional food
enterprises?
How might USDA marketing programs enhance access to retail
markets for agricultural producers and SME food processors, including
programs which facilitate access to a variety of markets, support
value-added production and product diversification; increase
diversification in distribution channels and market development, such
as food hubs, non-profit and cooperative distribution models; and
provide technical assistance to producers that helps access USDA
programs and improve market readiness? \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., ``USDA Announces Supplemental American Rescue
Plan Funding Available through the Local Agriculture Market Program,
Including Funding to Expand Farm-to-Institution Opportunities,''
USDA, March 1, 2022, available at https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/03/01/usda-announces-supplemental-american-rescue-plan-funding-available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How might food and nutrition grant and loan programs
better support competition in retail and better access for producers
and SME processors? \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., Healthy Food Financing Initiative, available at
https://www.investinginfood.com/what-we-do/ (last accessed March
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How might government procurement processes further support
agricultural producers and SME processors effectively access
institutional customers, such as schools and hospitals? \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, ``Commodity
Procurement,'' available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/commodity-procurement (last accessed March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there ways to facilitate easier access to food safety
compliance resources, and other ways to level the playing field for SME
processors? \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For more information, see ``Food Safety,'' Agricultural
Marketing Service, available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/local-regional/food-sector/food-safety (last accessed March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What additional information or transparency could USDA's
Market News Service provide on retail, wholesale, or distribution
markets, through the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 or
otherwise? \9\ Are there information or educational tools, services, or
access to data that could be helpful?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See USDA Market News, ``Retail Reports,'' available at
https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/retail (last accessed Feb.
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What additional market analysis or advocacy could USDA do
with respect to local and regional food systems, transportation, or
otherwise that could support fair and competitive food retail and
distribution markets? \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, ``Market Research
and Analysis,'' available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/market-research (last accessed March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How else can competition be enhanced in food retail,
distribution, and related areas? Please discuss any other relevant
matters USDA should consider.
III. Requirements for Written Comments
The www.regulations.gov website allows users to provide comments by
filling in a ``Type Comment'' field or by attaching a document using an
``Upload File'' field. USDA prefers that comments be provided in an
attached document. USDA prefers submissions in Microsoft Word (.doc
files) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf files). If the submission is in an
application format other than Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat, please
indicate the name of the application in the ``Type Comment'' field.
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions;
rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter
within the comments. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include
any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file, so that
the submission consists of one file instead of multiple files. Comments
(both public comments and non-confidential versions of comments
containing business confidential information) will be placed in the
docket and open to public inspection. Comments may be viewed on
www.regulations.gov by entering docket number AMS-AMS-22-0026 in the
search field on the home page. All filers should name their files using
the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. Anonymous
comments are also accepted. Communications from agencies of the United
States Government will not be made available for public inspection.
Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly
identify the business confidential portion at the time of submission,
file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific
legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential
[[Page 15198]]
version of the submission. The nonconfidential version of the
submission will be placed in the public file on www.regulations.gov.
For comments submitted electronically containing business confidential
information, the file name of the business confidential version should
begin with the characters ``BC.'' Any page containing business
confidential information must be clearly marked ``BUSINESS
CONFIDENTIAL'' on the top of that page. The non-confidential version
must be clearly marked ``PUBLIC.'' The file name of the nonconfidential
version should begin with the character ``P.'' The ``BC'' and ``P''
should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the
comments or rebuttal comments. If a public hearing is held in support
of this supply chain assessment, a separate Federal Register notice
will be published providing the date and information about the hearing.
Melissa R. Bailey,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-05669 Filed 3-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
