This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

7697

Vol. 60, No. 27

Thursday, February 9, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

7 CFR Part 1435

RIN 0560–AC14

Sugar and Crystalline Fructose

Marketing Allotment Regulations for

Fiscal Years 1992 Through 1998

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this final rule

is to adopt as final, with certain

changes, the interim rule published in

the Federal Register on July 6, 1993 (58

FR 36120) and to adopt as final, without

any changes, the interim rule published

in the Federal Register on August 6,

1993 (58 FR 41995). This final rule sets

forth regulations to implement the

provisions of sections 359 b-j of the

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938

(the 1938 Act), as amended, regarding

marketing allotments for sugar

processed from domestically produced

sugarcane and sugar beets and

crystalline fructose (CF) manufactured

from corn, including appeal procedures,

for the fiscal years 1992 through 1998.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert D. Barry, Director, Sweeteners

Analysis Division, Consolidated Farm

Service Agency (CFSA), United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA),

telephone: 202–720–3391.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This final rule is issued in

conformance with Executive Order

12866. Based on information compiled

by the USDA, it has been determined

that this final rule:

(1) Could have an annual effect on the

economy of more than $100 million;

(2) Could adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities.

A Final Regulatory Impact Analysis

determined that marketing allotments

would reduce the quantity of

domestically produced sugar that could

be marketed in the United States but

overall raise revenues of beet and cane

producers, processors, and refiners

through higher prices to users.

Marketing allotments would cause

supply disruptions and affect sugarproducing sectors, States, and local

communities in different ways

depending on their particular balance of

sugar supply relating to allotments and

allocations.

Other than the above impacts, this

rule:

(1) Would not create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by

another agency;

(2) Would not materially alter the

budgetary impact of entitlements,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or

rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; and

(3) Would not raise novel legal or

policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

principles set forth in Executive Order

12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It has been determined that the

Regulatory Flexibility Act is applicable

to this final rule. The Final Regulatory

Impact Analysis determined that this

regulation has no significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because the particular marketing

allotment options considered do not

affect the paperwork, reporting, or

compliance burdens of the small entities

in the program. The Commodity Credit

Corporation (CCC) thus certifies that the

rule will have no significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. The Final Regulatory Impact

Analysis describing the options

considered in developing this final rule

and the impact of the implementation of

each option is available on request from

the above-named individual.

Environmental Evaluation

It has been determined by an

environmental evaluation that this

action will not have a significant impact

on the quality of the human

environment. Therefore, neither an

Environmental Assessment nor an

Environmental Impact Statement is

necessary for this final rule.

Federal Assistance Program

The title and number of the Federal

Assistance Program, as found in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,

to which this final rule applies are:

Commodity Loans and Purchases—

10.051.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements for sugar beet and

sugarcane processors and raw cane

sugar refiners have been approved by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) through March 31, 1996, and

assigned OMB no. 0560–0138.

The public reporting burden for the

approved collections of information is

estimated to average 90 minutes per

response, including time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and computing and

reviewing the collection of information.

Development of information

collection requirements for sugarcane

growers subject to proportionate shares

has not been finalized. These

information requirements will be

submitted to OMB for review under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 35).

Executive Order 12372 and Executive

Order 12778

The program covered by this final rule

is not subject to the provisions of

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. See the notice

related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V,

published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24,

1983).

This final rule has been reviewed in

accordance with Executive Order 12778.

The provisions of this final rule preempt

State law to the extent such laws are

inconsistent with the provisions of this

final rule. This final rule is not

retroactive. Before any action may be

brought regarding the provisions of this

final rule, the administrative appeal

rights set forth at 7 CFR part 780 must

be exhausted.
7698 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Background

Title IX of the Food, Agriculture,

Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990

(the 1990 Act), which was enacted on

November 28, 1990, amended the 1938

Act to provide for the establishment,

under certain circumstances, of

marketing allotments for sugar and CF

for fiscal years 1992 through 1996.

Section 111 of the Food, Agriculture,

Conservation, and Trade Amendments

Act of 1991, which was enacted on

December 13, 1991, amended several

portions of the 1938 Act’s marketing

allotment provisions. Pub. L. 102–535,

Certain Producers of Sugarcane,

Provision for Equitable Treatment,

which was enacted on October 27, 1992,

further amended provisions pertaining

to penalties for producers in Louisiana

who harvest acreage in excess of

proportionate shares. The Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub.

L. 103–66), which was enacted on

August 10, 1993, amended section 359b

of the 1938 Act by:

(1) Extending the marketing allotment

provisions through fiscal year 1998,

(2) Allowing a processor of sugar

beets or sugarcane to market sugar in

excess of allocation in order to facilitate

the exportation of such sugar,

(3) No longer counting sugar under

loan as sugar marketed, and

(4) Imposing a civil penalty only if a

processor knowingly violates its

marketing allocation limit.

Summary of Comments

An interim rule to implement the

1938 Act’s provisions for sugar

marketing allotments was published

July 6, 1993 (58 FR 36120) and an

interim rule to implement the appeal

regulations was published August 6,

1993 (58 FR 41995). Fifteen comments

were received from interested persons

regarding the interim regulations: four

from cane industry trade associations,

one from an independent sugarcane

grower, three from sugar beet processing

companies, two from farm bureaus, one

from a sugar beet grower organization,

one from a beet sugar trade association,

one from a corn refining company, one

signed by three members of Congress,

and one from a State Commissioner of

Agriculture.

Discussion of Comments

1. There were 10 comments

addressing the 3-factor criteria used to

establish the percentage factors for

splitting the overall marketing allotment

between the cane and beet sectors.

Eight comments dealt with the

weights assigned each of the criteria.

Four commenters wanted past

marketings to be the predominant or

only criterion used to establish the

percentage factors. Their

recommendations for weighting past

marketings ranged from 66 1/3 percent

to 100 percent. Three commenters

endorsed CCC’s use of equal weights for

all three criteria. One commenter called

for flexibility in setting weights.

One commenter suggested that, when

establishing the percentage factors, the

Secretary not use the past marketing

histories of defunct processors.

One commenter urged flexibility in

the definition of ‘‘processing capacity’’

in times of drought. It was suggested

that processing capacity be defined as

the greater of:

(1) The maximum production during

the 1985–1989 crop year period, or

(2) The maximum production during

the immediately preceding five crop

years.

The 1938 Act requires the use of the

three-factor criteria for determining the

percentage factors for overall beet and

cane sugar allotments (7 CFR 1435.511),

State cane sugar allotments (7 CFR

1435.512), and beet and cane processor

marketing allotment allocations (7 CFR

1435.513). In each of these CFR

sections, the regulations state: ‘‘Each of

the three criteria * * * will be

weighted equally, or as deemed

appropriate by CCC for each year

allotments are in effect.

CCC reaffirms its position that equal

weighting for the three factors is

generally appropriate for purposes of

the marketing allotment statute, unless

a different weighting is determined to be

more appropriate for a particular fiscal

year in light of the circumstances

existing at such time. Equal weights

were assigned to each of the three

factors when allotments were instituted

in FY 1993. An evaluation of the

comments made and the effects of the

FY 1993 allotments, and the experience

gained during the administration of the

allotments, confirms that such

flexibility is necessary in order to avoid

imposing disproportionate negative

effects on a few processors, while

having no effect on other processors that

have also expanded production since

the base period, or resulting in

increased prices considerably more than

necessary to achieve the objectives of

the no cost price support program for

sugar beets and sugarcane. CCC must

carefully evaluate the weighting of the

three factors in order to achieve the

statutory goals of fairness, efficiency

and equity in allocating market shares

and to avoid causing excessive prices

for consumers and industrial users of

sugar. Moreover, in the abstract, it

cannot be determined that differing

weights would be appropriate under the

conditions existing in each year in

which the allotments might be imposed.

CCC also believes the definition of

‘‘processing capacity’’ should be

retained. Qualifying the definition for

drought opens up arguments for other

crop problems, such as premature

freezes, hurricane damage, flooding,

disease problems, and so forth, and

would require complicated

determinations of relative degree of

damage. Finally, the 1938 Act explicitly

states that the percentage factors for

establishing the overall beet and cane

sugar allotments shall consider

marketings of sugar during the 1985

through 1989 time period. Therefore,

past marketings of recently defunct

processors must be included in the

calculations. Thus, the 3-factor criteria

specified in the interim rule are adopted

without change.

2. Nine comments were received

concerning the treatment of sugar

pledged for price-support loans when

allotments were in effect.

The commenters were critical of

defining marketing to include the

pledging and repledging of sugar. These

concerns were addressed by the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1993, which amended the previous

statute so that only loan forfeitures and

sales may count against allocations.

Thus, §§ 1435.510, 1435.513, and

1435.528 are revised accordingly. Also,

§ 1435.513 is revised to require that a

sale between processors to enable the

purchasing processor to fulfill its

allocation be reported to CCC within a

week of the date of such sale. The

interim rule had required that such sale

be reported within 2 days. This earlier

requirement resulted in an undue

paperwork burden.

3. There were seven comments

concerning allocations of the marketing

allotments. Three comments concerned

the reassignment of deficits. One

commenter suggested that CCC set a

specific timetable for assessing the need

to reassign deficits and make the

timetable known to the industry in

advance. One commenter recommended

reassignment of deficits after 20 days,

and another after 30 days.

CCC acknowledges the need for

prompt reassignment of deficits relative

to marketing allocations, so as not to

short the market. However, it is also

important to allow deficit companies

reasonable time to purchase sugar and

fill the deficit. When allotments were

announced during fiscal year 1993, the

first reassignments were made 26 days

later and related only to the cane sector.

The next reassignments, which related

to both the cane and beet sectors,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7699

occurred 56 days later. The timing of the

second reassignment was partially

impacted by delays in some processors’

monthly reporting. Because the most

recent data available are crucial for

determining reassignments, and CCC

cannot always be assured of timely

receipt of processor data, CCC can only

ensure that reassignments will be made

as soon and as frequently as practicable.

Thus, § 1435.514 is revised

accordingly.

Two commenters called for

allowances for new processors. CCC

once again notes that the sugar

marketing allotment provisions of the

1938 Act do not provide for special

treatment for new entrants. Such

processors will be unable to acquire a

past marketings status but may acquire

processing capacity and the ability to

market sugar.

Thus, CCC rejects the

recommendation.

One commenter recommended that

CCC be required to publish sugar

marketing allotments at least 2 months

before the beginning of the fiscal year,

and if readjustments are needed, they

should be announced in advance of

each quarter. However, the statute

requires that, before the beginning of

each quarter, the CCC establish, adjust,

or suspend marketing allotments

depending on its assessment of

appropriate factors. Therefore, CCC

cannot impose allotments at the

beginning of each fiscal year to be

subsequently adjusted or suspended as

needed. Furthermore, CCC requires

flexibility in the time for announcing

allotments and readjustments, balancing

the need for up-to-date information and

analysis with the need of companies for

as much advance notice as possible.

Therefore, CCC rejects the

recommendation.

One commenter recommended that

the allocation of a facility closing or

curtailing operations be transferred

along with each grower’s production

history to other processors in the same

State, and if that State cannot fulfill the

allocation, to beet processors outside the

State.

CCC reiterates that under the

provisions of the 1938 Act, allocations

are not made on a facility basis, but

rather on a processor basis. At the

processor level, a plant closing would

have no effect on past marketings and

would reduce processing capacity after

five years, if the former production by

the closed facility were not offset by

increased production at other facilities

owned by the processor. Once a facility

is shut down, CCC would have to assess

whether the processor’s ability to

market would be affected, and if the

processor were placed in a ‘‘deficit’’ due

to the closure of a facility, CCC would

reassign the deficit.

Thus, CCC rejects the

recommendation.

4. Three commenters questioned

CCC’s definition of sugar in its various

forms. Two commenters wanted liquid

fructose derived from sucrose to be

excluded from the definition of sugar.

CCC continues to maintain that, based

on well established definitions of sugar

and sucrose, fructose from sucrose is

sugar, rather than a sugar product. Sugar

products which are not subject to

allotment would consist of products,

other than sugar, whose majority

content is not sucrose or which are not

suitable for human consumption.

Permitting liquid fructose derived from

sucrose to be exempt from marketing

allotments would be a circumvention of

the purposes of the statute.

Thus, the definition of sugar as

provided in the interim rule is adopted

without change.

One commenter alleged inconsistency

regarding to CCC’s definitions for

molasses, cane syrup, liquid sugar, and

edible molasses, and referred to the

need to conform with U.S. Customs

definitions. CCC in the interim rule

adopted the Customs definition of

liquid sugar but also indicated the need

to distinguish among liquid sugar, cane

syrup, and sugar syrup. Regarding

molasses, the Customs definition refers

only to high-test or invert molasses

which is not molasses but actually a

sugar. CCC has found no universally

accepted industry definition of molasses

in terms of precise content of sucrose or

sucrose-equivalent of invert sugars.

Edible molasses is considered a sugar,

with a sucrose-solids content of

approximately over 60 percent. Sugar

syrup has a higher sucrose content but

its precise demarcation from edible

molasses is not given. Both sugars are

defined by CCC, for program purposes,

in terms of sucrose-solids content.

However, CCC does agree that the

definition of sugar syrup, as contained

in the interim rule, may be further

clarified by stating that it is not

principally of crystalline structure.

Thus, § 1435.502 is revised

accordingly.

5. Two commenters urged USDA to

reconsider imposing penalties on

processors who had already exceeded

their allocation prior to the

announcement of allotments/

allocations. The Omnibus

Reconciliation Act of 1993 has amended

the 1938 Act to exempt processors from

penalties unless they ‘‘knowingly’’

marketed sugar in excess of allocation.

Thus, § 1435.528 is revised

accordingly.

6. There were four comments

concerning proportionate shares to

producers. One commenter wanted

clarification of the circumstances under

which more than the average per acre

yield for the preceding five years would

be utilized in determining the State’s

per acre yield goal. The interim rule

states in § 1435.521 that the State’s peracre yield goal will be at a level not less

than the State average per-acre yield for

the preceding 5 years, adjusted by the

State average recovery rate. However,

section 359f(b)(3)(A) of the 1938 Act

actually states that the State’s average

per-acre yield goal shall be at a level

(not less than the State average per-acre

yield for the preceding 5 years, as

determined by the Secretary) that will

ensure an adequate net return per

pound to producers, taking into

consideration any available production

research data that the Secretary deems

relevant. Section 359f(b)(3)(B) of the

1938 Act also states that the Secretary

shall adjust the per acre yield goal by

the average recovery rate.

Thus, § 1435.521 is revised

accordingly.

Another commenter wanted CCC to

require Louisiana farmers to complete

acreage reporting by July 1 and inform

producers by August 15 of the acreage

that may be planted to meet their

proportionate shares for the following

crop year. However, CCC is not able to

determine whether allotments will be

implemented that far in advance.

Thus, CCC rejects this

recommendation.

The third comment concerned a

recommendation that sugarcane acreage

certified with ASCS by July be

immediately figured into a farm base

history for marketing allotment

calculations for the following fiscal year

when the crop is harvested. However,

the 1938 Act specifically states that the

acreage base for any farm is equal to the

average of the acreage planted or

considered planted for harvest for sugar

or seed in each of the 5 crop years

preceding the fiscal years that

proportionate shares will be in effect.

The acreage certified in July is

considered the current crop year for the

fiscal year that starts on the following

October 1. Thus, the 1938 Act does not

permit CCC to use the July data in

determining proportionate shares.

The last comment concerned a request

that any reduction in acreage eligibility

as a result of proportionate shares not

result in any reductions in future farm

base levels. Under current policy, the

acreage certified in July is used for

calculating a farm’s acreage base,
7700 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

regardless of whether allotments (and

proportionate shares) are subsequently

instituted.

7. There were two comments

concerning reasonable ending stocks in

the trigger formula for marketing

allotments. One commenter said USDA

should choose a method to define

reasonable stocks in order to give

credibility to the process by which

allotments are imposed. The other

commenter supported flexibility in

determining reasonable carry-over

stocks, but suggested USDA use a range

of stocks-to-use ratios in order to remain

consistent.

CCC has consistently rejected a

mechanical formula for determining

reasonable ending stocks, and instead

depends on a comprehensive analysis of

the market situation, outlook, and

prices. A purely statistical ratio cannot

capture the full complexity of the sugar

market.

Thus, CCC rejects the

recommendation.

8. Two commenters recommended

that CCC allow swaps between beet and

quota or domestically produced sugar to

facilitate exportation of surplus sugar.

The current regulations do not address

this issue of ‘‘swapping.’’ Rather, this

issue will have to be addressed in terms

of further rulemaking i.e., a new

proposed rule, followed by a comment

period and final rule.

9. One commenter urged USDA to use

the required monthly data submitted by

the industry under section 359a of the

1938 Act for calculating all phases of

allotments and allocations because these

are the best data available. CCC agrees

with the need to use the best available

data for determining allotments and

allocations. However, the rule is not

changed for this comment because the

data published by the World Outlook

and Situation Board and the National

Agricultural Statistics Service are

deemed as ‘‘official’’ USDA estimates.

10. One commenter wanted the term

‘‘U.S. Market Value’’ for sugarcane to be

defined as ‘‘the daily New York No. 14

contract settlement price for the nearest

month less prevailing discounts for raw

sugar.’’

CCC does not agree with this proposal

because discounts to the No. 14 contract

price vary continually over time and

among the different refiners.

11. One commenter reiterated a

previous contention that CF is a

premium product to sugar, does not

compete with sugar, and has value

based on qualities lacking in sugar. The

commenter wanted the calculation of CF

equivalence to be revised to give CF

credit for qualities that sugar does not

possess. CCC maintains that if CF is a

premium product to sugar, then less

(not more) of CF would be equivalent to

the sugar quantity of 200,000 tons.

Furthermore, the price premium of CF

depends not just on the inherent quality

of CF relative to sugar but on transient

market conditions, including variable

competitive relationships among

alternative sweeteners.

Thus, CCC rejects the

recommendation.

12. The following comments are

considered to be outside the limits of

this rulemaking, or are clearly contrary

to the provisions of the 1938 Act:

(1) Proportionate shares should be

established for Florida independent

growers,

(2) Imports of sugar from Canada

should be reduced to traditional levels,

and

(3) Allotments and allocations cannot

be justified for fiscal 1994.

Thus, CCC does not address these

matters.

13. No comments were received

regarding appeal regulations published

August 6, 1993 (58 FR 41995).

Thus, 7 CFR 1435.530 is adopted as

provided in the interim rule.

Additional Changes

14. Two additional sections of the

interim rule are revised to include the

specific wording of the 1938 Act.

First, § 1435.507(a) is revised to say

that CCC will make quarterly reestimates ‘‘no later than the beginning’’

of each of the second through fourth

quarters of the fiscal year, rather than

‘‘before the beginning of each quarter’’.

This will bring the regulations into

conformance with section 359b(2) of the

1938 Act.

Second, § 1435.520(b) is revised to say

that a processor’s allocation will be

shared among producers in ‘‘a fair and

equitable manner which adequately

reflects’’ each producer’s production

history, rather than in ‘‘a fair and

adequate manner’’. This will bring the

regulations into conformance with

section 359f(a) of the 1938 Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1435

Administrative practice and

procedures, Appeals, Loan programs/

agriculture, Marketing allotments, Price

support programs, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sugar.

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 7 CFR part 1435, which was

published on August 6, 1993, (58 FR

41995) is adopted as final without any

changes, and the interim rule amending

7 CFR part 1435 which was published

on July 6, 1993, (58 FR 36120) is

adopted as final with the following

changes:

PART 1435—SUGAR

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 1435 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1359aa–1359jj, 1421,

1423, 1446g; 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c.

2. In § 1435.500, paragraphs (a)(1) and

(a)(2) are revised to read as follows:

§ 1435.500 Applicability.

(a) * * *

(1) The marketing by processors,

during fiscal years 1992 through 1998,

of sugar processed from domestically

produced sugarcane and sugar beets;

(2) The marketing by manufacturers,

during fiscal years 1992 through 1998,

of crystalline fructose manufactured

from corn;

* * * * *

3. In § 1435.502, the definition of

‘‘sugar syrup’’ is revised to read as

follows:

§ 1435.502 Definitions.

* * * * *

Sugar syrup means a directconsumption sugar, which is not

principally of crystalline structure, that

has a sucrose or sucrose-equivalent

invert sugar content of less than 94

percent of the total soluble solids.

* * * * *

4. In § 1435.507, paragraph (a)

introductory text is revised to read as

follows:

§ 1435.507 Annual estimates and quarterly

re-estimates.

(a) Before the beginning of each of the

fiscal years 1993 through 1998, CCC will

estimate, and no later than the

beginning of each of the second through

fourth quarters of such fiscal years, CCC

will re-estimate, for such fiscal year:

* * * * *

5. In § 1435.510, paragraph (d) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 1435.510 Adjustment of overall allotment

quantity.

* * * * *

(d) If the overall allotment quantity is

reduced under paragraph (a)(1) of this

section and the quantity of sugar and

sugar products marketed, at the time of

the reduction, exceeds the processors’

reduced allocation, the quantity of

excess sugar or sugar products marketed

will be deducted from the processor’s

next allocation of an allotment, if any.

The exceptions provided for in

§ 1435.513 shall be applicable in

determining whether a processor has

exceeded a reduced allocation.

* * * * *

6. In § 1435.513:

A. Paragraph (f) is revised,

B. Paragraph (g) is removed, and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7701

C. Paragraph (h) is redesignated as

paragraph (g) and redesignated

paragraph (g) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 1435.513 Allocation of marketing

allotments to processors.

* * * * *

(f) During any fiscal year in which

marketing allotments are in effect and

allocated to processors, the total of the

quantity of sugar and sugar products

marketed by a processor shall not

exceed the quantity of the allocation of

the allotment made to the processor.

(g) Paragraph (f) of this section shall

not apply to any sale of sugar by a

processor to another processor that is

made to enable the purchasing

processor to fulfill the purchasing

processor’s allocation of an allotment.

Such sales shall be reported to CCC

within a week of the date of any such

sale.

7. In § 1435.514, paragraph (a) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 1435.514 Reassignment of deficits.

(a) From time to time in each fiscal

year that marketing allotments are in

effect, CCC will determine whether

processors of sugar beets or sugarcane

will be able to market sugar covered by

the portions of the allotments allocated

to them. These determinations will be

made giving due consideration to

current inventories of sugar, estimated

production of sugar, expected

marketings, and any other pertinent

factors. These determinations will be

made as soon and as frequently as

practicable.

* * * * *

8. In § 1435.520, paragraph (b) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 1435.520 Sharing processors’

allocations with producers.

* * * * *

(b) Whenever allocations of a

marketing allotment are established or

adjusted, every sugar beet processor and

sugarcane processor must provide to

CCC such adequate assurances as are

required to ensure that the processor’s

allocation will be shared among

producers served by the processor in a

fair and equitable manner which

adequately reflects each producer’s

production history.

* * * * *

9. In § 1435.521, paragraph (c) (1) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 1435.521 Proportionate shares for

producers of sugarcane.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Establish the State’s per-acre yield

goal at a level (not less than the average

per-acre yield in the State for the

preceding 5 years) that will ensure an

adequate net return per pound to

producers in the State, taking into

consideration any available production

research data considered relevant;

* * * * *

10. In § 1435.528, paragraphs (a) and

(b) are revised to read as follows:

§ 1435.528 Penalties and assessments.

(a) In accordance with section

359b(d)(3) of the Agricultural

Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1359bb(d)(3)), any sugar beet

processor or sugarcane processor who

knowingly markets sugar or sugar

products in excess of the processor’s

allocation in violation of § 1435.513

shall be liable to CCC for a civil penalty

in an amount equal to 3 times the U.S.

market value, at the time the violation

was committed, of that quantity of sugar

involved in the violation.

(b) In accordance with section

359b(d)(3) of the Agricultural

Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1359bb(d)(3)), any manufacturer

of CF who knowingly markets CF in

excess of the manufacturer’s marketing

allotment shall pay to CCC a civil

penalty in an amount equal to 3 times

the U.S. market value, at the time the

violation was committed, of that

quantity of CF involved in the violation.

* * * * *

Signed at Washington, DC, on February 2,

1995.

Grant Buntrock,

Acting Executive Vice President,

Commodity Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc. 95–3288 Filed 2–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 330

RIN 3064–AB28

Deposit Insurance Coverage

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The FDIC is amending its

deposit insurance regulations to require

that: Upon request, an insured

depository institution disclose in

writing to depositors of employee

benefit plan funds, its current Prompt

Corrective Action (PCA) capital

category, its capital ratios, and whether

employee benefit plan deposits would

be eligible for ‘‘pass-through’’ insurance

coverage; upon opening an account

comprised of employee benefit plan

funds, an insured depository institution

disclose in writing its PCA capital

category, a description of the

requirements for ‘‘pass-through’’

insurance coverage and whether, in the

institution’s judgment, the deposits are

eligible for ‘‘pass-through’’ deposit

insurance; and when employee benefit

plan deposits placed with an insured

depository institution would no longer

qualify for ‘‘pass-through’’ insurance

coverage, the institution disclose in

writing to all existing employee benefit

plan depositors within 10 business days

the institution’s PCA capital category

and that new, rolled-over or renewed

employee benefit plan deposits will not

be eligible for ‘‘pass-through’’ deposit

insurance coverage.

The FDIC is also making a number of

technical amendments to its insurance

regulations concerning commingled

accounts of bankruptcy trustees, joint

accounts, accounts for which an insured

depository institution is acting in a

fiduciary capacity, and accounts for

which an insured depository institution

is acting as the trustee of an irrevocable

trust.

The intended effect of the final rule is

to provide employee benefit plan

depositors important information, not

otherwise available, on ‘‘pass-through’’

deposit insurance which may be needed

to prudently manage their funds. The

technical amendments clarify the

insurance rules involving commingled

accounts of bankruptcy trustees, joint

accounts, accounts for which an insured

depository institution is acting in a

fiduciary capacity, and accounts for

which an insured depository institution

is acting as the trustee of an irrevocable

trust.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The amendments to 12

CFR 330.12 are effective on July 1, 1995.

The amendments to 12 CFR 330.6,

330.7, 330.10 and 330.11 are effective

on March 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel M. Gautsch, Examination

Specialist, Division of Supervision (202/

898–6912) or Joseph A. DiNuzzo,

Counsel, Legal Division (202/898–7349),

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

550 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In May 1993, the FDIC Board of

Directors (Board) revised § 330.12 of the

FDIC’s regulations (12 CFR 330.12) (58

FR 29952 (May 25, 1993)) to reflect the

new limitations imposed by section 311

of the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation Improvement Act of 1991