Domestic Sugar Program-Final 2005-Crop and Initial 2006-Crop Cane Sugar and Sugar Beet Marketing Allotments and Company Allocations, 66157-66160 [E6-19077]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 2006 / Notices cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES either allow their importation or add them to the list of prohibited noxious weeds, we would like to ensure that our pest risk analysis process for potentially invasive plants is able to evaluate the risk posed by these plants as thoroughly and rigorously as possible. Members of the APHIS Weed Team will participate in the electronic discussion. We will share all data and opinions offered during the discussion with other groups that are interested in methods to predict invasiveness for both plants and animals, such as the National Invasive Species Council Pathways Work Team and the North American Plant Protection Organization Invasive Species Panel. Questions for Discussion We would like participants in the electronic discussion to specifically address the following six questions, although general comments on the issue of evaluating invasiveness will be accepted as well. 1. What criteria, other than whether the plant has a history of invasiveness elsewhere, are most useful to determine the invasiveness of a plant introduced into the United States for the first time? 2. When there is little or no existing scientific literature or other information describing the invasiveness of a plant species, how much should we extrapolate from information on congeners (other species within the same genus)? 3. What specific scientific experiments should be conducted to best evaluate a plant’s invasive potential? Should these experiments be conducted in a foreign area, in the United States, or both? 4. How should the results of such experiments be interpreted? Specifically, what results should be interpreted as providing conclusive information for a regulatory decision? 5. If field trials are necessary to determine the invasive potential of a plant, under what conditions should the research be conducted to prevent the escape of the plant into the environment? 6. What models or techniques are being used by the nursery industry, weed scientists, seed companies, botanical gardens, and others to screen plants that have not yet been widely introduced into the United States for invasiveness? What species have been rejected by these evaluators as a result of the use of these evaluation methods? Accessing the Electronic Discussion The electronic public discussion will be held from November 27, 2006 to January 26, 2007. We are beginning the VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:22 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 211001 discussion 2 weeks after this notice is published in the Federal Register to give participants time to consider the questions and assemble any relevant information. While anyone can access the discussion and read the comments, registration is required in order to participate in the discussion. You will be asked to register at the time you post your comment. The discussion will be accessible through a link on Plant Protection and Quarantine’s Web page for the nursery stock revision, http:// www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/ revision.html. Participants will be required to enter their name and e-mail address. Affiliation and mailing address are optional. Only the participant names will be publicly displayed; the other information will allow us to contact you to resolve technical difficulties or request additional information or clarification. When the discussion begins, there will be a link to access the discussion itself on the nursery stock revision Web page. The discussion will be convened using IBM Domino software, which allows participants to upload and view files as well as make posts in the discussion. The IBM Domino software supports Microsoft Internet Explorer and other major Web browsers for both Windows and Macintosh systems. Technical support will be available during the discussion. There is no cost to participate in the discussion. Because APHIS staff will review posts as they are submitted, there may be some delay between the submission of a post and its availability in the public discussion. Multiple APHIS staff members will be monitoring the discussion, and we will try to minimize any delays. If you wish to submit comments or other information on the topics described in this notice, but you do not wish to be part of the electronic discussion, you may send your comments via postal mail or commercial delivery to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of this notice. Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of November 2006. W. Ron DeHaven, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6–18768 Filed 11–9–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–34–P PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 66157 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Domestic Sugar Program—Final 2005Crop and Initial 2006-Crop Cane Sugar and Sugar Beet Marketing Allotments and Company Allocations Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the final 2005-crop and initial 2006-crop cane state allotments and company allocations to sugarcane and sugar beet processors. The 2005-crop year runs from October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006 (fiscal year (FY) 2006). The 2006-crop (FY 2007) cane state allotments and company allocations are based on an 8.750 million short tons, raw value (STRV) overall allotment quantity (OAQ) of domestic sugar. These actions apply to all domestic sugar marketed for human consumption in the United States from October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007. Although CCC already has announced all of the information in this notice, CCC is statutorily required to publish in the Federal Register determinations establishing, adjusting, or suspending sugar marketing allotments. ADDRESSES: Barbara Fecso, Dairy and Sweeteners Analysis Group, Economic Policy and Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0516, Washington, DC 20250–0516; telephone (202) 720– 4146; FAX (202) 690–1480; e-mail: barbara.fecso@wdc.usda.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Fecso at (202) 720–4146. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final FY 2006 State Allotments and Company Allocations Section 359e(b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1359ee(b) requires the Secretary to reassign allocation to imports if it is determined that processors will be unable to market their allocations and there is no CCC inventory. In a July 27, 2006 news release, CCC announced that the agency had determined that the domestic sugar supply would be unable to fill 246,000 STRV of the OAQ and, in accordance with the statute, reassigned this deficit to imports. Hence, state allotments and company allocations were adjusted downward to reflect each company’s and each state’s ability to market its allocation and allotment. The final 2005-crop (FY 2006) beet and cane sugar marketing allotments E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 66158 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 2006 / Notices and allocations are listed in the following table: FY 2006 OVERALL BEET/CANE ALLOTMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS FY 2006 Allotments/ allocations as of 3/22/06 Change due to reassignments Final FY 2006 allotments/ allocations Beet Sugar ................................................................................................................................... Cane Sugar .................................................................................................................................. WTO Raw Sugar Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) 1 ............................................................................... Mexico TRQ Raw or Refined ...................................................................................................... Refined TRQ (global first-come, first-served) .............................................................................. FY 2006 Non Program Imports ................................................................................................... 4,839,725 3,164,275 670,000 276,000 400,000 0 ¥63,345 ¥182,655 75,000 0 109,921 61,079 4,776,380 2,981,620 745,000 276,000 509,921 61,079 Total OAQ ............................................................................................................................. Beet Processors’ Marketing Allocations: Amalgamated Sugar Co ....................................................................................................... American Crystal Sugar Co .................................................................................................. Michigan Sugar Co ............................................................................................................... Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op ..................................................................................................... So. Minn Beet Sugar Co-op ................................................................................................. Western Sugar Co ................................................................................................................ Wyoming Sugar Co .............................................................................................................. 9,350,000 0 9,350,000 1,158,015 1,731,118 467,030 279,237 677,756 473,047 53,521 ¥79,225 6,000 3,984 4,085 2,486 462 ¥1,136 1,078,790 1,737,118 471,014 283,322 680,242 473,509 52,385 Total Beet Sugar ........................................................................................................... State Cane Sugar Allotments: Florida ................................................................................................................................... Louisiana .............................................................................................................................. Texas .................................................................................................................................... Hawaii ................................................................................................................................... Puerto Rico ........................................................................................................................... 4,839,725 ¥63,345 4,776,380 1,445,792 1,273,054 180,425 265,003 0 ¥78,164 ¥76,279 ¥4,095 ¥24,116 0 1,367,628 1,196,775 176,330 240,887 0 Total Cane Sugar .......................................................................................................... Cane Processors’ Marketing Allocations: Florida Florida Crystals ..................................................................................................................... Growers Co-op. of FL ........................................................................................................... U.S. Sugar Corp ................................................................................................................... 3,164,275 ¥182,655 2,981,620 507,121 265,129 673,542 ¥11,388 ¥3,913 ¥62,863 495,733 261,216 610,679 Total ............................................................................................................................... Louisiana Alma Plantation .................................................................................................................... Cajun Sugar Co-op ............................................................................................................... Cora-Texas Mfg. Co ............................................................................................................. Lafourche Sugars Corp ........................................................................................................ Louisiana Sugarcane Co-op ................................................................................................. Lula Westfield, LLC .............................................................................................................. M.A. Patout & Sons .............................................................................................................. St. Mary Sugar Co-op .......................................................................................................... So. Louisiana Sugars Co-op ................................................................................................ 1,445,792 ¥78,164 1,367,628 131,302 124,626 153,001 73,075 94,036 168,219 345,197 106,250 77,347 ¥3,141 ¥10,892 ¥13,707 ¥1,527 ¥4,036 ¥5,177 ¥31,152 ¥2,100 ¥4,546 128,161 113,734 139,294 71,548 90,000 163,043 314,044 104,150 72,801 Total ............................................................................................................................... Texas Rio Grande Valley ................................................................................................................ Hawaii Gay & Robinson, Inc ............................................................................................................ Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company ............................................................................ 1,273,054 ¥76,279 1,196,775 180,425 ¥4,095 176,330 54,638 210,366 ¥2 ¥24,115 54,636 186,251 Total ............................................................................................................................... 265,003 ¥24,116 240,887 Distribution 1 7/27/06 is for early entry FY07 raw sugar TRQ. cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Initial FY 2007 State Allotments and Company Allocations Section 359b(b)(1) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(b)(1) requires the Secretary to establish, by the beginning of each crop year, an appropriate allotment for the marketing by processors of sugar processed from VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:22 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 211001 sugar beets and from domestically produced cane sugar at a level the Secretary estimates will result in no forfeitures of sugar to CCC under the loan program. When CCC announced the 8.750 million ton OAQ for FY 2007 in July 2006, it distributed 54.35 percent of the FY 2007 OAQ (4,755,625 STRV) to the beet sugar allotment. At that time, PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 however, CCC determined that the cane sector would be unable to fill 375,000 STRV of its allotment and, hence, withheld this amount for reassignment to imports. Consequently, of the 45.65 percent of the OAQ statutorily allotted to the cane sector (3,994,375 STRV), only 3,619,375 STRV was allotted to cane states for allocation to sugarcane E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 66159 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 2006 / Notices processors. Cane state allotments and processor allocations were announced by CCC on September 28, 2006. To establish beet processor allocations, CCC applies the beet sector’s allotment to fixed company allocation shares. Likewise, cane state and cane processor allocations are calculated by applying fixed shares to the cane sugar allotment. Allocation amounts will change only if CCC determines that a processor cannot fill its sugar allocation for the year and reassigns the unused allocation to other processors or if a sugarcane grower successfully transfers allocation commensurate with his production history to another processor. On September 28, 2006, CCC transferred a portion of Alma Plantation L.L.C.’s allocation to Cora Texas Manufacturing Company based on growers’ petitions to transfer allocation when Alma closed its Cinclare factory. CCC is required to limit the amount of sugarcane acreage that may be harvested in Louisiana for sugar or seed whenever marketing allotments are in effect and the quantity of sugarcane estimated to be produced in Louisiana, plus a reasonable carryover, exceeds the marketing allotment allocation for Louisiana. This limitation is referred to as a ‘‘proportionate share,’’ and is applied to each farm’s sugarcane acreage base to determine the quantity of sugarcane that may be harvested on that farm. Because production is expected to be inadequate to fill Louisiana’s FY 2007 allotment, CCC has determined that there will be no proportionate share restrictions for the 2006 crop year. In FY 2004, CCC determined that Puerto Rico’s processors permanently terminated operations because no sugar had been processed for two complete years. Consequently, the allocation of 6,356 STRV was permanently reassigned to the mainland caneproducing states. Hawaii received none of Puerto Rico’s reassignment because it is not expected to use all of its current cane sugar allotment. A request for an allocation as a new entrant would be required for any mills in Puerto Rico to market cane sugar in the future. The established 2006-crop (FY 2007) beet and cane sugar marketing allotments are listed in the following table: FY 2007 OVERALL BEET/CANE ALLOTMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS Initial FY 2007 allotments/ allocations Changes due to reassignments Adjusted initial FY 2007 allotments/ allocations Beet Sugar ................................................................................................................................... Cane Sugar .................................................................................................................................. Reassignment to Imports ............................................................................................................. 4,755,625 3,994,375 0 0 ¥375,000 375,000 4,755,625 3,619,375 375,000 Total OAQ ............................................................................................................................. Beet Processors’ Marketing Allocations: Amalgamated Sugar Co ....................................................................................................... American Crystal Sugar Co .................................................................................................. Michigan Sugar Co ............................................................................................................... Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op ..................................................................................................... So. Minn Beet Sugar Co-op ................................................................................................. Western Sugar Co ................................................................................................................ Wyoming Sugar Co .............................................................................................................. 8,750,000 0 8,750,000 990,810 1,828,960 477,920 296,690 624,582 473,221 63,441 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 990,810 1,828,960 477,920 296,690 624,582 473,221 63,441 Total Beet Sugar ........................................................................................................... State Cane Sugar Allotments: Florida ................................................................................................................................... Louisiana .............................................................................................................................. Texas .................................................................................................................................... Hawaii ................................................................................................................................... 4,755,625 0 4,755,625 1,975,622 1,528,365 171,744 318,644 ¥213,359 ¥143,141 28,680 ¥47,179 1,762,263 1,385,224 200,424 271,465 Total Cane Sugar .......................................................................................................... Cane Processors’ Marketing Allocations: Florida Florida Crystals ..................................................................................................................... Growers Co-op. of FL ........................................................................................................... U.S. Sugar Corp ................................................................................................................... 3,994,375 ¥375,000 3,619,375 813,415 355,385 806,821 ¥128,606 ¥45,052 ¥39,701 684,809 310,334 767,120 Total ............................................................................................................................... Louisiana Alma Plantation .................................................................................................................... Cajun Sugar Co-op ............................................................................................................... Cora-Texas Mfg. Co ............................................................................................................. Lafourche Sugars Corp ........................................................................................................ Louisiana Sugarcane Co-op ................................................................................................. Lula Westfield, LLC .............................................................................................................. M.A. Patout & Sons .............................................................................................................. St. Mary Sugar Co-op .......................................................................................................... So. Louisiana Sugars Co-op ................................................................................................ 1,975,622 ¥213,359 1,762,263 127,988 154,543 159,455 83,245 117,521 180,483 429,373 155,667 120,091 ¥7,199 ¥28,052 14,258 115 ¥13,867 10,756 ¥15,647 ¥43,313 ¥60,191 120,789 126,491 173,712 83,359 103,654 191,239 413,726 112,354 59,900 Total ............................................................................................................................... Texas Rio Grande Valley ................................................................................................................ Hawaii Gay & Robinson, Inc ............................................................................................................ Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company ............................................................................ 1,528,365 ¥143,141 1,385,224 171,744 28,680 200,424 73,145 245,499 ¥25,618 ¥21,561 47,527 223,938 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Distribution VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:22 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 66160 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 2006 / Notices FY 2007 OVERALL BEET/CANE ALLOTMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS—Continued Initial FY 2007 allotments/ allocations Distribution Total ............................................................................................................................... Signed in Washington, DC, on November 2, 2006. Teresa C. Lasseter, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. E6–19077 Filed 11–9–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–05–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Extension of Certain Timber Sale Contracts; Finding of Substantial Overriding Public Interest Forest Service, USDA. Notice of contract extensions. AGENCY: cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES ACTION: SUMMARY: On November 2, 2006, the Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment determined there is substantial overriding public interest in extending certain National Forest System timber sale contracts for up to one year, subject to a maximum total contract length of 10 years. Pursuant to the November 2, 2006, finding, timber sale contracts awarded prior to January 1, 2006, are eligible for extension and deferral of periodic payment due dates for up to one year. Contracts that are in breach, have been or are currently eligible to be extended under market related contract term addition contract provisions, or salvage sale contracts that were sold with the objective of harvesting deteriorating timber are not eligible for extension pursuant to the November 2, 2006, finding. To receive an extension, purchasers must make a written request to the appropriate Contracting Officer. Purchasers also must agree to release the Forest Service from all claims and liability if a contract extended pursuant to the November 2, 2006, finding is suspended, modified or terminated in the future. The intended effect of the substantial overriding public interest finding and contract extensions is to minimize contract defaults, mill closures, and company bankruptcies. The Government benefits if defaulted timber sale contracts, mill closures, and bankruptcies can be avoided by granting extensions. Having numerous, economically viable, timber sale VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:22 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 211001 purchasers increases competition for National Forest System timber sales, results in higher prices paid for such timber, and allows the Forest Service to provide a continuous supply of timber to the public in accordance with Forest Service authorizing legislation. See Act of June 4, 1897 (Ch. 2, 30 Stat. 11 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 475) (Organic Administration Act). In addition, by extending contracts and avoiding defaults, closures and bankruptcies, the Government avoids the difficult, lengthy, expensive, and sometimes impossible process of collecting default damages. DATES: The determination was made on November 2, 2006, by the Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lathrop Smith, Forest Management Staff, (202) 205–0858 or Richard Fitzgerald, Forest Management Staff (202) 205–1753; 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Mailstop 1103, Washington, DC 20250–1103. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest Service sells timber and forest products from National Forest System lands to individuals or companies pursuant to the National Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. 472a (NFMA). Each sale is formalized by execution of a contract between the purchaser and the Forest Service. The contract sets forth the explicit terms and provisions of the sale, including such matters as the estimated volume of timber to be removed, the period for removal, price to be paid to the Government, road construction and logging requirements, and environmental protection measures to be taken. The average contract period is approximately 2–3 years, although a few contracts have terms of 5 or more years. Rules at 36 CFR 223.52 (Market Related Contract Term Additions) permit contract extensions when the Chief of the Forest Service determines that adverse wood product market conditions have resulted in a drastic decline in wood product prices. Under PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Changes due to reassignments Adjusted initial FY 2007 allotments/ allocations 318,644 ¥47,179 271,465 market-related contract addition procedures, the Forest Service refers to the following three producer price indices maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Softwood Lumber #0811 and Hardwood Lumber #0812 in the Commodity Series, and Wood Chips #PCU32113321135 in the Industry Series. The softwood and hardwood lumber indices indicate a major downturn in those markets began about September 2004 and was still on a downward trend as of September 2006 with the softwood lumber index decreasing by about 31% and the hardwood lumber index decreasing by about 14% during this time. While most purchasers holding contracts with those indices have received or are eligible to receive market related contract term additions, an anomoly in the wood products markets and indices used in contracts in the lake States area and some other parts of the country has left many purchasers without this remedy. Section 472a(c) of NFMA provides that the Secretary of Agriculture shall not extend any timber sale contract period with an original term of two years or more, unless the purchaser has diligently performed in accordance with an approved plan of operations or the ‘‘substantial overriding public interest’’ justifies the extension. The authority to make this determination has been delegated to the Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment at 7 CFR 2.59. Accordingly, based on a current study, the Deputy Under Secretary has made a finding that there is a substantial overriding public interest in extending certain sales for up to one year. This determination does not apply to contracts that were previously extended or that are currently eligible to be extended under market related contract term addition provisions, to salvage sale contracts that were sold with the objective of harvesting deteriorating timber, or to timber sale contracts that are in breach. In addition to extending contracts pursuant to the Deputy Under Secretary’s finding, periodic payments will be deferred for up to one year on the extended sales. To receive an extension and periodic payment deferral, purchasers must make a E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66157-66160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19077]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation


Domestic Sugar Program--Final 2005-Crop and Initial 2006-Crop 
Cane Sugar and Sugar Beet Marketing Allotments and Company Allocations

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the final 2005-crop and initial 2006-
crop cane state allotments and company allocations to sugarcane and 
sugar beet processors. The 2005-crop year runs from October 1, 2005, 
through September 30, 2006 (fiscal year (FY) 2006). The 2006-crop (FY 
2007) cane state allotments and company allocations are based on an 
8.750 million short tons, raw value (STRV) overall allotment quantity 
(OAQ) of domestic sugar. These actions apply to all domestic sugar 
marketed for human consumption in the United States from October 1, 
2006, through September 30, 2007. Although CCC already has announced 
all of the information in this notice, CCC is statutorily required to 
publish in the Federal Register determinations establishing, adjusting, 
or suspending sugar marketing allotments.

ADDRESSES: Barbara Fecso, Dairy and Sweeteners Analysis Group, Economic 
Policy and Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency, USDA, 1400 Independence 
Avenue, SW., STOP 0516, Washington, DC 20250-0516; telephone (202) 720-
4146; FAX (202) 690-1480; e-mail: barbara.fecso@wdc.usda.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Fecso at (202) 720-4146.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Final FY 2006 State Allotments and Company Allocations

    Section 359e(b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as 
amended, (7 U.S.C. 1359ee(b) requires the Secretary to reassign 
allocation to imports if it is determined that processors will be 
unable to market their allocations and there is no CCC inventory. In a 
July 27, 2006 news release, CCC announced that the agency had 
determined that the domestic sugar supply would be unable to fill 
246,000 STRV of the OAQ and, in accordance with the statute, reassigned 
this deficit to imports. Hence, state allotments and company 
allocations were adjusted downward to reflect each company's and each 
state's ability to market its allocation and allotment.
    The final 2005-crop (FY 2006) beet and cane sugar marketing 
allotments

[[Page 66158]]

and allocations are listed in the following table:

                              FY 2006 Overall Beet/Cane Allotments and Allocations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2006
                                                                    Allotments/    Change due to   Final FY 2006
                          Distribution                            allocations as   reassignments    allotments/
                                                                    of 3/22/06                      allocations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beet Sugar......................................................       4,839,725         -63,345       4,776,380
Cane Sugar......................................................       3,164,275        -182,655       2,981,620
WTO Raw Sugar Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) \1\.......................         670,000          75,000         745,000
Mexico TRQ Raw or Refined.......................................         276,000               0         276,000
Refined TRQ (global first-come, first-served)...................         400,000         109,921         509,921
FY 2006 Non Program Imports.....................................               0          61,079          61,079
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total OAQ...................................................       9,350,000               0       9,350,000
Beet Processors' Marketing Allocations:
    Amalgamated Sugar Co........................................       1,158,015         -79,225       1,078,790
    American Crystal Sugar Co...................................       1,731,118           6,000       1,737,118
    Michigan Sugar Co...........................................         467,030           3,984         471,014
    Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op......................................         279,237           4,085         283,322
    So. Minn Beet Sugar Co-op...................................         677,756           2,486         680,242
    Western Sugar Co............................................         473,047             462         473,509
    Wyoming Sugar Co............................................          53,521          -1,136          52,385
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total Beet Sugar........................................       4,839,725         -63,345       4,776,380
State Cane Sugar Allotments:
    Florida.....................................................       1,445,792         -78,164       1,367,628
    Louisiana...................................................       1,273,054         -76,279       1,196,775
    Texas.......................................................         180,425          -4,095         176,330
    Hawaii......................................................         265,003         -24,116         240,887
    Puerto Rico.................................................               0               0               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total Cane Sugar........................................       3,164,275        -182,655       2,981,620
Cane Processors' Marketing Allocations:
Florida
    Florida Crystals............................................         507,121         -11,388         495,733
    Growers Co-op. of FL........................................         265,129          -3,913         261,216
    U.S. Sugar Corp.............................................         673,542         -62,863         610,679
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................       1,445,792         -78,164       1,367,628
Louisiana
    Alma Plantation.............................................         131,302          -3,141         128,161
    Cajun Sugar Co-op...........................................         124,626         -10,892         113,734
    Cora-Texas Mfg. Co..........................................         153,001         -13,707         139,294
    Lafourche Sugars Corp.......................................          73,075          -1,527          71,548
    Louisiana Sugarcane Co-op...................................          94,036          -4,036          90,000
    Lula Westfield, LLC.........................................         168,219          -5,177         163,043
    M.A. Patout & Sons..........................................         345,197         -31,152         314,044
    St. Mary Sugar Co-op........................................         106,250          -2,100         104,150
    So. Louisiana Sugars Co-op..................................          77,347          -4,546          72,801
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................       1,273,054         -76,279       1,196,775
Texas
    Rio Grande Valley...........................................         180,425          -4,095         176,330
Hawaii
    Gay & Robinson, Inc.........................................          54,638              -2          54,636
    Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company.........................         210,366         -24,115         186,251
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................         265,003         -24,116         240,887
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 7/27/06 is for early entry FY07 raw sugar TRQ.

Initial FY 2007 State Allotments and Company Allocations

    Section 359b(b)(1) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as 
amended, (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(b)(1) requires the Secretary to establish, by 
the beginning of each crop year, an appropriate allotment for the 
marketing by processors of sugar processed from sugar beets and from 
domestically produced cane sugar at a level the Secretary estimates 
will result in no forfeitures of sugar to CCC under the loan program. 
When CCC announced the 8.750 million ton OAQ for FY 2007 in July 2006, 
it distributed 54.35 percent of the FY 2007 OAQ (4,755,625 STRV) to the 
beet sugar allotment. At that time, however, CCC determined that the 
cane sector would be unable to fill 375,000 STRV of its allotment and, 
hence, withheld this amount for reassignment to imports. Consequently, 
of the 45.65 percent of the OAQ statutorily allotted to the cane sector 
(3,994,375 STRV), only 3,619,375 STRV was allotted to cane states for 
allocation to sugarcane

[[Page 66159]]

processors. Cane state allotments and processor allocations were 
announced by CCC on September 28, 2006.
    To establish beet processor allocations, CCC applies the beet 
sector's allotment to fixed company allocation shares. Likewise, cane 
state and cane processor allocations are calculated by applying fixed 
shares to the cane sugar allotment. Allocation amounts will change only 
if CCC determines that a processor cannot fill its sugar allocation for 
the year and reassigns the unused allocation to other processors or if 
a sugarcane grower successfully transfers allocation commensurate with 
his production history to another processor. On September 28, 2006, CCC 
transferred a portion of Alma Plantation L.L.C.'s allocation to Cora 
Texas Manufacturing Company based on growers' petitions to transfer 
allocation when Alma closed its Cinclare factory.
    CCC is required to limit the amount of sugarcane acreage that may 
be harvested in Louisiana for sugar or seed whenever marketing 
allotments are in effect and the quantity of sugarcane estimated to be 
produced in Louisiana, plus a reasonable carryover, exceeds the 
marketing allotment allocation for Louisiana. This limitation is 
referred to as a ``proportionate share,'' and is applied to each farm's 
sugarcane acreage base to determine the quantity of sugarcane that may 
be harvested on that farm. Because production is expected to be 
inadequate to fill Louisiana's FY 2007 allotment, CCC has determined 
that there will be no proportionate share restrictions for the 2006 
crop year.
    In FY 2004, CCC determined that Puerto Rico's processors 
permanently terminated operations because no sugar had been processed 
for two complete years. Consequently, the allocation of 6,356 STRV was 
permanently reassigned to the mainland cane-producing states. Hawaii 
received none of Puerto Rico's reassignment because it is not expected 
to use all of its current cane sugar allotment. A request for an 
allocation as a new entrant would be required for any mills in Puerto 
Rico to market cane sugar in the future.
    The established 2006-crop (FY 2007) beet and cane sugar marketing 
allotments are listed in the following table:

                              FY 2007 Overall Beet/Cane Allotments And Allocations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Adjusted
                                                                    Initial FY                      initial FY
                          Distribution                                 2007       Changes due to       2007
                                                                    allotments/    reassignments    allotments/
                                                                    allocations                     allocations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beet Sugar......................................................       4,755,625               0       4,755,625
Cane Sugar......................................................       3,994,375        -375,000       3,619,375
Reassignment to Imports.........................................               0         375,000         375,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total OAQ...................................................       8,750,000               0       8,750,000
Beet Processors' Marketing Allocations:
    Amalgamated Sugar Co........................................         990,810               0         990,810
    American Crystal Sugar Co...................................       1,828,960               0       1,828,960
    Michigan Sugar Co...........................................         477,920               0         477,920
    Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op......................................         296,690               0         296,690
    So. Minn Beet Sugar Co-op...................................         624,582               0         624,582
    Western Sugar Co............................................         473,221               0         473,221
    Wyoming Sugar Co............................................          63,441               0          63,441
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total Beet Sugar........................................       4,755,625               0       4,755,625
State Cane Sugar Allotments:
    Florida.....................................................       1,975,622        -213,359       1,762,263
    Louisiana...................................................       1,528,365        -143,141       1,385,224
    Texas.......................................................         171,744          28,680         200,424
    Hawaii......................................................         318,644         -47,179         271,465
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total Cane Sugar........................................       3,994,375        -375,000       3,619,375
Cane Processors' Marketing Allocations:
Florida
    Florida Crystals............................................         813,415        -128,606         684,809
    Growers Co-op. of FL........................................         355,385         -45,052         310,334
    U.S. Sugar Corp.............................................         806,821         -39,701         767,120
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................       1,975,622        -213,359       1,762,263
Louisiana
    Alma Plantation.............................................         127,988          -7,199         120,789
    Cajun Sugar Co-op...........................................         154,543         -28,052         126,491
    Cora-Texas Mfg. Co..........................................         159,455          14,258         173,712
    Lafourche Sugars Corp.......................................          83,245             115          83,359
    Louisiana Sugarcane Co-op...................................         117,521         -13,867         103,654
    Lula Westfield, LLC.........................................         180,483          10,756         191,239
    M.A. Patout & Sons..........................................         429,373         -15,647         413,726
    St. Mary Sugar Co-op........................................         155,667         -43,313         112,354
    So. Louisiana Sugars Co-op..................................         120,091         -60,191          59,900
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................       1,528,365        -143,141       1,385,224
Texas
    Rio Grande Valley...........................................         171,744          28,680         200,424
Hawaii
    Gay & Robinson, Inc.........................................          73,145         -25,618          47,527
    Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company.........................         245,499         -21,561         223,938
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

[[Page 66160]]

 
        Total...................................................         318,644         -47,179         271,465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Signed in Washington, DC, on November 2, 2006.
Teresa C. Lasseter,
Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
 [FR Doc. E6-19077 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P