[Federal Register: March 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 62)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16198-16201]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31mr06-2]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1435
RIN 0560-AH37
Transfer of Sugar Program Marketing Allocations
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the sugar program regulations of the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The provisions for transferring
sugar marketing allocation when a mill closes and growers request to
move their allocation are amended. A regulatory deadline, the 20th of
each month, for the program's information reporting requirements is
added. Also, each cane processor, cane refiner and beet processor will
be required to provide an annual report prepared by a Certified Public
Accountant (CPA) that verifies the company's data submitted to CCC.
DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Fecso at (202) 720-4146, or
via e-mail at barbara.fecso@wdc.usda.gov. Persons with disabilities who
require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-
2600 (voice and TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
published a proposed rule on September 7, 2005 (70 FR 53103). Public
comments were accepted until November 7, 2005. The rule proposed three
changes to the Sugar Program Regulations at 7 CFR part 1435.
First CCC proposed to amend the regulations for transferring sugar
marketing allocation when a mill closes. The proposed rule provided
that the closed mill's allocation would be distributed based on the
production history of the growers requesting to move their allocation.
To understand the change that was proposed, it is necessary to
understand the relationship between processors, growers, and how
allocations have been determined.
The Sugar Program was authorized by section 359 of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended by the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (the ``2002 Act'') (7 U.S.C. 1359aa et seq.).
The 2002 Act requires CCC to periodically analyze market factors and
establish a national sugar marketing allotment to limit the
[[Page 16199]]
quantity of sugar that processors can market. The goal is to achieve a
price level that will minimize sugar loan collateral forfeitures to
CCC. Once the overall marketing allotment is established, it is
allocated between the beet sugar and cane sugar sectors (54.35 and
45.65 percent, respectively). The beet allotment is allocated directly
to beet processors, the cane allotment is allocated to four cane-
producing states (Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii and Texas), and is further
allocated among sugar cane processing mills within each state. Each
mill, in turn, divides its allocation among its sugar cane growers.
While the allocation formula in the regulation for the beet sector has
not changed since 2002, the formula in the regulation for cane state
allotments and cane processor allocations was changed in 2004 when a
component of the formula, the ``ability to market,'' was redefined (69
FR 55061-55063, September 13, 2004). The problem addressed by this rule
arose due to the new cane sector ``ability to market'' definition,
which added the 2002 and 2003 crop years' production to the historic
period for Florida, Louisiana and Texas.
The current regulations provided that if a mill closes, a grower
may petition CCC to move an allocation commensurate with its production
history to another mill of its choice. However, when two Louisiana cane
processing mills announced they would not reopen for the 2005 crop,
there was debate within CCC and in the sugarcane industry about the
petition rights of growers who had delivered cane used to establish the
mill's allocation, but did not deliver 2002 or 2003 crop cane. Some
parties contended that growers who had not delivered in the crop year
before the mill closed contributed to its demise by ``shorting'' the
mill of its customary level of cane and, therefore, should not be
rewarded with the right to petition for a transfer. Others contended
that as long as a grower's production contributed to the establishment
of a mill's allocation, a grower should always be entitled to transfer
its share of the allocation.
The regulations at 7 CFR 1435.308, as set forth in the final rule,
provide that CCC will distribute the closed mill's allocation based on
the contribution of the growers' production history to the closed
mill's allocation. This means that CCC will apply the same formula to
each grower at the closed mill as the formula used when that mill's
original allocation was determined. For example, if a mill closes in
Louisiana, CCC will apply to a grower's history over the crop years
1997 through 2001, a 25% weight for the average of the highest two
years of past processings, a 25% weight for the average of the highest
two years of past marketings, and a 50% weight for the ``ability to
market'', i.e., the average of the production from the 2003 crop year
and the Olympic average of the three years of production from among the
1999 through 2003 crop, excluding the highest and lowest production
years. The result of using this formula, in this example, is that the
right to petition for transfer belongs to any grower who delivered cane
to the closed mill from the 1997 crop year through the 2003 crop year.
Public Comments
On this change, the Agency received 54 comments. Forty (40) sugar
cane growers submitted form letters supporting the proposed rule, and
nine growers submitted the same form letter but appended additional
comments. Four sugar cane processors and the Louisiana Farm Bureau, an
organization representing Louisiana sugarcane producers also submitted
comments. Most of these comments were in support of the changes
proposed. The Agency has reviewed the comments and addressed them as
follows.
One grower comment suggested that the landowner, not the grower,
should name the successor mill in the event of mill closure. The Agency
feels that the rule sufficiently addresses this concern without
providing explicit allotment transfer rights to landowners. This is
because CCC has found that while the grower signs the petition to
transfer allocation to a particular mill, landowners have changed
transfer requests when better offers were received from competing
mills. Further, CCC has found that a grower is normally more aware of
what is occurring in the local sugar processing market than a
landowner, who may be located some distance from the farm. Moreover, it
is presumed that a grower will cooperate with its landowner in the
choice of a successor mill and not risk any disquiet to its farm or
lease by disputing the landowner's choice of a new mill. Therefore, the
rule provides that a grower may petition for the transfer. Thus, no
changes are planned in the final rule as a result of this comment.
One commenter supported the proposed rule, and suggested growers
will place their allocation at successor mills offering the highest
returns. The Agency generally agrees. As the commenter suggests, the
intent of the rule was to give the grower the choice of where to
deliver its cane if its mill closes. No change was made from the
proposed rule in the final rule as a result of this comment.
One mill supported the proposal to determine the grower allocation
based on their historical production and suggested that this method
gives the grower the freedom to choose a successor mill that best
ensures their future in farming. The Agency agrees. This rule offers
security to growers by guaranteeing the right to petition for transfer
as long as they delivered cane to the mill that closed during the
period used to establish the mill's allocation. When their mill closes,
growers can contract with mills offering the highest returns without
risk of losing allocation. Again, no change was made from what was in
the proposed rule in the final rule on this issue.
One processor agreed that the proposed method for calculating
transferable allocation would ensure fair and equitable treatment for
growers. However, this processor also maintained that ``replacement
growers'' should not displace the production history from growers who
contributed during the historical period. Replacement growers are those
designated by the mill to supply sugarcane replacing sugarcane lost to
the mill since the 2001 crop year and is a concept that only applies to
Louisiana [See 7 CFR 1435.310(b)(1)(i)(C)].
The final rule partly addresses this commenter's concerns. The
method to be used for distributing the closed mill's allocation grants
any grower who delivered cane to the closed mill during the period when
the mill's allocation was established the right to petition for a
transfer of allocation, regardless of whether or not he was a
replacement grower. If a grower supplies sugarcane to replace sugarcane
lost to the mill after the historical period ends, and this mill
closes, he may not petition for transfer.
The Louisiana Farm Bureau (LFB) strongly supported the proposed
rule. LFB suggested that (1) it would be unfair to deny a grower who
leaves within the last year of the historical period the right to
transfer any allocation from a closed mill; (2) it would also be unfair
to grant a grower who only delivers cane to a mill in the year prior to
closure the right to petition for transfer of an allocation; and, (3)
transferring allocations based on preceding crop year deliveries makes
it possible to have marketing allocations awarded to non-base acreage.
The Agency agrees. There is no change made in the final rule as a
result of this comment.
One processor commented that there is a distinction between a mill
``closure'' and mill ``consolidation'' and that
[[Page 16200]]
transfer rules should apply differently. The commenter stated that when
a mill ceases to operate (a ``closure''), growers should be able to
choose their successor mill. However, when mills consolidate (which the
commenter defines as to combine resources of more than one mill, and
close a mill to achieve economies of scale), growers supplying cane to
the closed mill should not be given the right to choose a successor
mill. The allocation of these growers, the commenter argues, should
stay with the remaining mill. The Agency disagrees. The authority for
the transfer of allocation at 7 U.S.C. 1359f(c)(8) allows a grower to
transfer allocation to another mill when the plant where it has
established history closes. By statute, this right belongs to a grower,
and exists to protect growers when a plant closes from having to ship
their product beyond what is economically feasible, regardless of
whether the closure by the mill owner was to consolidate production to
achieve economies of scale. Typically, relationships between
landowners, growers, processors, mills, and mill owners are defined by
contracts, agreements, and a course of dealing over time. Absent terms
in such an agreement which provide otherwise, when a processor closes a
facility, the grower may transfer its allocation. Thus, the commenter's
suggestions are not adopted and no change is planned in the final rule
as a result.
The second change CCC proposed is a deadline for the program's
information reporting requirements. The required monthly information
would be due on the 20th of each month. The third change CCC proposed
is to require each cane processor, cane refiner, and beet processor to
provide an annual report by a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) that
verifies the company's data submitted to CCC. No comments were received
on either of these proposed changes and they are adopted in the final
rule.
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be not significant under Executive
Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
602) do not apply to this rule because CCC is not required to publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking for the subject of this rule.
Nonetheless, CCC has determined that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
and a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not performed.
Environmental Assessment
The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq., the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR
parts 1500-1508), and regulations of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) of
the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for compliance with NEPA, 7 CFR
part 799. An environmental evaluation was completed and the proposed
action has been determined not to have the potential to significantly
impact the quality of the human environment and no environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement is necessary. A copy of
the environmental evaluation is available for inspection and review
upon request.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
12988, Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with this Executive Order:
(1) All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with
this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to
this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings in accordance with 7 CFR
part 11 must be exhausted before seeking judicial review.
Executive Order 12372
This program is not subject to 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).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined under title II
of the UMRA, for State, local, and tribal governments or the private
sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of UMRA.
Executive Order 13132
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial
direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this
rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under 7 U.S.C. 7991(c)(2)(A) these regulations may be promulgated
and the program administered without regard to chapter 5 of title 44 of
the United States Code (the Paperwork Reduction Act). Accordingly,
these regulations and the forms and other information collection
activities needed to administer the provisions authorized by these
regulations are not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Government Paperwork Elimination Act
CCC is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act (GPEA) and the Freedom to E-File Act, which require
Government agencies in general, and the FSA in particular, to provide
the public the option of submitting information or transacting business
electronically to the maximum extent possible. Because of the nature of
the forms and other information collection activities required for this
program, they are not fully implemented in a way that would allow the
public to conduct business with CCC electronically. Accordingly, at
this time, all forms and information required to be submitted under
this rule may be submitted to CCC by mail or FAX.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1435
Loan programs--agriculture, Price support programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Sugar.
0
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 1435 is amended as follows:
PART 1435--SUGAR PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for part 1435 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1359aa-1359jj and 7272 et seq.; 15 U.S.C.
714b and 714c.
0
2. In Sec. 1435.200 revise paragraph (a), redesignate paragraph (g) as
paragraph (h), and add new paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 1435.200 Information reporting.
(a) Every sugar beet processor, sugarcane processor, cane sugar
refiner, and importer of sugar, syrup, and molasses shall report, by
the 20th of each month, on CCC-required forms, its imports and
receipts, processing inputs, production, distribution, stocks, and
other information necessary to administer the sugar programs. If the
20th of the month falls on a weekend or
[[Page 16201]]
a Federal holiday, the report shall be made by the next business day.
* * * * *
(g) By November 20 of each year, each sugar beet processor,
sugarcane processor, sugarcane refiner, and importer of sugars, syrups,
and molasses will submit to CCC a report, as specified by CCC, from an
independent Certified Public Accountant that reviews its information
submitted to CCC during the previous October 1 through September 30
period.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 1435.308 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1435.308 Transfer of allocation, new entrants.
(a) If a sugar beet or sugarcane processing facility is closed, and
the growers that delivered their crops to the closed facility elect to
deliver their crops to another processor, the growers may petition the
Executive Vice President, CCC, to transfer their share of the
allocation from the processor that closed the facility to their new
processor. If CCC approves transfer of the allocations, it will
distribute the closed mill's allocation based on the contribution of
the growers' production history to the closed mill's allocation. CCC
may grant the allocation transfer upon:
(1) Written request by a grower to transfer allocation,
(2) Written approval of the processing company that will accept the
additional deliveries, and
(3) Evidence satisfactory to CCC that the new processor has the
capacity to accommodate the production of petitioning growers.
* * * * *
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2006.
Teresa C. Lasseter,
Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 06-3099 Filed 3-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P