[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
