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
<![CDATA[
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, https://
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
