[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7697-7701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3288]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / 
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7697]]

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 sugar-producing 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. 
[[Page 7698]] 

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, Secs. 1435.510, 1435.513, and 1435.528 are revised 
accordingly. Also, Sec. 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, [[Page 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, Sec. 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, Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 1435.521 that the State's per-acre 
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, Sec. 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, [[Page 7700]] 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, Sec. 1435.507(a) is revised to say that CCC will make 
quarterly re-estimates ``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, Sec. 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 Sec. 1435.500, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 1435.502, the definition of ``sugar syrup'' is revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 1435.502  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Sugar syrup means a direct-consumption 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 Sec. 1435.507, paragraph (a) introductory text is revised to 
read as follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 1435.510, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 1435.513 shall be 
applicable in determining whether a processor has exceeded a reduced 
allocation.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec. 1435.513:
    A. Paragraph (f) is revised,
    B. Paragraph (g) is removed, and [[Page 7701]] 
    C. Paragraph (h) is redesignated as paragraph (g) and redesignated 
paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 1435.514, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 1435.520, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 1435.521, paragraph (c) (1) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 1435.528, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 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 
Sec. 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